Same Streets
← All stories

The Judge Put On His War Paint: A Chehalis Courtroom Rebuke

After remitting a drunken assailant's fine, Judge W. W. Langhorne turned on the petitioners—and the newspapers—who had earlier demanded his own removal.

Chehalis, March 13.—Hon. W. W. Langhorne held court here for the first time since the opening of the legislative session. One of the matters that came before him was a numerously signed citizens' petition asking for the remission of a fine recently imposed upon one Paul Schiminsky, and his release from jail, on account of the fact that his family, of which he is the sole support, is suffering for the necessaries of life, and because he has been sufficiently punished. This fine was given Schiminsky by the court upon his conviction of an assault upon Mrs. Bessie Martin while he was drunk, and was pronounced by the court a day or two before murderer Haas was sentenced. The judge had his war paint on, being under the impression that the legislature had just exonerated him by an overwhelming vote, as was reported here. He proceeded to deliver a talk from the bench, and endeavored to have it understood that the day is near at hand when he will smite his persecutors hip and thigh. He roasted one or two of the newspapers to a done brown, and said of the citizens' petition, which was headed by Mrs. Bessie Martin herself:

"To this petition for the pardon of a man convicted of an outrageous crime, unaccompanied by any mitigating circumstances, I find appended the names of several citizens who a few weeks ago were urging upon the people of this community the holding of an indignation meeting to denounce the judge of this court for having in a homicide case performed his sworn duty, and to denounce the jury who had obeyed their oaths and followed the instructions of the court. In this case the judge but followed the decisions of the most learned courts in the land upon the theory of self-defense; and yet the men who were there striving to incite public opinion against the court and jury and bring the administration of justice into disrepute are here asking the court to remit the penalty inflicted upon this man, for whose crime no excuse, even the least, has ever been offered. I shall have more to say on this subject hereafter. I am sorry that the benches are empty; that my juries are not here; but I shall have a grand jury soon, and I shall speak to them fully upon this subject, and we shall see if these unprovoked attacks can be made upon the integrity of the court and go unpunished."

The court remitted the fine, but held that it had no right to order the prisoner discharged from jail.

“I shall have a grand jury soon, and I shall speak to them fully upon this subject, and we shall see if these unprovoked attacks can be made upon the integrity of the court and go unpunished.”

— Printed in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895
Then · 1895131 years apartNow · 2026

Langhorne's courtroom outburst captures a perennial tension: elected judges, public petitions, and newspaper campaigns over sentencing. Then as now, the fight was less about one fine than about who gets to define judicial independence.

The original page

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-03-14. Library of Congress, Chronicling America.

From readers

No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.

About this story

From
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, MAR 14, 1895, Page 3
Text
Cleaned up from the page — spelling and layout repaired — not a word-for-word transcription. The page itself is above, for exact wording.
Rights
Public domain
Place
46.65997, -122.96343 · placed automatically
The paper in the Library of Congress catalog ↗