Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-07-29
JUDICIAL TYRANNY.

The case of Mrs. Ida Pierce, who has just
been liberated by the Wisconsin supreme
court from the La Crosse jail after an i'm
prisonment of nearly eight months for con-
tempt of court, is one of peculiar hardship,
and will have tendency to direct attention
to the dangerous and despotic power that re-
sides in our courts. Mrs. Pierce was di-
vorced from her husband some time ago, and
ordered by the court to relinquish custody of
her child This sheclaims she was unable
perhaps she was unwilling do, whereupon
she was committed to the county jail for con-
tempt of court, and although her counsel
made every effort tie have her released, the
Judge refused to liberate her. It was only
after her case had been taken to the supreme
court that she has finally regained her
liberty.
In view of the fact that the constitution
of the United States provides that no person
shall be deprived of liberty without due pro-
cess of law, this recital of facts will read
strangely. Here was a woman who had
committed no crime, and yet she was arbi-
luIO plloOu dA0 SOAl414CSA GAAC4C 4OA
eight weary months, and might have been
imprisoned during her natural life if the SUI
preme court had not come to her rescue.
And any person is liable to suffer the same
outrage who may be unable to obey the man
date of court. A judge who may fancy
that his dignity has been infringed has alb
solute and despotic power to imprison for
contempt, and there is no law which limits
the duration of such imprisonment. It rests
only upon the pleasure of the judge.
Contempt of court is misdemeanor that
is not very clearly defined by the statutes.
Each judge is practically the judge of what
constitutes the offense. 1t has been con-
strued to cover only contempt in the presence
of or during the sittings of the court, while
other jurists have held to broader defni-
ton, insisting that criticisms of the decis-
ions of the court, either verbal or printed,
constitute contempt. There is no definition
that has been generally accepted as author
ity, and in the absence of any definition any
person is liable to be innocently guilty of
the so-called offense. II he shall be unable
OF unwilling to purge himself, he is liable to
remain in jail during his whole life, OF DUR
ing the pleasure of t.le judge. And any jul
dicial tyrant who may entertain a private
grudge against any person may consign Linn
to prison from which, if the victim be
friendless and moneyless, there can be no
release. It is surprising that this extraordin-
airy, unconstitutional, wholly despotic pow
er should have been tolerated in country
which boasts its freedom. 1t is greater
power than can be exercised by the ruler OF
any civilized nation on the globe. It is a
standing menace to the liberty of every citi-
zen. 1t gives to an overbearing or corrupt
judges dangerous power, capable of being
used to the great detriment of society and to
the injury of the commonwealth. It should
not be allowed to exist for moment. While
it is undoubtedly necessary that courts
should possess the power to protect theil
! dignity, that power should be clearly defined
and it's limits prescribed, SO that the rights
of citizens need not be in danger of being
trampled upon by the judiciary. The posi-
bility of the exercise of such tyrannical power
is much to be deplored, and is of itself 8
sufficient reason for it's abolition.