The Nevada journal., 1853-07-01

sure, bnt friendly to the severestpolicy
of English precedent. Upon these
rules Kean acted, and with him two5of
the bench, one refusing to give an epin-
ion. 1t is worthy ofremark in this case
that though SO strongly one of contem pit,
yet an impeachment was brought for
ward in the lower house. This i'm
parchment did not lie, but it shows the
sentiment of the bar, and that, even
then, when American liberty was in it's
cradle, such arbitrary proceedings could
not be tolerated. But though they did
not impeach these persons, they did
another thing gthey passed declaratory
act, which, not enacted a new law, but
declared what the law was The speaker
here read the law, showing that no act
committed out Of court could be pun
ished as contempt, save by an indict-
ment. >
He then reverted to the case of Peck.
in which the judge was cited before
Congress, which though majority was
in favor of impeaching him, did not do
SO for lack of two-thirds vote but a
declaratory law was passed that the
power of the courts of the United States
to issue attachments and infict SUNNI
~ punishments for contem2ts of court,
shall not be construed to extend to any
cases except the misbehayior of any
persons in the presence of the courts, or
so near thereto as to obstruet the ad-
ministration of justice, or the resistance
OF any rule or order. @
1t will be seer that in every case that
may be cited by the prosecution, the
case has been pending in court, or vio-
lent libel has been published against a
Judge.
he then reverted to the case of the
People vs. Walker, stating the violence
OF the feeling and passion that there
prevailed between the Vigilance Com
mittee and their opposers. The publ
cation of Walker was of themost abusive
character. The history is fully known
to the public, and we Will not follow MIR
Mcconnell through it. But the result
was that the Superior Court discharged
MIR. Walker on writ of habeas corpus
Here we have high authority in our own
State. The other authorities may Be
disregarded, but this certainly is die
Cnm worthy OF regard.
He then read from authorities show
ing that Judge Kent, agreed with him
word for word in the law as he had sta
ted it. twas not to be supposed that
that Judge Kent, with all his notions of
judicial dignity could feel sympathy
fer those committing contempt.
He then went on to say that there
could be nc reasonable doubt that the
act of California in reference to con-
, Tempt takes away the power of the Dis
| trict to punish for contempts beyond
the limits it assigns. He contended
that that act takes away the power to
punish for common law contempts if
such there are. An equitable censtruc-
tion of the law implies it was intended
as limitation of all contempts. 1t is
almost word for word with the Pennsyl-
vania act and the act of Congress. From
the fact that it adopts their very phrase
ology, infer it intended 10 adopt their
principles in-toto.
He reverted 10 the liberty of the press
as of recent growth, and not existing ac-
cording to Hume prior to the revolution
Of '86. Here drew truly eloquent
sketch Of the rise Of the liberty of the
press from the days of Jefries to the
present. 1t was more in the inte-pre-
tations Of barbarous times than in the
peculiarities Of the law that the best of
men of England were decapitated, who
would now be applauded. Our space will
not allow US to follow him in his msgnif-
icent oration. ..
We deem it but just to Mr.. McCon-
nell to say that the hasty notes here
given were taken during his remarks
and have not had the benefit of his re-
vision, or any particular care ofou- own.
Tho district attorney stated he had no re-
marks to make upon the motion, the court
reserved it till the trial.
The district attorney called several wit
nesses to prove that the evidence as taken
before the Justice, was obtained from him
and published before they became matter of
record in the court of sessions that the ma
gistrate gave the document to Mr. Sargent
| to carry to the county clerk for his perlnis-
sion to publish; that the county clerk con-
sidered the document not on file yet, and he
therefore did not consider he could refuse its
publication. Also that in some conversation
WITH meInDcTS VI IHc DaIj LHeg Iiau ="
that the evidence be not published; that Mr.
Sargent had said he thought he had a right
to publish, and should do so if not restrained
by an order of court that, however he should
obey such an order. We believe this is
fair condensation of the evidence.
Mr. Stewart, the district attorney, then
proceeded in his speech upon the case, con-
tending that the copmon law punished as
contempts all publications referring to cases
pending designed to influence the decision.
Also that the California statutes did not re-
peal the common law in this respect. He
contended that it was punishable as contempt
to publish any thing in reference to case in
court, whether true or false. He then read
the articles published in the Journal to show
that an attempt was made to prejudice the
public mind against Jansen. That these
publications were contempt of the district
H. a., H. "A