Las Vegas age. [volume] (Las Vegas, Nev.) 1905-1947, 1928-08-28
AGE COMMENTS ON AR
TICLE OF HlNMAN AND
HORSEY AND "ETHICS"
OF THE CASE


readers for giving so much Of the
space in today's issue to the matter
of the Breeze case. But since the
article by Attorneys Hnman and
Horsey in the adjoining column
purportS to be a Denial and Cor
rection" of an article published
in the issue of Saturday last, and
charges the Age with gross mis-
statements OF fact and misrepre-
sentations", we feel obligated to
print the article and make such
conn., ontS as we see fit.
The Age admits that to 1t the
ethics of the profession as ap-
piled to this particular case seem
more or less haZy," and the haze
is becoming more pronounced. 1t
would seem that attorneys sitting
in a judicial capacity to judge
one of their fellows should be con-
tent to rest in the consciousness
of duty performed at least until
the governing board had made
its decision.
On or about August 10, the
Age was given the proceedings
before the local board for publ
cation, the case having been for
warded Aug. 8 or 9 to the govern
ing board of the state bar for its
consideration. The Age felt that
the publication of the proceedings
at that stage in the case was un-
fair to Judge Breeze and did not
publish it. The local board was
evenly divided in its opinion, At
torneyS Ham and Stevens appeal
ing for leniency and Attorneys
HorSey and Hinman recon-
mending drastic punishment.
In the court room we have often
heard attorneys claim that the
defendant should be given the
benefit of the doubt. 1t seems to
the Age that Judge Breeze was en-
titled to the same treatment.
In the paragraph of the Horsey-
Hinman article herewith which be
gins, After twenty days had
elapsed" ETC., the Age again finds
itself immersed in haze. We are,
perhaps, no better at figures than
at ethics. Yet we find 1t hard to
figure this twenty days" between
the 9th or 9th of August when
the proceedings were mailed By
the local committee to the board
of governors of the state bar, and
the 21st when the board of gov
ernorS made public its decision.
To the writer it seems clear that
Judge Breeze was not given the
time to which he was entitled 20
make his showing before the state
board and that proceedings were
rushed through with undue haste
not at all justified by the cir
cumstances and in direct viola
ton of the right of Judge Breeze
to make his showing.
In another paragraph Attorneys
HorSey and Hinman criticize the
Age for saying:
The action for which he NIr.
Breeze) is taken to task could
work no injustice to any person.
1t was indiScreet and technically
a violation of the more or less
hazy ethics of the legal profession"
The Age has thus far been un-
able to discover anything in the
article by Attorneys Hinman and
HorSey to convince us that We
were mistaken.
AS to the recitalS of the pro-
ceedings and the quotations from
the American Bar Association as
to the canon of professional eth
ics," etc, the Age preSumes at
present that they are correct.
However it still seems hardly fair
to pick out one particular item of
Judge Breeze'S statement to give
to the public.
The Age is impened to reiterete
its belief that Judge Breeze is
receiving drastic punishment for
an action which was intended to
be helpful and kindly and which
was performed with no intention
of wrong doing.