JUDGE
vises factories, mines and railroads, why permit filth, crime and falsehood to be published?
The courts might have protected the administration of justice had it not been for an unfortunate decision by Chief Justice Sharswood in the case of ex parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Penna. State Reports, p. 220, where he practically overruled the opinion of Chief Justice Gibson in Austen's Case, 5 Rawle, 191. Two lawyers, who were also newspaper editors, in their newspapers charged the court with making a corrupt judicial decision for political reasons. The Act of 1836 limits punishment for contempt of court “to such contempts as shall be committed in open court.” This offense was committed outside the courtroom. The limitation constitutes an absurd distinction, since an order by a court has no relation to doors and windows, and it was a legislative attempt to lessen the constitutional power of the courts. The court below disbarred the lawyers and Sharswood reinstated them. He probably failed to see to what extent he was enabling newspapers to interfere with the functions of the judiciary and was surrendering the prerogatives of himself and his successors on the bench. Substantially all of the injustice which I have known to occur in the course of trials in our courts has been the result of this kind of outside influence which some judges have not sufficient strength of character to resist. With its present tendencies the press is galloping along the road which leads inevitably to the overthrow in the near future of their constitutional privileges.
In the summer of 1890 Mrs. Pennypacker and I took a trip to Europe. Mr. Blaine sent me the following letter:
| Department of State, |
| Washington, June 19, 1890. |
To the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers of the United States.
Gentlemen: It affords me pleasure to introduce to you the Honorable Samuel W. Pennypacker, Judge of the Court of
