Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1869-06-25

l
t path-let MS not initiate them. But let us
so act as if we were in reality and truth :
r portion of Gods great elect.
From the Raleigh Sentinel, Jpue l., 1869.
The Supreme Court Of North Carolina
The following notes OF the argument OF
the counsel of b. I. Moore, Esq, insre
spouse to the ordar OF the Supreme Court,
, to show cause why he should not be 81
Ienced Tor contempt OF the Court, In the
matter of Publishing protest. %c.,
were furnished IA on yesterday, hnt at TO"
bate ala hour iof It's pubilcatlon
The cunieei will write out their argu,
= ment8, but tile anxiety of the public to see
| the progress Of the case, leads us 10 antlci-
, pate the publication Of the arguments OF
couns al from their own pens, iy giving the
following notes +
: Judge Batil4 moved that the Rule be
discharge
This rnotiun unsupported BY prge
ment, able eloquent ard convincing. He
} showed cleafiy&that under the laws now i'll
: force in 'hiB State, @the cfcnco charged
could not I,e Punished ao Hcontemi!t that
il was no contempt of the Supreme Court
that it was d mere point against the con-
duct lnu1Nlutltl mSu1LSLO VI tttC A+JtlIb
that, to constitute crime, tlcre must be d
criminal intent, that there was ne intention
of bringing the CouH into contempt, for
his client had solemnly on oath A7owGd
that he Intended no contempt OF the Court.
that It was a mere expression Of opinion,
aud q warning, springing from the pureSt
ard the noblcst motives, and that instead
of being amenabla to this Court, tie mo,
d.. tive that actuated Mr. Moore deserved TO
| be commended by the Conrt. In conclusion.
! he alluded i'll feeling terms to his clients
| we'll known love and Neneration for the law
/ and the COnstilution-tilat when others
sailed the Constitution, or deviated from
the law, he ever remained true, and with
+ uuwayering devotion and steatlfastness,
filas ever stood Oh :ne side ui law, order,
and Justice-thaa the Couit ought TO hest
tate long before they pronounced tie sen
tenco depriving him OF the privilege OF en-
tcring the Supreme Court OF his own State,
stripping him q his rights rs IN Attorney,
and in his old age, after It long lie OF ar
dent devotion to the Constitution and laws
Of his State, banishing him from the Court,
stamped with the brand Of disgrace.
Judge Fowle followed in It powerful ar
gument, showing that the Court had no
authority or jurisdiction to enforce the
rule, that the otfense charged WAS no CON
lSLDII. tlIttU 1AlI ISHCu vi
England might have ruled it q cnntemot,
no Conrt in America could do so without
violating the Constitution and Laws that
the doctrines OF contempt III England is q
disgrace to the age, and IS considered one
OF the evils OF the English law that in
America freedom OF Thought and speech
cannot be restrained, except under the
law of the land, that no law makes this
/ publication an offence; that even If, though
the Supreme Court might have enforced
this rule twelve months ago, they could
not do SO nOC. for the act Of the f4egisl~-
ture, OF 10th April last, defines what ah =.
be Il coh!ennli, and that The offence charged
does not fall within the definition that
! there must be Il criminal intent, that here
| there Was no criminal intent. He supported
his positions b. citing some authorities.
; His argument Was a brilliant one, deliver
ed in his most earnest ana impressive man
ner. lie showed beyond. du.i1E that The
Court had no jurisdiction, and that this
rule was arbitrary. without foundation iii
law and Justice, ard therefore Ought 10 be
: discharged
! Judge Person th1i. followed lii Il long,
forclble and strong engunlent. He dWeit
IN the outset upon the ,s0isue OF the offence
charged, and IN most eloquent manner
portrayed the condition of our country
AaSe OH, ZIG B1tHt iltIAtlGhi HAtlteiAeuI
produced by the Ift5ldential canvass
that the conduct OF certain officials, occIl-
py1ng nigh judicial stations, gave the ven
cradle lawyer his client, reasonable
ground for tearing that tie Judiciary
would lose It's purity in the miro OF poll
tics, that the Court had no Judicial cog
nlzance OF tins offence, anyhow, 10Y they
had not been informed OF the publication
IN legal manner-no allegation mad been
made OF it, and no witness had been called
in to establish the fact. The Court had ob-
, tanned their information OF the publication
by condescending TO read it, us Hdtri{uols,
nos as ttt orYani:ed Coun, from the news
papers, they had no right to take judicial
co8nlzance OF mere newspaper article,
/ without affidavit, allegation, ct lega! proof.
lie reviewed the whole case, and ably al
gued each point.
His argument was ID elaborate onc, well
, conceived, and expressed III i iorri,io
/ manner. His tribute 20 tue learning, the
ability, the integrity, and the high patriot
ism CT his client Mr., Moore, Was touching
and beautiful, and well appreciated by the
members Of the Bar present who knaw