, 1872-12-16

must be enforced, and not because it is dis7e-
spectfu1 to the porson who made the ordar or
executes the process. An act out Of tho pres
euce of the Court, which is not disobedienco to
ench as tampering with o juror, ap-
proact'ing Judge. s'll,orning q witness.
or interference in any mo3o with the decision of
! a pending ca'1ae. IL c:i:na. cl!lei Contempt
aga:1ls: ::uoli: j.tstico and suca is to bo pun
it.ed. a.:a not because it o:fenls tho official.
The Journal aul other newspapers have pre-
Burlcd very much Oh the ignorance and credullty
Of their readers when they have assorted that
the Supreme Court OF Illinois have cla. med tho
power to punish for csnsure OF tho Court, or any
Of it's Judges, for decision made. NO sucn
claim was ever get up by any tribunal. Inc
Rafferty, case was pending before the supreme
Court, which was to decide whether tho 1udsment
Of the Criminal Court was to bo affirmed or fo-
article, for which its editor and publisher we're
fined. Tho sole ground ga whlch u me
punishment was or could be, inflicted, was, that
the article intended to influence tEe acton or
the Court in that case. The question OF 1.ae.'&
WAS to be decided in that, as in every othcr case,
from the language used. The parties did not,
however. deny such an intention; they merely
disavowed any intention to treat the Court With
personal disreapcct and distinctly set up the
right to publish, as the propriet9WT!s Of
NAV hare been tho necessity OF
action by the Court in tho first instance, thoro
WIS not room for doubt when this answer to the
! rulew as made. TLereturn was intended to insult
The Court, aud assert tho right to do al act
!, which would overthrow every Court in the land
destroy liberty, and establish al Irresponsible
despotism.
Tie Freedom of the press is Eaid to be in dan
rule Of law to allow tie proprietor Of public
newspaper to be censured and punished By
Judgo>who holds the position Of prosecutor,
jury, and Judge and that the law ought to be
changed, T have no quarrel with tho proposition.
But, II it is claimed as it seems to be, that tho
freedom of the press demands the removal OF
all restraints, 80 that the result Of o suit in O
Court Of Justice may may be influenced or con-
trollcd, it is proposition whic!, must fill the
world with alarm. Wh;le freedom of the press
is guaranteed by both Federal and State Consti-
tutions it is liable for its abuse. aod all impair
tial trial is secured to every person.
There must be some moda by which justice
can be administered without interference;
otherwise no man is safe in his life, liberty,
property, or reputation. II the present rule of
law is dangerous, let q bctter one be adopted by
tho Legislature which viii prevent the interfer-
eEce Of the press, as well IS au persons, with
with tue result Of q suit in q Judicial tribunal.
The law Of Congress Of 1884, which took away
the power Of Court to hold es contempt any
net not committed in presence Of the Court or
in disobedience to its orders process, also en-
acted that all such acts which interfered with
E pending suit should be crime, and punished
under an Indictment, by fine or imprisonment.
In conclusion, allow me- to say that the Journal
very much mistakes the opinions of tue bar or
the public if it believes that its course is justi
tieti or approTed- I will volunteer some advice
to it without fee; and that is, if the Supreme
Judges had not the po.cer to impose the tine, a
suit can be maintained against the four mem
hers Of the Court who inflicted it. and that suit
can be tried before court of it's own choice, and
jury Of the people; aud, if it obtains verdict
and judgment, it will be final, because tho de-
fat}f3nfa cannot Sit n +hair own IT thp
Court had the power, but exercised it in 2 case
not warranted BY law, the majority may be re-
moved from office by the representatives. Of the
people. But, if the Journal does not like g
law suit o. Legislative fight. let the issue be
in his district next June, as it inclined to
do, and see how it comes out.
Law AND ORDER.