The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1908-01-10
Attorney On Trial For CRITICS.
ing Supreme Court.
He Is Charged With Having
Violated His Oa'h.

testimony in the proceedings looking
toward disbarment of Captain Francis
b. Hart, the Minneapolis attorney ac-
cused of having violated his oath as an
attorney in his charges preferred
against the supreme court.
The taking of testimony before the
referee will begin Jan. Ia, and the
final hearing before the special court
appointed to hear the case will be on
March 10. The court has ordered that
the petitioner must file his brief by
Feb. 25, and the respondent must reply
not later than March 8.
This method of procedure was de-
cided upon yesterday after prelimi-
nary hearing conducted by the special
court in the supreme court chamber at
the state capitol. Because of it's own
position in the case, the supreme court
was relieved of the necessity of hear
ing the charges against Captain Hart
and the governor appointed instead a
special tribunal consisting of five OF
the judges of district courts of the
state. Judge Frank c. Brooks of Min
neapolis was chosen to act as chief JUS
tice, and the others who constitute the
court are Hascal R. Brill, st. Paul
Nathan Kingsley, Austin; w. S. Me-
Clenahan,, Brainerd, and Myron D.
Taylor, st. Cloud.
The appointment of referee is re-
garded as point for Captain Hart
who contends that he had right to
criticise the court as he did, and that
there were facts to Justify his attack;
and who purposes that in the hearing
of this case his charges against the
court shall be fully presented in the
evidence. There was no strong contest
on this point, but on the part of the
petitioner it was argued that time
could be saved by having the entire
case heard by the court without a
referee, since it would be necessary to
appeal to the court frequently as to
the admissibility of evidence.
When the court convened, Captain
Hart presented his objection to the
sufficiency of the complaint. The pur-
port of the objection is that the petit
ton does not allege facts sufficient
to constitute an offense.
The document embodying this obiec-
ton was of considerable length and in
substance it proved to be review and
discussion of Captain Harris charges
against the court and an argument up
on his right as an attorney to criticise
the court. The reading of this docn-
ment and the oral argument with
which Captain Hart presented it before
the court occupied the greater part of
the time that the court was in ses-
sion.
Captain Hart emphasized the fact
that the petitioners had not under
taken to uphold the decisions of the
supreme court which had called forth
his criticism, but merely had assumed
to deny shis right to criticise.
cit is not charged in the petition
that any of the decisions are right and
Just, and that the criticism for that
reason is undeserved," said he; "they
simply assume to deny the right of
an attorney to criticise the court.
"But if incompetency of a court OF
last resort is not proper subject for
impeachment, then what are we to do?
If the judges of a court of last re-
sort are not equal to the duty of adj
ministering the law Justly and equit-
ably, is it not the duty of an attor-
ney, as an officer of that court, to
bring that state of affairs to notice,
that it may be remedied? If a con-
fagration be started in the temple of
justice, is it the duty of the lawyer
as an officer of the court to conceal
the incendiary in the well and stand
guard over him, or is it his duty to
extinguish the flames and bring the in
cendiary to justice?
If there is any idea that there is
intended to be any imputation of per-
sOnal dishonesty against any of the
judges 1 most sincerely hope that it
may be removed. But there is nc
such thing as incompetency in a pro-
fessional man., When a man assumes
the high office of Judge it is assumed
that he is competent and hence what
would be incompetency in another
must in him be treated as wilful
wrongdoing or corruption.
This is the hardest task that ever
has been imposed upon me as a
lawyer, and yet l feel it as the great.
est duty that ever has come to me.
"When in the business of corpora.
.tion it is found that manager is in.
competent he is removed. The corpora
ton may even continue to pay his sal.
airy for time, but he is removed from
his control of its affairs. Has it come
to this, that the state is so situated
that it cannot remove it's officers OF
employees for incompetency? The great
functions of the law must be kept in