Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-01

| his brief or argument is to assist tlf
| court in aScertaining the truth per /
tanning to the pertinent facts, the rea
effect of decisions and the law appli |
/ cable in the case and he far OverstepS !
the bounds of professional conduc,
when he reports to n.srepresenta alton
i false charges or Vilincatlon.
I He may July present, discuss anC
argue the evidence and the law and
freely indicate wherein he Dene, es
that decisions and rulings are wrong or
erroneous. but tins he may do with
out eifectually making bald accusa
tiOns against the motives and intelli- |
gence of the court, or being discour-
teOus or resorting to abuse which is
not argument nor convincing to rea
soning minds. If respondent has no |
respect for the Justices he ought to |
have enough regard for his position
at the bar to refrain from attaching
the tribunal Of which he is a mem
Der. and which the people. through |
the Constitution and by general con-
sent have made the final interpreter |
Of the laws which ne. as an officer |
of the court, has sworn to uphold !
ar 1rOtect.
These duties are so plain that any /
departure from them by p member |
Of the bar would seem to be willful
and intentional misconduct.
+he power of courts to punish for
contempt and to maintain dignity in
their proceedings is inherent and is
as cid as courts are old. It is also
provided BY statute BY analogy we
note the adjudications and penalties
So no
ord Cottingham imprisoned I'd
mund Lechmera Charlton q barrister
and member OF the House of Com
mons for sending a scandaiOus tettor
70 enc of the masters Of the court.
and a committee from that body, after
an investigation reported that in their
opinion his "claim 10 be discharged
from Imprisonment by reason of priv
: legde of parliament ought not 10 be
admitted" ? Milne and Craig. 317.
When the case Of People vs.. Tweed
in New York came up a second time
= before the same judge, before the trial
commenced. the prisoners counsel pri-
vatelv handed 10 the Judge letter.
: cCuched in respectful language. in
W iich they stated substantially that
r their client feared. from the circunl
: Judge had conceived prejudice
against him. and that his mind was
not in the unbiased condition neces-
; sarv to afford an impartial trial, and
: respectfully requested him to consld-
, er whether he should not relinqulsh
: The, Gutv Of presiding al the trial TO
l. some other Judge, at the same time
: declaring that 10 pereon1l dlsrespect
f was intended toward the Judge Of the
q court. The nudge retained the letter
and went On with the trial. At the
n crd of the trial sentenced three
of the writers to fine of $3.50 each
!. ard DUblicaliy reDrimanded the 9th
n ers. the junior counsel. az the tive ex
= pressing the opinion that if such a
!. thing had been lone by them in Eng
:, land. they would have been expelled
" from the bar within one hour" The
. counsel at the time protested that
n thew intended no contempt OF
q court and that they felt anc
:. intended to express no disres
; pect for the judge but that their &C
o ton had been taken in fJirtherance 81
o what they deemed . y.,al interest:
Of ! cir client and the faithful and
= conscientious discharge e tn duty
:. personal disrespect hut refused to
- believe the disclaimer of intention to
commit a contempt and enforced the
fines. II Albany Law Journal 40S
26 Am r. 1872
" For sending to a strict Judge Ol'
Of court a letter stating that The
~ ruling YOU have madn is directly ron
70 trary to every principal of law, ant
7 hn1joyn NJ
-. is our desire that no such decision
.. shall stand unreversed in any court
y, we practice in.'.an attorney vas fire,
- $50 and suspended from practlce unit
:, the amount should be paid. In de
-. lvering the opinion of the SuDrem'
=, Court of Kansas in Re Prior, Is Kan
= 70 26 Am. TAT, Brewer J.. said:
~ Upon this we remark in re frs
- place that the language of this lette
~ is very insulting. To say to a judg
=. that certain rui-ng which he ha
~ made is contrary to every principle c
-, 7aw and that everybody --n0u-e II
&C. certainly 2 most severe imputatiOr
no We remark, secondly, that an alto
70 ney is under special obligations to b
r cOnsiderate and respectful in lis cor
70 duct and Communications to iudge
n, He is an officer of the court. and il
therefore his duty to uphold its homo
" and dignity. The independence Of til
;s profession carries with it the RICH
IL freely to challenge. criticise and cor
lv denim all matters and thi""e u1dor r
hv view and in evidence. EuE with I'll
ad privilege goes the corresponding obi
no CATION of constant courtesy and re-
nd pect toward the tribunal in which TT
es proceedings are pending. And tn
re fact that the tribunal is an inferiC
~. one. and it's rulings not final and wit
we out appeal, does not diminish in til
adj slightest degree this obligation o
,ht courtesy and respect. A justice {
nst the peace before whom the most tr
M ling matter is being Irrigated is e
nd titled to receive from every attOrn'
ng. in the case cOrteous and respectf
,ro- treatment. A failure to extend tn