Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1869-06-25
81 From the Raleigh Sentinel, 18th inst.
in the Matter Of B. IF. Moore. Esquire,

In answer to the Oft expressed wishes of
the public, we give to-day full report of
the argument of Hon. William FL. Battle,
before the Supreme Court, in the con
tempt case, which has been kindly fur
nished for the purpose. We hope to lay
before our readers the arguments OF the
other gentlemen who appeared us counsel
| for the respondents at an early day
| Mr.. William &. Battle said that, as one
of the counsel for Mr.. Moore, he would
proceed to read lis answer to the rule
which had been served upon him.
| "In the Supreme Court. June Term,
1869.
In the matter of b. F. Moore, Thomas
Bragg and Ed. Graham Haywood.
The several answer of B. F. Moore to
the rule herein made by said Court and
served upon him:
| This Respondent protesting that rule
which deprives him, even temporarily, of
his privilege as an Attorney of said Court,
ought not to have been made in his alb
sence without notice to him and without
affidavit or other legal proof of the facts
upon which said rule is based, respectfully
answers
| 7. That he admits the signing and pub
! fishing of the paper called "a solemn pro-
test OF the Bar OF North Carolina against
Judicial interference in political affairs, 5"
but insists that the Supreme Court hath
no authority in law to make, or jurisdiction
to enforce, said rule. o. a-.
! II. That the publication referred to in
said rule is not libellons, and doth not tend
to impair the respect dre to the all.
thority of said Court.
III. And for further answer this Respon-
| dent saith, that said paper was conceived
and prepared during the recent political
canvass for the Presidency, and its publ
cation deferred until after the close of the
canvass to avoid its having the appearance
of partizan document. He admits that
| his purpose was to express his disapproba-
| ton of the conduct of individuals occupy
ing high Judicial stations, yet, as an act of
justice to himself against the charge made
| in the rule, he not only disavows, in sign
| ing and publishing said paper, any inten-
| ton of committing a contempt of the Su-
preme Court Or of impairing the respect
| due to It's authority, but Oh the contrary,
he avows his motive to have been TO pre-
serve the purity which had ever dis
| tingulshed the administration of justice by
| the Courts OF this State
. Mr.. Battle, after reading the answer,
moved to discharge the rule, and based his
motion upon two grounds, upon either of
"AASA4 AO 4OAV ScAAAC4Ip AZ LluSU DC SuS-
tanned. The first ground was, that the
rule had been improvidently issued, be-
! cause there was no contempt of the Court,
and therefore no case for which his friend
and client could be called upon to answer
before the Court.
1t was formerly difficult, upon reading
the authorities. to ascertain with any GER
tainty, what could be deemed contempt
of Court. In most instances, contempts are
committed in open Court, by rude and i'm
proper conduct, either by officers of the
Court, Or by persons attending upon it );
but he admitted that there were circum-
stances under which a contempt might be
committed in the absence of the Court
1t seemed to him, that for the purpose of
settling the difficulties which had arisen in
attempting to determine what are con-
tempts of Court, our Legislature had, at its
last session, laid down and prescribed
what, and what only are to be regarded as
contempts of the Courts of North Carolina.
He referred to the Acts in relation to pro-
ceedings in contempt, ratified the 10th day
of April, 1869, which was law at the time
when the Protest in question was publish
ed, and he contended that by that act alone
this Court should be governed in the pres
ent case. This act was, as presumed, prepar-
ed by the Code Commissioners, and was in
tended to be the law of North Carolina upon
the subject of contempts for the future. And
it was eminently proper and right that it
should be SO, for the liberty of the citizen
required that he should be certainly in
formed as to the law, before he should be
held responsible for obedience to it, The
counsel then read the first seven specitica-
tons in the act for which person might
be punished for contempt and showed |
that neither Of them was at all applicable !
to case like the present. He said that
the Sth was the only section upon which
question could be raised. That section |
relates to the "misbehavior of any officer |
of a court in any official transaction" and .
cannot apply here, because the signers and
publishers of the Protest were not, while /
doing so, engaged in any official transac-
ton. 1t was not signed nor published |
during tho session, and did not constitute |
contempt of the Court and as the Court |
could not deal with it except as a con-
tempt, the rule, as he confidently asked, !
should be discharged upon this ground.
2. The counsel said that if he were mis-
taken as to his first ground of defence he |
then relied upon the second. He argued
that, as it is we'll known that crime con-
sists of both an act and an intent, there
must be, to constitute criminal offence,
an act committed with q criminal in
tent. Hence, an insane person cannot
commit crime, because his act cannot be /
accompanied by guilty will. In the third
article of his answer, his friend and client, |
Mr.. Moore, has disavowed. in the most
solemn manner, that he intended, by sign
ing and publishing the Protest, any con-
tempt of the Court. On the contrary, he |
adds, that his motive was to preserve the !
purity which had ever distinguished the
administration of justice by the Court, ana |
as it was only for contempt of the Court
that he could be punished, his disavowal
mad removed the imputation of contempt |
from what was sought to be treated as such.
In support of this position, MIR. Battle re-
ferred to the case of the People VS.. Few,
which occurred in the State of New York,
as reported in 2 John, Rep. 289, in which
the Court held, that to constitute a con-
tempt of Court, there must be an intention
to commit such contempt. He insisted
that this case was entitled to the highest
respect, because it was decided by one of
the ablest Courts which ever sat in this
country. AT the head of it, was James
Kent, known throughout the Union as one
AMONG itS most laarned and accommodated |