, 1872-11-09
OPINION BY LAWRENCE, c. J.


ahow cause why an attachment should not Issue
against them for contempt The information
fled by the Attorney General, upon which the
rale was made, eat forth that one OF the respond
ents is the proprietor and the otheT the ; emet 81
Chicago, called the Chicago Epensng journal !;
and presented, as ground for tlis proceeding,
IN editorial article published in that paper on
the 18th day Of October. The article was set
out at length in the information. It is entitled
aThe Case OF Rafferty, Rafferty, had recent
" been tried for murder in Cook County, found
Eailty, and sentenced to death. writ OF
arror, staying the execution OF the sentence
until the further order Of this Court, had been
granted, and this writ OF error Was pending and
Undetermined b.fore Us at the date Of the pub
lcation. The .rticle published Is as follows:
TEE CASE OF RArFEnTF-
1t the time wit Of supersedeas was granted IN the
hlandly assured .hat the matter would be examined
Into by the Supreme Court and decided at that
possibly the hanging Of this notorious human butcher
away, however, and ve hear Of nothing definite being
done. Radertys counsel Seems to be studying the
policy Of delay and evidently With success; Ihe r1n-
raft who contributed fourteen hundred dollars to de-
1nonst1zte that hanging is played out now con-
grstnlate thezselves on the SUCCESS q Their game
just what Vii be lone wi!h Rafferty,. He vin be
granted new trial He will be tried somewhere With
IN year or tro. Ha will be sentenced to imprson-
ment for life. Eventually be will be pardoned out.
And this in spite Of al our public meetings resolutions
committees. 1i1tuoui indignation, aud what not. And
why7 Because the Of 81 400 enough, nowadays,
TO enable to purchase immunity from the con-
e next winters session Of the Legislature does not
hereticaly zeal up every chink aud loophole through
which murderers escape, it will deserve the bitter
ceusure Of eyrrv hotest man in Illinois. We must
simplify our mode procedure in murder trials The
criminal shunld b tried 1T once and when found
ssafs s es Ths IN
the control Of corrupt and mercenary shysters-tha
akas Of the legal rofession Who feast ana at1en on
this must be renedied There be found remedy,
ani it must be found.
To the rule granted upon the motion Of the
Attorney General, the respondents have several
II answered under oath. They have declined to
argue the case, either orally or in writing,
though opportunity has been allowed for that
purpose. The respondent Wilson, admits, in his
answer, that he il the proprietor OF the neWspa-
per, but denies all knowledge Of the article prior
ence the degree Of the punishment to Which
be may be liable, it does not e2onerate him from
responsibility. The respondent Shuman ad-
1its he ia the editor-ip-chef. He denies the
fore it's publication, and permitted it to be pub
Gshed- Both respondents disayoW any lnten-
honal disrespect to the Court, OF any design to
embarraas the administration OF Justice, and H.
gisr that they have the right to examine the pro-
ceedings Of every department Of the Govern
ment Of thisState. and that they are not respon-
sible in proceeding OF this character, for the
truth of their publications., or for the motives
with which they may be made, "save when such
publications impede, mharrass, or obstruct ihe
administration Of JUSTICE" They state, under
the solemnities Of an oath, as fact within their
personal knowledge, that ''Such has been the
established law of this State for over thirty years
past and that said Court has no Judicial power
IS to the Law of contempt applicable to news:
paper publications, is somewhat remarkable Ii
Ne give to the saving clause in their answers, the
interpretation which it WAS possibly desired to
beer, the statement may be accepted, not merely
rs truth, but as q truiem. The only ground
for pronouncing my act or publication > coz
tempt Of Court is, that it tends, in its
final results, to impede, embarrass.
or obstruct the administration of Justice" II,
on the other hand the respondents designed to
sav, or to be understood as saving, that they are
privileged to make any publication concerning
proceedings in court, however false, to assall
the integrity o. the Court, or to endeavor to IN
flame popular passion concerning cases pending
before it, and not be liable to attachment Tor
contempt, unless it appears that the pab1cation
complained of really has the actual and visible
effect Of impeding, embarrassing, orobstructing
the administration Of justice, in manner srs-
eeptible of proof Rs an accomplished TACT;
the answers are to bo understood in this sense,
it is to be regretted that the respondents we're
not better advised as to the Law before swearing
what the law is.
The Revised Code Of 1916, in speaking Of the
Supreme Court, contains the following pro-
vision: "Ihe said Court shall have power to
punish contempts offered bY any person to it
Sshile sitting" This act hos never been re-
pealed Of modified. In the case OF Stuart ..
The PEOPLE, 8 Scam, 405, decided in 1872,
amilar provision in the statute OF 1929 u re-
gard to Circuit Courts, came before THIS Court
for construction. The Court, after saying that
the statute might, with great proprlety, be re-
garded as 3 limitation upon the powers OF the
Court to punish for any other contempts than
those committed in its presence. add the follow
fne most significant and important qualification:
In this power would necessarily be included
all scts calculated to impede, embarrass or OBJ
struct the Court in the administration OF JUS
s;ce. Such tct would be considered as done IN
the presence Of the Court"
Tie respondents evidently had this case be-
fore them when their answer was drawn. They
use it's language, With the exception OF most
material word, which changes the meaning OF
the entire sentence. The respondents say the
ruleis, that publications are contempt only
when they impede, enbarrass, or obstruct the
administration Of Justice. The rule laid down
By this Court vas, that they are 3 contempt
whea they are calculated to have that effect.
Thetaiference is radical, and marks precisely
the difference between the guilt or innocence Of
OF tie respondents in this case. They swear to 8
rule which would require us to cay that We
have actually been impeded, embarrassed,
or obstructed the administration OF Justice be-
IQIENa Eau UU4Q L46 1cSJS'41AGIta 6AA4s1 VI LII
tempt. The true test is, not whether the Court
has been 1n.,< or base enough to be actually in
aue1ced BIZ publication, but whether it was the
Object and tendency of the publication to pro-
duct such an effect. .-..., .
Itneed hardly be said that We cannot accept,
Is reason for dscharging the rule, the dis
claii,er, in the answers, OF any Intentional dis
respect, or any design to embarraas the admins.
traton OF Justice The meaning and intent Of
the respondent must be determined by fair
Interpretation of the language they have used
Ther cannot now eccape the responsibility by
clsiniug that their words did not mean what any
feadar must have understood them as meaning.
Nc candid man can deny that the article III
question Vps well calculated to make upon
he public mind the impression that the
Court, in a pending case, was influenced
by money in its Judicial action, end that It could
be 80 Influenced in other cases. Neither can it
be denied that the artice seeks to intimidate the
Court as to the Judgment to b. pronounced In
cess then pending and involving tho LIE or
death OF 8 human being. The article declares
that the money raised for Rafferty, :. is operating
spendidly;" predicts that he will be granted
new trial: and AYERS that Is The sum Of fourteen
hundred dollars is enough nowadays to enable q
man t. purchase immunity from the conse-
ouepces Of any crime;" and that s'The Courts