The evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1907-1908, 1907-08-21
ON
FORT STIRS
NEW IDEA
Continued from First Page,


as to the course to be pursued that
the executive committee members de-
cided to lay the whole matter over for
a time. 1t is understood that a session
of the executive committee was ar
ranged for tomorrow afternoon. and
that in the meantime Senator Colby
will be acquainted with all that Jas &C.
CURED in his absence.
One Colbyite is said to have sug-
gested hal the reformers go on
record as favoring a local option excise
law. 1t is believed that the local option
question will be taken up tomorrow
night.
Joseph A. Beecher, whose name was
linked with Justice Forts in the dis
barment proceedings story, revived by
Freeman. was reached by telegraph
at the home of relatives in Connecticut,
He replied:
Have not seen and do not know what
Alden Freemon's statements were regard
cannot answer them. But any statement
imputing improper conduct to me in the
matter is absolutely false. and | believe
the same is true as to Judge Forts action
in behalf of his client. The proceeding
was wholly ex-parte, without any notice
or Justification, and the court so held and
dismissed the application, without calling
upon either to answer at any time or any
thing.
Henry c. Beecher. $he law
yer's son. said There were al
ways two sides to a story, and he cited
abe Freeman attack as an instance.
He referred to the published letter of
Ludlow McCarter, which the Independ-
entsf chairman adverted Monday night.
1t was designed as a reply, Mr..
Beecher said. to an editorial in
the Newark Daily Advertiser of June
%, 1886, a copy of which he had made
from old files of the paper. 1t read as
follows:
Application was lately made to the Su-
preme Court Of this State to grant a rule
to shcw cause why two well-known at
torneys OF this county should not be dis
barred for alleged malpractice. The ac-
cused attorneys declined to- appear in their
own defense; and the court, after exami-
nation of the charges, summarily dis
missed them, and the two lawyers are
accordingly exonerated. But this action
of the court, although complete in itself,
makes no reparation of the damage done
to the professional repute Of the persons
unjustly accused.
1t is an old and acceptable saying that
a lie will travel seven leagues while truth
Is putting on its boots. In this case, ii
would appear, the charges were ground
less, otherwise the supreme Court Would
not rave thrown them out. But the
stigma of the charges remains. 1t is
doubtful IL the truth in this case will
ever overtake the implied f~alsehood.
Granting that the motive of the accuser
in such a case as this may be thoroughly
admirable, the Incident shows that the,e
Is a defect in our judicial methods when
such a procedure is possible. .
Charges of ar ex-parte character against
an attorney should not be made in open
court without first passing through some
sitting process, as criminal charges are
passed in review in the secrecy of a
Grand Jury room. Under existing law,
any malicious or reckless person, whether
honestly mistaken or merely r~evengeful.
MAJ blacken the reputation of another by
making application for his disbarring.
The obvious remedy for such a state ct
things would be to place in the hands OF
the Acknowledgement, perhaps, the right
to review the testimony filed with the ap-
p~lication to disbar. Should that function
airy be satisfied that the charge demand
investigation, 1t would then go before The
court for a hearing. This is the course
pursued in many of the States of the
Union. and 1t Is a little odd that the
legal fraternity of our State have not be-
fore now taken similar precautions to
protect themselves from frivolous hut
damaging assaults from their own ranks.
That they have not done this argues vel
for their confidence in each other: but
that this is not always a safe reliance Is
proven by the experience of the two hon
orable and upright attorneys above re-
ferred to.