, 1872-11-09

Whatever may be the true construction Of the
article set ont in the information, the respon-
dents have both denied, under oath, any pur-
pose, in its publication, to obstruct or influence
the administration Of the law, or aav intention
su reflect 'l.,nn the integrity Of any ncrntser Of
TIE Curt and this, it seems to mo- is all that
tliy Ought to te required TO do. No public Sood
can possibly result from pressing the matter
further.
Independently Of the disclaimer on the part OF
the respondents, am unable to perceive how the
article in question could, in any manner, anect,
hinder, or obstruct the administration OF the
law IN this Court. The newspaper N which the
paragraph was printed WAS published IN city
distant from the one where this Court iR now
holding its sessions, and it WAS not THRUST upon
the attention Of the Court By the respondents or
any one else. 1t is unlike the obtectlonable ar
tlcle in the case Of Stuart us. The People, u
Scam., 307, which was published IN the city
Where an important trial Was penalng before
jury, and which, with some propr'ety, could be
said to be q constructive contempt, committed
in the preseuce OF the Court. II it is anything
more than simply GU unjust criticism on tue
Court. in reference to cause then pendlng, the
most unfayorable view that can be taken il, that
it il constructive contempt, and, as such, it
could not, directly or indirectly, affect the ad-
ministration Of Justice in an Appellate Court,
should be very unwilling to admit that it could
have aa7 such effect. It seems to me- that the
21QFltY OF Tue CUuIt uhfb hItdcu6Q I'll uQQu1
Importance to mere newspaper paragraph.
From an early period in the history Of our iu-
risprudence, the power has been conceded to all
Courts Of general Jurisdiction to punish, in
summary manner, contempts committed in their
presence. The right rests on the necessity that
was found to exist to enable Courts to alninis-
ter the law without interruption or improper In
reference and to maintain their own dignity.
So Indispensable ia this power that its Just exer-
else, so far as it may be necessary for the due
protection Of the Court, has never been ques-
toned.
The Legislature has provided that the Su-
preme and Circuit Courts may punish parties
for contempts committed against them while sit
ting; ana 1t Is very grave question whether it
vas not the intention, by implication at least, to
nfnlt the power Of Courts to punish for con-
temptB to such aB should be committed in their
presence.
am not, however, unmindful that Courts Of
the highest authority, in this country and in
England, have assumed Jurisdiction to punish,
IN summary manner, and on their own mo-
ton, what are termed constructive contempts,-
such en- one as il sought to be set forth in the
information filed.
The exercise Of this extraordinary power by
3 Court of final Jurisdiction has ever been re-
gardea as of questionable authority, and one
liable to great abuse, and which might become
dangerous to the liberty Of the citizen. Its
exercise by the Courts in this country has been
tolerated, rather than conceded by eonsttu-
tutional provisions or Legislative enactments.
The The objection proceeds on the grouud thatthe
judge Of the offence against itself, and
Of the mode and measure OF redress,
when the law has provided, and when, in the
very nature OF things, there can be no mode OF
Reviewing tile action OF the Court in the premi-
ses. There has always existed jealousy
against the exercise Of arbitrary power, by any
tribunal supposed to be derived from common
law sources, and not expressly granted by Leg
islative Assemblies.
It must be conceded that public journals have
Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. It is
constitutional privilege that even the Legis1a-
ture cannot abridge. Such criticism should
always be just, and with view to promote the
public good. In case the conduct Of any public
officer is wilfally corrupt no measure of con-
misconduct ia simply an honest error
Of Judgment, the Condemnation ought to
be mingled with charity. The public have d
profound interest in the good name and fame OF
OF last resort. Everything that affects the we'll
being of organized society, the rights Of prop
erty, and the liberty of the citizen, is submitted
to their final decision. Tho confidence Of the
public in Courts should not be wantonly i'm
paired. It is all-important to the due and ef11-
cient administration Of justice that the Courts
of last resort should have. in full measure, the
entire confidence of the people whose laws they
administer ALI good citizens will admit that he
who Wlfully and wantonly assails the Courts by
the public confidence in them, commits a great
wrong, not alone against the Courts, but against
the people Of tue Commonwealth.
But who shall furnish the remedy? Shall the
Court that il assailed? or, shall tile Legislative
power Of the State? In my Judgment, there are
many, and polite, reasons why the Legislative
power alone should provide the remedy, il any
shall be found to be necessary. It is far better
that the Judges of the Courts should endure un-
just criticism, and even RlanderoAs accusations,
than to interfere, Of their own motion, to redress
the offence against themselves, when the offence
complained Of was not committed in their lmme-
date presence
1t is matter OF public history that it has
been the policy. Of the press, in this country,
dignity of the Courts. II contrary policy
should ever be inaugurated in this State to such
an extent as to seriously affect the reputation,
or impair the efficiency of our Courts in the ad-
ministration Of the law, have no doubt thai
legislation will afford an appropriate remedy. It
was said by the Court, in the case OF Stuart ..
The People. supra, that 'Respect to Courts
cannot be compelled; it is the voluntary tribute
of the public to worth virtue, and intelligence;
SO long, and no longer, will they retain the pub
lie confidence"
FlNtNG OF THE RESPONDENTS.
Special Despatch to The Chicago 1'rittine.
OTTAWA, H., Nov. Z, 1872:In the Supreme
Court this forenoon, the Chief Juss CO asked
s' Are the respondents in the case of The People
rs Wilson and Shuman in Court?"
The Sheriff. ''They are, your Honor"
1Iessrs. Wilson and Shuman then stood up be-
fore the Court, and the Chief Justice then said +:
q You Charles L. Wilson and Andrew Shuman,
are before this Court under an attachment for
contempt, in consequence Of an article relating
to cause pending in this Court, and published
in newspaper Of which you Charles L. Wilson,
arc the proprietor, and you, Andrew
shuman, arc the chief editor. In the
opinions delivered by tho majority OF this
Court, when passing upon your return to the
rule to show cause why an attachment should
not be issued against you, We have said all that