, 1875-03-20
THE CONTEMPT CASE.
Judge Williams Follows tho Prscc-
dent. and Qnzsilcs The Ruie.
Arguments for The Defendant By
Mcgsrs. qoudy and Dexter,
They Are Earnest for the Freedom Of
Tie Press.
The States Attorney Directed to Fila
an Information.
Tho Defendant to Appear Tues
day to Answer.
Newspaper Comments on the aTlnes y
anl lis Editor.
They Are Earnest for the Freedom Of
Tie Press.
Cho States Attorney Directed to Tile
m Information,
Newspaper Comments on the q Tines y
antl lis Editor,
General Concurrence Of Opinion.

| -eAe1a1 oonoalIeAce OF Vplo1on,
Tho rhtt..f Court drow d largo house yoetor.
day na~ s*o,sN/ :" Storey contempt CARO- be.
cnaao sFef, H.1 I'd 10 eco tic oditor 0!
tho 71"ta appt- '| +, .'1ge Williams AnG
thcre publicly purge .'1H,,. =. tho cuprre
against him. Among tl,o n.fI ~, aent per
nons present weso Johu u. lsou.-:t 1J:J, Nc
Grasl, Gen. II. LeI. J. Z. X. Forrcet, JoLu Sum-
lnerHela, Mlle ileDouaid, i. s. Ir1ide, mud q.
T.. In3eraoli.
Mr. Storey, howcrc: preferred 10 appcnr by
hiH attorneys, Aessra. ". Z. Cloudy ntd WIT
Dexter. while tha other aide MAS represented BIZ
Mr. c. IL. Recd mud his nseia:ant. Mr.. Fraau
Willie, Of tia Times. was among tho spectators
The proceedings opened II. 1o:l5 O'Clock, shortly
Afsor Judge Williams arr.rod.
| n1:. ". &. aouDT,
in rising to move tho 9uastliue of tho r,1la
against ". i. Storey, said that tLa wIoo nat
ter was informal. This WAS question that a.
tractou great attention from thu public, because
1t bore on the librrty Of the p1ess-a prlucpla
dear to ali American citizens. 1io did not meau
to defend license. bal would say that thcrs ,sas
nothing iu that which was published by tho CHI
| cago Ii'Res To provo that any contcmpt OF court
was 'ncnIed. Without 4 free prc,s tlloro cou1d
DO no public liberty. Public mcu rera IT. sub
1ecth for criticism iu thc'r capacity AZ servants OF
the Commonwealth. In tho matter before tho
Gonit, legal iorn1atty had boan entirely ignored
lhe aI:'on taken was entirely unnecce.
action. 1t tl.tl not ell for oauit, @
jurisdiction. It Should BE- iborue in MUD that
lace Of the cn!us. hnt, rather, that contempt
.TsB committed by some person nway from it.
| ILa: wcs mhat uaA known to tlo Law "a
| CONSTRUCTIVE c0S1EMrT
As i9at vas Criminal couts. ory criua:nai csset
could bc heard there. information mud ,udict-
sn"nt "tte tho only methods by w.ct, euuh q
| care could be tried. The prcstnt action wsu mol
brought bafose tho Court III either shape. ia
insde It properly "i'hln tho jurisdiction Of tho
Criminal Court, 1t should he brought By cthc,
OF tie reaas apeciilsd. Information Should b.
conveyed to The Court OF contempt contntttei
away from it. Tho information ehuuld DO en-
terea on tta records; 20 slss tho purity accused
To- be heard: T1,o Constitution pro
u'sss mol TO lightly infrinEca npon. lie wns noi
aware that trial for contempt bad ever bsoa 1t.
tempted previously, wIsore tic oIrcu9o charged
vas committed not III tho presence OF tho Court
| lie quoted libcrA!ly from. several authorities.
ameug thena Wheaton. Dlatchfoa1, aud Bls4op'
+ to sustain his pc4ltion.
Il WIN proyldud in the Constitution tta. no
person could ha compelled to :eH,fy against hin
SELF. There should be pritna facic eyiIonco ot
| contempt before on1 man could 10 rlaced ,lppu
tho rex n1d Aub5eeted to nterroga.oFiss relatirs
ta editorial Or other conEents not n,ade laiote
| aat III tie hearing OF lie Court.
TNEcouRr nAI .;or TIE rowcr,
undc: thu Constitution which, proicce,. tho ltbs:.
