Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1825-05-20
RtrDsau oetU aaabtQ,
FRIDAY MORNING, MAY 20, 1926.
LAW OF CoNTEMPTs.


ded principle of amorc dangerous and odous character
than that involved in the case of the Commonwealth,
against Mr. cambridge. The people of this State had
for the last half laboured under the de
son that the rights of every member of society were
so efectuaily secured and guarded by constitutional nr
VISIONS that neither the Executive the Legislative
nor Judicial Departments could or would even dare f.,
infringe them Public opinion has exerted so powerful
and salutary influence, particularly over this branch
OF the government, and the exercise Of arbitrary
mas always been viewed with such abiorrencc tha,
THIS tyrahncal doctrine had completely fallen into de-
suetude, and had deservedly sunk into oblivion Even
the great mass of the lawyers not of the Judges
not intimately acquainted with the law ON this subject
with the various acts, omissions that constituted
Contempt of Court, and with the regular mode of
ceedng prescribed for IFS punishment.
The darkness ofignorance which had hitherto pervod
ed the public mind at last however, vanished before the
ign. OF TRUTH and the same Court, which had OH for
rnerimportant occasion, pronounced itssole Judgment
mat las by the bill of rights all power vested in and
consequently derived from the people, that magistra ties
are her trustees and servants, and all times auena-
oie 10 ,he II follows as necessary consequence that
tue people have right to be informed of the con-
duct and character of their public agents modified this
principle, which was little too latulinous BY excep
ting the Judiciary from its operation for it is now estab
lshed law, that Ito speak write conempnouslv of
Judge" whether in the discharge of his official duties
or not is Contempt of Court and punishable by fine
and imprisonment. We have then the high and nesti
mabie privilege of examining the sconduct and charac
teri OF all public officers, but the Judges; and VIC souId
without pretending to question the proud prerogatves
OF this class of public servantsn be grateful to auv
man who would kindly inform u.s. whv this insslions
distinction should exist between this and any other de-
parttnent OF the governmentbetweena an insult offered
TO an Executive Legislative functionary and JUDGE
All are created by the constitution; the tenure by which
they shall hold their offices, designated by that in
strunen and their respective duties are also clearly
marked out, either by the fundamental law or by the
acts of the General Assembly
That the General Court erred in this decisisn II
would be the height of presumption in us to assert but
that this doctrine carried farther than the ENGLISH
Judges had ever done in the despotic times admits
we think of very little doubt. In perlsine the opnion
OF the most enlightened and learned of their Criminal
Lawyers, we struck with establishment that tyrap
nical as is the doctrine of Conempts in England vet
1t Is infinitely favourable to the liberty of the r.;
tzen, than the law as understood and expounded by
our Courts. As consider the dearest and most sa
cred rights of the community, property and liberty to
be deeply affected by the decision and as we trust thai
another Legislature will not adjourn without abroeat
ing this principle, dsgracefu to our code and the are
IN which we live, and better suited to the genius of
As'ac desPosm than 10 the mild spirit of the crim
nal Jurisprudence of an enlightened Republic we shall
contrast the opinion of the English Jurss tb that of
the Virginia Lawyers
Sergeant Hawkins, in the Ist Book 2rst Chan 10th
Section observes, that was formerly holden that man
might De indicted for Islander of the Justice of the ma
uon by rejecting on sentence given in n,u court &C.
cesSt'cat or tePo1d whether directly as where one
sald' that such sentence given by the High Commits
sion Court, was against law--or obliquey as where
one said that such sentence just but that the tes-
lmon'eS on which was founded false or the ada-
wits equlyocang But Section 13th seems the bet
ter opinion of this day, that man cannot be indicted
Tor any Scdndato~S co1tcnpuos words spoken of or
TO such officers not being in The actuL execution of their
oice for such offence seems ratherto proceed from
Ill breeding than contempt of the Government and
though it may be TO bind man to his good be.
hayiour it does seem to be sufficient ground for a
public prosecution, for offence against the
peacc.n
The Judges in the case of Mr. Daudridge, decided,
the face of the Court or in the absence of the party
that is of the Court, insulted That those conempts
which may be committed in the absence OF the party
for which need not now detail, may, among
other things, be committed by speang or rcrig con-
temptuousy of the Court, Judges in their judicial
capacityn According to this broad principle any
dyidual expresses his conviction that the judgment OF
Court in any particular is unjust, unrghteous,
was rendered from corrupt motives he liable TO be
yerely punished by fine andimprsonment although
he may be able establish the truth Of his charge by
the strongest and conclusive testimony and this
too when it distinctly admitted by the Court, that
no reported case could be found in the Books, which
ta'ns the idea Of this being contempt punishable by
attachment But as the correct exposition Of this holy
law, unquestionably authorizes Judge to ''use his
privilege as shield against any civil suit, criminal
prosecution for even unrghteous judgment" would
Of course be absurd to suppose that when abused
assaulted for righteous one he had no resource but