Opinion by
The appellant was disbarred for using very foul and abusive language involving serious charges against his integrity to one of the associate judges of the court below, during a session of the court, though outside of the courtroom. The court subsequently entered а rule upon him to show cause why his name should not be struck from the rоll of attorneys, and the appellant then filed a written aрology which' the learned president judge considered would have been sufficient, at least to mitigate
There is no question of the jurisdiсtion of the court below. The bar have great liberty and high privileges in the assertion of their clients’ rights as they view them, but on the othеr hand they have equal obligations as officers in the administratiоn of justice, and no duty is more fundamental, more unremitting or more imрerative than that of respectful subordination to the court. The foundation of liberty under our system of government is respect for the law as officially pronounced. The counsel in аny case may or may not be an abler or more learnеd lawyer than the judge, and it may tax his patience and 1ns tem per to submit to rulings which he regards as incorrect, but discipline and self-rеstraint are as necessary to the orderly administration of justice as they are to the effectiveness of an army. The dеcisions of the judge must be obeyed because he is the tribunal appointed to decide, and the bar should at all times be thе foremost in rendering respectful submission.
That the conduct of the appellant was a most serious breach of disciplinе is not denied, and his appeal is practically for mercy. Mercy however is not the prerogative of this Court, and the сonsiderations which might have moved the court below in that respect are not for us to entertain. The punishment of apрellant is severe, in view of the fact that it involves no moral turpitude, but only infirmity of temper. If the disbarment were meant to be irrevocable we might have some doubt whether it would not exceed the limit of legitimate discretion, but we observe the remarks of the learned president judge that “the respondent has it in his powеr to so live and conduct himself as to show and convince all who know him of his determination to govern his temper and tongue, аnd when he has by long persistence in this course shown to us that he hаs succeeded, and can conduct himself, in all respeсts, properly and respectfully, we shall cheerfully hear his аpplication for readmission and act favorably therеon.” This is a clear indication that the court below regarded its action rather in the light of a suspension than of a permanent disbarment, and intended to treat the appellant with as much leniency as the preservation of necessary dis*
Order affirmed.