, 1875-03-30

tbs consequence must .,e that uhrnevcs any ohatre-
lie oba,fuct,n 10 be rcuvt,1. snl, though ordinary
men iii way connected with the rio'lnai' ntaof ~
ofesra parties, cannot ol"tret re cauae o. jnaco
without going into i rrcspnct yet circumstances are
nlwn.s llal, 10 have heretofore
occur1ei-ia whtrl they ean II they tate ayantageo
rco tt corrs Of Justice, OF to corrupt Justice itself
iAey stml te dealt With s',innAri!y for enntetnlh,"
, s Mei E sts e.ssa sy u
jti.!ics after The ea1ise ls erded4$
ii is pregnant fact In t1s that, with this wctl
known iears!ng Of The tlofcrtlhut1 counsel, and with
most abunsAnt time 10 rrspare fer tho argument,
they cited 10 the Court but ons American deeiton %
ssy tss ss sa 1a. IT, f si'f Il u
there aatuts in Tho Hato Of atlteaarri resttict-
ing the power Of te Court to w1n'lHen'a fnr con
enco os hearing Of Tho Court" ses opinion. paEo
7aoj The opinion Is, therefore, OF very le vAuo In
9hs e CITY ntsr % sator,ties Il pSouced a,cn ths .rs-
e,t by ete,nt1n.a eounEo, to sustain tnor position
Of defect Of power In sl.e Court ~e1s I,slio,s
sers IL s iii Till III 81 Judge Peck Geo9s io untad stas
Bcrato 9Th Quenn'4 lench, 1871; tss 1Eawxins' reas
Of The Drown y. 81; end sons ssctous from Wharton
ny quotations iron, bishop already made abundant
y sow that lo snstans ths doctrine, heretofore -.
DWis 1eeks trs' =. s7) aud Of jndeo sponcer tsa.ne
VOL. p 40 are able Argmcnts but they are mada ny
To- an a s
rosc-o{ defendants counsel in tho volume, one
VI whom eas The iilustsous William Writ.
tile ground hnt tue County Court, which h. sought
to punish for fonetnps was an Inferior court whose
Gs % Il CIT cay aos1 xsS S' y 10
Constituliou anl law Of tho and superior court of
general jursdictton. Two authorities anil only two
cisc By defendants counsel vet remain lnconAflarc.
1 ahall not dlspnss Mr.. Wharton, iuksnlich Mt while
hs admits tl,e tioessue VI eonstrnetise eontemps to
ssc mt il IL irecs I opposition @ n to e decision IN
Ihc reople ys. Wilson, Which n as sought by arG,t-
ment 10 overtt,ow. I have more confidence IN tue
opinion ot tslr at,,s Jadsea u QUE supreme court
DO nes regard Ill Hawkins, s., =. opposed to the
view e no lay have sSse q 1 ~ y III in
eourt to : panish fol espte,nrIs Of iIs prsseneo.
vic orcrcd tis cnse, aud his very limited citation Of
authorities :" sustain his crtions, and IN visw Of my
own CAREFUL examination VI the law applicable 70 sha
cabe, thiuk
fAa SAFE IN sArlNH
thas all tbs autlorslteF, 1:ngah anu American {rer-
liars with tic excupon Of Wharton), susatn tho po.
be Included ali acts calculated to impede, er1barass,
obssuct tho eonrt IN the administration Of jstlce,
whether sch acts hfe oa In Or out Of tito presence
OF tto colit ueat thGTA n soo statute In existence
limiting tho power; aud that such power tnhores, ox
nec.tsltac. In every court OF SUPERIOR and Ectlerl
fos, and thcre Is no decision Of any ether ussican
court 10 which have cited. os which have lecn abis
to and. any cx:heok with s exception Of Wharton,
which CONFLICTS With tho law above tnti down. But
vat sa!d upon argument that many Of tho Bta.es OF
the Union aud slo un!tou States, had passed a:at.
