, 1875-03-24

Allcged to 10 ntonlcd 10 insimitlate tho Supreme
Court II Ilcn thby wcr0 conhi'leiing tho rafferty,
Tempt four Of t1,e Judges decided thst tho erst.
clio was, aud t41eo of them dccl'tod TINT
It was not, . con!ompt Ut Court. A.
though tho Court fined Tho defendant In
tho dociaion Of raven ont Of t,ino Judges, al
though virtually law, WAS not looked upon an
ercll ny thn people. mud auch wan tho caro- In tho
decision IN tho 1afferty contempt. Il WAS a'ro
Impose rciatty IN IL" caso IN lilo ground that
thu caHo was pending before tho Court.
Tho Hpcakcr tlon called tho attention Of tho
Court 10
THE PARTICULAR Gaze IN POINT.
In opou,ng, ho stated that ono Of tho articles
compIalned Of was published in tho i1aea uf tho
14tii iuas.. .anothor In that Paper oi tho 18th
inst, aud others wore Of dsto Of Tho 10th Inst.
astie!os having reeard 10 nat!otp siaa
penling bofofo lilo Grand jury, Lut
tera Which tl4oy had before had under thor
that thu editor Of tho paper did not know that
tlftra wcro any complaints before the Grand
Jury at tho time Of tho criticism. It waH not
clninled n tho information that any charges ind
Under all tho authorities 'lo lad quotod tho ar-
tscos could mot DO looked uron ~ cottoinpt Of
Court. because, they woro merely cs,tleiAn IT
actions Witch woro dead a1d pnssctl
% decide that i julre WIS hoyont s:rittolsln;
that, no matter how unjust Jnhgo might be, or
whatever Influence might hayo been applied TO
Jurors. tho fact that they wore Jutgo and
punsl,1ncut for tlloir OWL doinya. Tllo speaker
cited tile caacB of t1lo ,.njust Judges of New
York, Of wiioso presence tho Bench or that city
fad been purified through tho inetrunlentai,ty Of
tLo p1cas Of tho city. uo asked 4 TIC Court
virtually hinder tho public from ANY future 10
course ngni.,at owl Judges or G1aud Jurios, II
Hucll tllcre should DO. Admitting that all these
articles wcrc true. waa Mr: etoroy to DO puu-
Islsod for telling Tho trntt7 The whole com
nNiitt ki,ow TINT 5uricH woEe frequently made up
Of wicked and incompetent uiclt. aud tlliB bal
long bocn nastcr Of complaint tn tliia city.
Would 1t 10 contempt Of Court II & newspaper
wlllcl, learned Ut the bribery of juror wcro 10
puhlst, tho fact In Lis uewaparcr next mog1,ing7
Tho speaker thon read tho article entitlcd
p1snErUrADLE yEx0EANcE.H
VIII. regard to It lo l'elsl TINT thess *as not q
word Ill the whole article wlteh reflected upon
tho Official integrity Of tho Grand Jury. 1t
merely hold tl.nt tlloy had boou intucsd to
g,atify 1cyenge-that Boiuo person had procured
tham to gain revenge for tie Sunday nrticln.
II IL WAS ttEe that Hosno person did uso tho
strand Jury, for lbl. purpose. was It contempt
tu publish tho fact Il, q newspaper?
Tho ncxt article road hy tic speaker was that
on tho pardon of Cullen. With regard 10 It ho
nslcd Ii 1t was 4 contempt OF Court to pnbiiHl a
sent to Joliet? Tho speaker acknowledged tint
II waH very improper lhing to say, hut tho
question HrB whether 1t WIS d contempt Of Court
or not.
There WAS only ono arliclo moro worthy of
reading, several little articles not l,esug-
Tho Court would 10 vary much pleased IL
sou would 10 kind enough TO lcal
T1tt'sE LITTLE ARTICLES
Mr. Cloudy rend tho "littio artie1ea," Which l,o
characterized as not being clarscs against the
Gtaud Jury or nny of itB 1ucu1boss. There wnA
ols inainuatfon III thu article that tho majority OF
Tho Court-pon't you understand that tho
article insinunto8 TINT thoro aro btmn,ots* aud
me!c atrumpets on tho Grand Jury7 ~
Mr. 1lecl-Aild scalawaGs?
hfr. Goudy-1 do. but do not SEQ whore tho
contempt. Of Court comoa in. Il don't know
oxactly what malo Bt umpct ill., bnt, as all Horts
Of mcn got OH juries, haso no doubt that gotno
Of t.'at class do oecaslonaly seryc.
