, 1872-11-09

ltcatl0n, whether by paTtles VI at1Hnoolo} 44eA
co.:cr~ns case pending III Court. ana has
TENDENCY 10 .,ci.!;c, liz, ,,.Eljs: co:rrn5 l..
;iri-. a,,,} Ia cur:.:' 80 Il '!l:'.i@f:a' lni Il
ia.t:cs ur cl reflects u: the III: tl:1al Vt il
proceedings Or Oh the Fa:tles, the jurors, the
witnesses, or the counsel, may DO visited as
contempt" ......
Whether tested by this common law definition
| or hv the rule laid down by this Court in the
case OF Stuart, already cited, there is no room
| for doubt that the article in question must bt
lated to case in Court, involving, in its fna
| issues. q human life. The answers OF tho re-
| spondents state that, at the time OF the
publication, There was an intense excitement
in the community, and particularly in the City o1
| Chicago, on account Of frequent murders, ant
no doubt true, and this article seems to have
! been studiously written with view to direct
| popular ciamor against this Court, and compe
it either to ai1irm the Judgment sending Ralfur.
| ty to execution, or incur the imputntion. ol
| bribery, and the clamor OF al angry city, to be
echoed throughout the State by portion OF t1le
Chicago press. The demand was, not that We
should calmly examine the record Of Rafferty'e
trial, to see whether hiB conviction had been
legal, but.tha We should give him over to exc
in the City Of Chicago, that it WAS necessary
eome man should be Immediately hung. We
have since examined the record Of this mans
conviction, and reversed the Judgment all the
members Of the Court holding that plain pro-
vision Of the statute had been violated On his
trial.
Let us say here, and 30 plainly that our posi-
tion can be misrepresented ouly by malice or
gross stupidity, that We do not deprecate nor
should We claim the right to furnish, any criti-
cism the press may chose to publish upon our
decisions, opinions, or official conduct, III regard
to Cases that have passed from our Jurisdiction,
30 long as our action is correctly stated, anti our
official integrity is not impeached. Therespond-
ents correct in saying, in their answers, tnat
they have right to examine the proceedings o.
any and every department Of the government
Far be it from us to deny that right, Such
freedom OF the press is Indispensable to the pre-
servation Of the freedom Of the people. But,
certainly, neither these respondents, nor any IN,
telligent person connected with ne press, an1
having Just idea OF its responsibilities, IS well
as its powers, will claim that it may seek to con-
troll the administration Of justice, or influence
the decision OF pending Causes.
4 Court will, OF course, endeayor to remain
wholly uninduenced By publications like thai
believe that it is able to do 80? Can it even be
certain in regard to itself? Can men always be
sure OF this mental poise? A timid man might
be influenced to yield, while a combative man
Whether the actual influence is on one side or
tile othe1 so far az it is felt at all, it becomes
dangerous to the administration of Justice.
Even if Court is happily composed OF Judges
OF such firm and equal temper that they remain
wholly uninfuenced IN either direction, never
theless, q disturbing element has been thrown
into the council-chamber, which it ia the wise
policy of the law to exclude.
Regard it in whatever light We may, We can
not but consider the article in question as cdicu-
lated to embarrass the administration OF Justice,
whether it has, in fact, done so or not, and,
therefore, as falling directly within the dehni-
ton OF punishable contempts announced by this
Court in the case Of Stuart Z. The People. It is
contempt because, in a pending case Of the
grayest magnitude, it reflects upon the action of
the Court, impeaches it's integrity, and seeks to
intimidAte it By the threat of popular clamor.
It may be said that, so long as the Court was
conscious it had not been frightened from it's
propriety by the article in question, the wiser
course would have been to pass it by in silence.
So fa9 as We are personally concerned, We
no controversy with the press But q
majority Of the Court were Of opinion that this
publication could not be disregarded without in
fidelity to our duty. By our relations to the Bar,
dietary of the State, and to the State itself, ne
felt constrained to call the persons responsible
for this publication to account.
It may further be said that this article could
do no permanent injury to Court strong in the
consciousness of its own integrity, and in the
therefore, the publication Was unworthy of
notice. It is quite time that d solitary para
graph, under ordinary circumstances, would
have probably been innocuous It is to be OBJ
served, however, that the answers OF the re-
spondents speak OF the existing excitement in
Chicago in regard to unpunished crime, and. in
that state OF the public mind, there was great
probability that this article would win
q ready credence il permitted to go unchaneng-
ed. Public meetings had been held. Commit
tees had been appointed to aid in the suppress
sion Of crime. The papers Of Chicago, circu-
1ating throughout the State and the Northwest,
had called attention to this subject. It was
made a frequent topic Of discussion in the public
In paper Of noted sobTiety and respectability:
containing charges and imputatious against
this Court, which were simply Infamous, the
majority of this Court felt that it was necessary
for the good name OF the State: within and with
ont its borders, and necessary in order to pre-
serve the confidence Of the people wholly un-
shaken in this Court, to request the Attorney
General to move for rule against the respond
ents. The majority Of the Court still think they
have acted wisely. We have been controlled
and do not propose to inhict severe punish
ment. We wish to call the attention OF the
press to the li1nitH which circumBcribe their COM
ments on Judicial proceedings, and to remind
them Of the obligations imposed upon them By
the great power which they confessedly WELD
Especially do we desire to keep the judicial repu-
tation Of the State free from the appearance OF
dishonor, and to prevent the growth OF that dis
trust, in the minds OF our own people, that
would certainly follow the circulation of ar
ticles like the one under consideration, if per-
u1itted to go unrebuked. The loss of public
confidence in our integrity would be q calamity
little less than the loss Of official integrity it.
self. The pomp and circumstance which in
England aid to cloth, the Courts and
the law with dignity, and power are
not in consonance with our Republican
forms OF government. In this country,
the power Of the Judiciary rests upon the faith
OF tie people in it's integrity and intelligence.
Take away this faith, and the moral influence Of
the Courts is gone, and the popular respect for
law impaired. Law, with US, is an abstraction.
It is personifei in tile Courts as its ministers;
but its efficacy depends upon the moral convic-
tions Of the people. When confidence in the
Courts is gone, respect for the law itself will
speedily disappear, and society will become the
prey OF fraud, violence, and crime.
The one element in Government and society
which the American people desire, over all
things else, to keep free from the taint OF eus-
picion, ia the administration Of justice in the
Courts. So long aa this is kept pure, commu-
nifty may undergo e1treme misgoVernment, and
still prosper. But, when these tribunals have
become corrupt, and public confidence in them
is destroyed, the last calamity has come
upou people. and the object Of its social or