! tlts of cur people, to call n ouo man sna hua
lin for constructive contempt, ur sond a4,.
other man 10 tnil for tAe ramn npocsyphht
otlensc. There %aa evident want Of iuriplictlGu
iii tho sh ect. &uat.or hra ulso iu this Court il.
self. There MAD no poHcr of pu2ithment Tor
constructive contempt in tho coultaou lkw Of tho
Htut.
There Was no s.a4uts in the records Of tI.is stato
10 Justify tho pgosent proceeding, or ciyo tho
Judge power to punish for constructive con-
tempt, unless by the 1cEnlar no1o OF criminal
wiatesor ontored, except IN Information By the
Graud July. I1o deitucd tho duties ct thst
body. They Ind ouly 10 invcst,E.te, o1partc,
criminal caaen anu report fndictn,enta upou suf-
lcient grounds. DeAdoa this, they Ind to nay
yist to tho County JAIL As to what waa pub
!ialed III the newspapers regarding them, tllsy
lsd no business to report that. 5rsa neither
could thoy tIka cosnlzanco Of 1t, oxcops
ON ISf.1ANATioS FILED.
1Ind thor done 10 ? TIN record rtowed nothing
Of tI.a kint Everything was irregular to de-
gres that vna surprising. In tbs cu4o ut tie
Joa1iat brought np In 1879 for contempt, the
ceoatnss vesu., accordingly, hid upon It. Ihe
obnoxious article AZ, Of contse, included In tho
inior,uAtiou 80 tLat tAeto could bo no ,uiataka
as 10 tue character Of the, charge. Now. 1t ,ras
ttnrcrasively NECESSARILY that. in thts instance.
Court. l. should, " It'd dignity and syonhand-
ctnesa, preserve the respect Of the community.
The lnw in tho matser should 30 eloaely otncss-
ea, and no persoua motives should bo al!owu4
to appear in the, decision Of The matter. 10
stats simply tint the Court Lad boon
made IN instrument Of persecution, could not
10 called contonpt. It wsa simply an editorial
deduction from action taEon by tha Grand jury,
and did not ass.lme 70 reflect npon the Court II
Eelf. Another point was That tho aeta uudur
which tha Jou,7.a! had bosn punished in 1s7a
Mera rcpeal led. ~ that there could ho ho pro-
ccduro uu.lor t!,eul. Nou, 10 did not propose to
get up discususon 81 to tho na:use OF thu n1-
tlv!es complained Of, but wien the proper t!na
ca,ne, 10 hopcd 10 ho ablo to show tic Court
that they "eru clearly within tho Limit Of
LEGITIMATE EDITORIAL COMMENT,
ua liberty Ut tho prcna Was understood b7 tho
paopIo OF tho uuitcd htates. tlo bad only tnsuy,
10 ra'ss s,,,,. n tho present ease mas Ii.
yery autt!slent @ one, th4s tho Euls hAd
CUR. "ou1d direct tho States Attorney to follow
tho regular rrcctslent established By tho lau-
.;lsefs VI tho laud.
MH. HEED.
statos Attorney, msdo L1isf reply. lie sul-
!tt*a lint the Grand Jury waa part OF tho
I nurt-A component part thoroot. IA regarded
!lns au Information, what mora suitable me-
Asln could 10 selected slAa the Htaud Jury
tsolff' That body had, most asauredly. TIN
power to note olo,,ses. They noted them to
present them, aud this eans ot oontenps Ind
usen duly presented by them. He submitted
Iheto we're other wa1a Of asaItnR with contctnpt
Lhxn hy Information flied BY tho Attorney
ueueral aud Stats's Attorney: lts quoted,
~ support OF this s.stoment, tho lleyiuod
III thla i. waa sail Of tho Grand Jury thuy slaU
pEsseut, uot W. particular u1saso, but III Of.
leuaes. WeY, tho Grant Jury, in . body. can't
Iuto court, aud presented thls otfeuxa. T1t
lifeuu Jury bssng part Of the macl4Iua1y Of tAt
Court contempt to them becamn contempt II
lho Court ,tseIf. IIe quoted from Uiahop'a Grim.
ma! Procedure. yol. 1, page $685., aud read ~
s1trnot from Al opinion By Julga BEotso, bear.
he Grand Jury should sucar Hltusss. Ihoj