, 1872-12-16
CONTEMPT OF COURT.

| 10 the Editor Of Tie Chicago Tribune;
Sin: The independence and candor Of The
| TRIBUNE produce tie conviction that it will
publish communication, even if it reflects on
| the conduct Of tie press. Perhaps, too, g. sufi-
cient time has elapsed to allow fair considera-
| ton Of tho questions recently presented by the
case against the editor and proprietor of the
Journal for contempt.
Every jurist and evory Intelligent lawyer
knows that Court has the power to attach and
punish for contempt, whero the act is not COM
mittcd in the presence Of the Court, unless pro-
hibitod by a statute. The power has been
exercised for three centuries wherever the COM
mon laE prevails. Congress passed such pro-
| hibitory law in 1881; Pennsylvania, and
perhaps other States, have done likewise. The
fact that such legislation was adopted in these
casos implies THAT, without it, the Court pos
ecssed tie power. In Illinois, no such statute
exists, and the common 1aw is the rulo of pro-
cedurc. Therefore, the Supreme Court had tho
porer to issue the attachment against
Wilson and 6hu1nan for IN alleged coz
tempt, and, If the facts justified
it, to punish them. If the law is not just or
proper, the Legislature must change it be-
fore a Court in this State can be denounced for
administering it in proper ca-o.
The propriety Of exercising the power must
depend On the facts tending to show that the
offence has been committed, in the first place
and, IN the next, on the policy Of asserting it in
the particular case- It may be said with force
that, If q Court ascertainH that contempt has
been committed, it is its duty to pun
ish, without regard to consequences or
the policy of such proceeding. On the other
hand, it may be asserted, with equal force. HIST
justice vii be better promoted bY disrecard of
an act which, although an offence, has been
harmless. It WAS on this question Of
the policy Of exercising the pow
er e. ,cl9. n he Journal case that
not on the right to punish for an act committed
out OF Tho presence Of that tribunal. The ma
3outy OF the Court consoieutiously believed it to
be their official duty, which they had sworn to
discharge without fear or favor, to punish an
offence brought to their notice by the Attorney
General; while the minority, Just as honestly,
believed that it was against sound public policy
to exercise power from which there was no
appeal, and in which the accused was deprived
OF trial by jury to ascertain the facts.
Ihere IS room for difference Of opinion as
to the Justice Of the con1mon-laH rule as It now
exists in this State, and as to the proprety of
Furnishing newspaper publisher for an arfic1a
rejecting upon, and intended to influence tia
action of, al appellate tribunal; and no man is
to be censurcd for honestly ADVOCATING e;thar 40
side OF those propositions.
4 contempt Of Court is not personal insult
to the individual who presides it must be such
81 act as Weakens respect for the tribunal, and
in some way interferes, or tends to interfere.
with the enforcement Of the law. Disorder in
the Courtroom is to be suppressed because it
interfares with the administration Of JUS
tice, and not because it is per
sonally Offensive. Disobedionce to an
order, or disregard Of the process, of Court il
to be punished because private and public rights =!