The Council Bluffs nonpareil. [volume] (Council Bluffs [Iowa]) 1857-1867, 1857-11-21

"a lsaeene4 @sAse.-Aa CpeisAs lasasss lsAes.n
n TnenAs NJ. CAzoosf, Of he 6rst J1dicial
pistri Of lows has gained renastabl6
hDtorisey Of lats, frosl hid arbitrasy and
naligzan acts vhile f. tho bench. At Fl.
Nadisp h qnanslled with the members Of
the bar, and put them ON their good behavior,
and consigned one illegal limb" to Jail for
contempt Of court. The lawyer not liking
his new quarters very well, applied to Judge
STOCKTON, Of the Supreme Court, to be
released therefrom. A writ Of habsas corpus
was issued, and after 4 hearing Of the case,
the Judge dischared him from custody
This act aroused the political ire Of the ina
maculatc CLAuoEfr, and he declared that il
Judge Srocxrcx again crossed bis track, be
would commit the Odd abolition Judge
to jail" This was the end Of CLAcGErris
exploits at Fort Madison.
At Burlington, this wonderful Judge has
had his hands full. He early announced
his determination to ssreform the bar and
the court"-to have thorough cleansing
Of the Augean Stable. lie commenced by
fning some Of the jurors, then the Sheriff,
and threatened to zine or imprison some Of
the bystandcrs. But he eclipsed himself,
and transcribed the Law, most fagrantly,
when he cited the editor Of the Harkeye to
appear before him, to answer for a contempt
Of court, for publishing certain structures
upon the proceedings Of the court. The
alleged contempt Of court had this extent
no more--in prosecution against one
Abrahams, for leasing his house to persons Of
ILL., fame, the Judge assessed the fine at 800.
Upon the defendant appearing IN offering
to appeal to the Supreme Court, Judge
CLAceE1r ixed the bail bond at $4,000
The Hark-eye, as it had undoubted
right to do, took exceptions to this ruling,
and commented in very severe terms upon
this demand of excessive bail, declaring it
to be in violation of the Constitution. For
thus exercising his right, the editor of the
Eawk- cue was summoned ssto be and ap-
pear" and make answer to q complaint of
contempt of court. The case underwent
an examination, but at the last accounts,
the Judge had not rendered decision. The
case was argued by Judge J. c. HALL, and
HENRY W. STARR for the respondent. To
show tho extent of this high-handed and
outrageous attempt upon the freedom Of
the Press, wc will introduce some Of the
authorities cited on the occasion, which
must convince any sane person, that, in this
case, Judge CLAccErE has acted without the
show Of authority or precedence. Here is
the whole matter, in nutshell: .n
'Respcct to courts cannot be compelled; it IL the vol
untsry tribute the public worth. virtue and intel
gence and whilst they are found the Judgment seat
% long and no longer, will they retain the public Gun
ndence."
Mr.. STARR, read from the speech of Mr..
BUCHANAN, President Of the United States,
on the impeachment Of Judge PECK, as fol-
lows:
Tho constitution and laws Of the several States have
the trial OF the crime of libel jury is the only tri-
bunalt which the liberty Of the press be safely
entrusted To allow the judiciary to dispense with This
tribunal whenever any publication has been made
affecting the dignity he oicial conduct o. Judge
Is to create privileged order men in the state whose
will is law and who not only judges in their own
Of the guilt Of the accused but also Of the extent
Of his punishment Such power 50 far as ii goes par
takes Of the and rankness OF despotism
That sacred Ggis-he liberty Of the press-a right
which Congress if they would could not and il they
could, dare not infringe-shieds every citizen Of this
land from the blow Of such judicial tyranny No free
government long exist without free press Power
is constantly stealing One implication involves
another, until liberty be lost, before the people
know it is in danger To preserve this invaluable boon
ought be watched with greater Jealousy than ever
was excited by the tabled guardian OF the Hespe-an
fruit Its safest protector free press and the Con-
stituton Of the United States has therefore declared
that Congress shall make ITO law abIdgins the freedom
OF speech or the press"
The Hark-eye, after waiting several days,
for the decision Of the Judge, gavca full
history of the proceedings of the court, and
commented in unmeasured terms upon this
unlawful assumption Of power, whereupon
the editor was again cited to appear and
show cause why no should not be punished
for second contempt of court, 'sths first
case not having yet been disposed Of" In
noticing this second summons "to be and
APPEAR" the Hauk-eye says: |
sit is certainly refinement upon legal
technicality for Judge Claggett to charge us
with attempting to influence his decision, in
our own case, by reproducing in print the
arguments which were made before him and |
his rejoinder! And he swears that in that
publication our object was to influence his
high mightincss! And it is certainly legal !
fiction to say that there was any cause pen
ding. There never was cause. Judge !
Claggett constituted himself Judge and jury !
and would have added the character of exc
cutioner had he dared. His attempted GEN.
sorship of the press, rs it appeared in our !
forcible arrest and trial, never had color
Of law, and was not cause pending in any
fair sense of the word. 1t was an outrage
it was a mockery--it was anything rather |
than cause pending in any legal and
proper sense. We had the same right to |
publish IN account of it rs VIC should have |
in publishing an account Of our forcible alb
ductiOn when We might escape from our |
lawless captors. 1t is Judge Ciaggett's Sec
ond effort to deprive US Of our rights and
prevent his arbitrary and tyrannical acts
from becoming known through the medium
Of the press" .aG
Scan such things be and overcome US like
a summer dream, without exciting our spe-
eidi wonder?" Wehope not. We contend
that Judge has no right legal or otherwise
to punish on editor for the publication
of any article, no matter how libellous, un.
just, or uncalled for it may appear. If this
assumption of Judge CLAcGEr1's is once
conceded to be lawful and proper, what be.
comes Of our boosted freedom Of speech
and liberty Of the press? We would have
no such thing-it would be mockery-a
sounding eymbal. Lot such attempts be indig-
nantly frowned down by all honorable men.
Partnership should not be allowed to in.
trude itself upon this qucstion-we arc all
more or less interested in preserving intact
tho inalienabls right Of tho liberty Of the
press.
In Time.
4 Washington correspondent Of the Rich.
mond Enquirer, urges the nomination Of