7imes IL disposed to regard" which. by
ncgatlop, charges tito dtand Jury with
Sundry misdctncanore, and said that
Of cuurRo there MAS nothing In the article roErct-
casln and meant exactly tho opposite Of wl,nt It
sad. buppoa.ug, for tllo purpose OF discussion,
That the allegations wcro true whore was tho COLI
tempt for publtehing 1t III Lilo newspaper? The
point OF tho nrttclo saB worry clear, that teso III
dicsncnts wero mal!ciously procured to be ro-
turned by Grand Jury to sccurc rovengo upon
tho etlisor TIE Court might 10 Of opinion tI,at
tho articles woro indccorous md liIoiluuB but
that Ind nothing to do viii. tho question bcforo
tho Court, which sl1ould renonbor that great
caution would lcqutro to bo exercised Lost great
or contempt might DO brought upou tlip law
than could bo dono in q newspaper article.
the fact that tito editor lcnicd tint ho had my
malicious iutont should lave duo ,soigut WITH
the Court in tnaking lia decision. With rognrl
to this rofnt. tho speakcr citbd from authorities
but sald that i,las.nuch ns tho nnEwcr was ne-
copted as true, thero waB noihlug to do hut to
se Ssse er @ a au a lo cor ei so 1
tiBn'Fts tho caHo and dIsclarGo tho r,lu, Accord
6g to tho law Of tho State, II was permitted to q
mai to publish defamntOry matter about a1,otlcr
80 long AZ Il WAS true and the publisher could
show that hls convictions and Intentions wore wore
honest Il, the matter and he was anbjoct TO pun
lHE1ncnt By TO law OF tho lnn1, and still loss 10
= summary punishment like TINT with which tho
defendant was threatoHel.
Tho sneaker inHiRted Tint It was not a eou-
tempt Of Court for INV citiZen TO criticise tho
qualifications Of tho 0rand Jury or OF tho work
which they Ind aceomplishod.
Mr. oouay said int eptfko1eS { aaoe ceor h him
tue power ot puniahlng for contcmpt Of Court
Lad its origin III the necessity OF Courts to 3D.
cnro themselves from interruptions, and continue
tLcir functions un0bHtructed. It WAS clearly 4
delegated subsequently to tho onlcers Of Kings.
lio know that tho pooplo woro jealous Of Tho
rights Of .ho proas, a,,tl Ct mnzzltng Us mouth
9s ~ regardod porsona holding public office In Tie
defend tho tante or propriety Of tho
articles publhhod. 1Loy wors not, In hs
opinion. written IN good taAis, But.
apart from a tlls tliaro wns nothing iu tbe arti.
cea to obsruct thu co,,rao Of juasico-op tho
contrary. two indictments wero found against |
tho editor after hayiug published tho wtitlncs |
complained OF. Therefore, 10 (sIr. Ooudyl ioll
that the publications ~oro not calculated ia hin
DER. enlbarrAss. or ubatruct tho course OF. Inv.
It this WAS. indeed, genuine case OF coutempt. |
lot 1t 10 tried according to the statute, lot there
20 jury tr!Al, as prayed for, and tlie,,, Il tho
1etondunt was fo'ltld guilty. let condign pl.nish-
mont he yiaited upon iliul.
THE STATES ATTonxEY
Foao to reply. aud 1t onoe took ias,s will Mr. |
eei.oudy W to tholower Of pnnls!ng for contompt,
sie road several extsacts from tho Noyisod
stas1scs Of Illinois. boar!n0 on tho lneHson of
Gourt Jurisdiction. Tho Criminal Court OF Cook
County, according to tile statutes reforred TO,
stood on an equal footing with tho Circuit Court,
ahdi IN It's own proper aphcEe, Ind tho HAElo