The Nevada journal., 1853-05-13

But what is contempt of court? by re-
ference to the Statutes of California the an
swcr is easily found There are several ca
ses Of contempt instanced, but not ono OF
them refers even remotely to newspaper pub-
lications. To constitute contempt tkere
must be disturbance in the presence Of the
court, or a disobediencc Of its legal mandate.
Neither Of these can apply to publication
in a newspaper, unless it stirred up riot and
disturbance in the presence of the court. II
the court issued an injunction TO restrain
publication in any instance, which, for the
purpose Of argument We admit its power to
do, and the injunction is disregardcd,it it would
be able to punish for contempt. But no such
mandate penetrated our sanctum-we viola.
ted no injunc,ion-we set no prccedent--we
committed no contempt.
1t might be a uscfsl inqairy how far con-
tempt could be committed toward court IN
case not yet upon Its docket, said coars also
not in session bat VIC waive that
There Is a..proper limit to judicial author
ity it never sheuld contemplate that abcy-
ance on the part Of the pablo and the press
to give 1t rule arbitrary in all matters, to in.
fiict vengeance at will. No judge should
think 10
'Like Cato give his little Senate laws,
And sit attentive to his own applause"
We might also remark, il it were worth
the space, that in the late election, uheE sto.
ries were industriously circulated against
Hon. w. T. Barbour, so annoying to him
that he, as he said, departed frsm his sense
Of propriety in that being judge he ad-
dressed public meetings throughout the dis
trict to answer such reports, our paper,
though opposed to him ia politics, published
not o line Of these accusations. There are
moments in mans life when it Is vital to
him to have fair opponents. Such Judge
Barbour found us. We, however, will not
take the trouble 10 remark that 1t may some
times be in as good taste to restrain judicial
animadversions as editorial comments.
We know too well the duties Of a lawyer to
to object to the course Mr.. Chufchman saw
fit to pursue to serve the Interests OF his client
whose life in great measure was in his
hands. 1t was his duty to turn the most triv.
ial incident to his advantage; we honor his
zeal more than we object to his inconsisten.
cy. We do not see the same excuse for the
invcctives Of the bench, or such palliation for
its crusade against the press.
In the matter Of such publications we will
concedc far more to courtesy and the public
interests, than we will to compulson. If the
bar and bench believe the public interests
will be best subscEved by reprcssing evidence
on examinations, We will cheerfully comply.
But that heretofore such has been indicated,
we emphatcally deny.
1t is q little too late to enforce in Califor-
MIA toward the press the favorite policy of
Louis Napoleon. If an English reference is
better liked, we do not believe the District
Court of the 10th Judicial District possesses
the attributes of the Star Chamber, to fine
and imprison for any net it may deem con-
tempt. We will guard to the last degree Of
teRacity our rights as members of the press,
while we will yield due respect to the officials
of the law, while they keep in the line Of
their duty towards us.