asr ss %te 4 e wilson % liz
hturs bill limiting tho power f tho courts
tenps, but lLht Is AsaHGe could not be secured Il
IL also curioua TACT thai, wodn tho year 1eaa, when
the Stuart c1se was decided htatste was IN ex!s,oce
tho court md wh!o In 1872. when tho Wilson waa
tried thegs alao ssAtuta which Justice i'll
clInei to considet limitation Of tho power by imr-
nk4
and that there Ia mons now III existence Ths failure
to PASS ons pct a tue repeal Of tlo oser 4 taey a:e
e S als q y
e1oAchmcrt by tho presn upon the courts than by The
euutts upon the press Aud there IL mora reason to
rive while tho conrt4 nuver do mors laan uxvTcAe
the right Of sef-defense. Aud tho oourts aro cona
ind y as psoS 3 s @
rights. All Tue oleern Of Tho oourts aro thc eetyauta
Of tho people, whom they caM remove periodically At
vac individual, e1ista primarily for sof. aud second
asiiy for tho publlc. ~ edtora nnh pubualsrA Ars
largely indsneniet M % u Of ,L tue ieg.l electors.
can learn what constructive con3hmptn are mol.
They mol all ihoso conte.npss which CON-
iho Judge. Mauy Of such contcmps neo ~ truly Ac-
tua. would bo profanity aud gross indscency III tho
courtroom. But know Of no Textbook or nijudgod
case wlch gtYss accurate definition OF construct
I've eontemYt.
soMa L1ouT As 70 WHAT rnxr AnE
IL to b. gained by the examination Of tbs Of
5tuart ~. Tho Ptople, snd Iho pcop!o Y. wilson.
Jngs nfee1s says 70 tns .otee M aos ns
uotfs: Into uls vortex o1 aonAttustiVe eohtemps
lare Leen drawn " ths Util,sh cousts many acts
when nave no tenaehcJ 10 onsfnat tae aamAA1Eauon
q j.atlce 9t rather 70 Houha no ieshgs or onend
thn personal dignity Of tue JadHe ana tue court fn
Acll that was not consistent with tbe Ken!ua of our
1ree institutions TO panMh suan acs - sontsmrs;
Ihe contempt IN that case Was py rf'nter Of
: newspaper, relnafKin8 On tle cohd1os OF IN ~
daviduai juror, WHO. whilst u was engaged i1
tlo trial OF capital cass. aud whilst aelatated
troH tic rubl!cf knu In caarg" or an oncsr Or tie
eour4 waa furnishing astlc4e4 a5f dAilT rnbllca-
uoh IN ft'A heHspApeet mi ~ AdmltMR =
irritato the nrs.ua ,ge AZ ti,n soust thonnh MY
rruertin1 oa his iItevrjfy or in any Nav ,rssrhnu
iia coniaetn And liz Court yerY t,ropsrly ks thst
Tina usragrsn,,s and cnmmmnicstjon nnhitshnI1 h.d
M snsnrv r. nbs,nct i'm n.1n,Instr.tnn NJ imatlcs
nr ,rsra t.w hruat ,non IN nntInc n tle f1nrt ~
snv Sct Of ia nIaintT I. L. medIataly aftor iii,
tnnt Il. nften alnve ref4rred IN
,'so1 49,, tha tantrins cnS tst Shnrs taii.s T.
tr,cied IL - .nst r.sion H. sct i 4 r." sona
oIs..S ~ dnn. t liz nr.s.ncs ~ tt.s Cr n III.
c,nI0n :" trn rI.s.ss ~ rs,ru sra considsrad. nne
hsre Its al ias M tancncv tn osIrs,nt instc. III
WIZ - NV ,d ~ Tesn". ~ yoTci H. .sesnnI %
t.y ~ ~ , ..' n5 tl - ia.ssi 2h rorst,.tis
III thc she, oass "a ons whtrs ths aimjnIs
ttan ~ j,.tic. - l. s"n1,r ~ i,ong nj n,,s.rc,n1
sn III /, Iii n Il. m scI'is eonten,, consSsrr