The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1879-02-01
THE CONTEMPT CASE.

l oil the llAWallAO Ju-ftte was Oh A4Jlh4AT Jug ~
before the Judges Of the Supreme Court on q
charge Of contempt. The proceedings have
attacted considerable attention, and we give an
account in full. We believe however that
public opinion will settle down to the conclusion
that the whole affair is tame. The editor was
undoubtedly in contempt. lie declares that he
did not mean to be 80, and the Court lets him
oil with 4 reprimand. The only appreciable
result as il! Mog9gldt RGsR Is thRts fap tRsiSRRgiffeAhaa!s
suddenly been lifted into notoriety and now
assumes the role Of 4 martyr.
The " liberty Of the press is a very important
principle, and one that is extremely dear to
every man claiming English or American origin.
But the abuse Of liberty becomes license, and
the very worst Of tyranny Is the result, dangerous
to the rights Of life and liberty themselves.
Let us not be understood as d~isclaiming the
right Of the press to fairly c~riticise the acts Of
the Judiciary, as well as those Of the Executive
and Legislative Departments of government.
We shall insist upon that right, and freely
exercise it on all proper occasions remembering,
however, that while the Constitution Of the
country asserts that 81 all men may freely speak,
write and publish their sentiments on all
subjects, - it also in the SAM clause declares
that they shall be held responsible for the abuse
OF that right.
On the coming in Of the Court ON Monday,
9th ult., Mr.. Mcdowell was called upon, in
accordance with the rule served upon him, to
show cause why he should not be ~adjudged guilty
Of contempt for having published on January
22nd an editorial article in the newspaper called
The HaIgaiiaE Gazette, of which he is editor and
publisher. a copy of which, was attached to the
rule served upon him.
Mr.. MacDowell said that it was a matter Of
importance to himself, and, as he thought, to the
public, that the service had been made upon
him only on Friday evening, and he had not had
time to prepare himself to answer, and asked for
further time.
The Chief Justice said, that the Court was
disposed to give him time, and that on coming
in again, be would be expected to answer the
following points;
You say in this article, that the unexpected and
somewhat sudden change which came over their
hOnOrs, the Chancellor of the Kingdom and his
Associates, on the construction put upon the
laws for the punishment of smuggling opium,
has taken everybody by surprise, and has occa-
sIbned no small amount of comment
And again, you say, " But how strange it is
that the magistrates, and even the learned
Judges of the Supreme Court, should have over
looked this matter for so long +" .
You will be desired to show, on what occasion,
if any, a person has been presented before the
Chancellor, or when the question on the con-
structiOn of these Statutes has been brought be-
fore this Court, since the passage of the Act of
1874 and, If no case has been presented or the
question on the construction of the Statute has
not been raised, now is it that you inform the
public that Al change has come over the Chancel-
Tor and his Associates, or that the Judges of this
Court have overlooked the matter?
Again; you state that = In other words, there
is no such thing as satisfying the law for the
above offence, except by Imprisonment at hard
labor"
By reading the last line of the first section of
the act, you will find, that a person convicted of
this ofense must be sentenced to imprisonment
with or without hard labor at the discretion of
the Court. You will be desired, therefore, to
point out what sentence you may find in the
opinion delivered by the Court which justifes
you in telling the public, that . there is no such
thing as satisfying the law, except by imprison-
ment at hard labor"
Again, you say that this q strange discovery
REMINDS you OF Il case OF 4 pennsylvania Judge.
Discovery is the act Of disclosing to view or
bringing to light or finding out something hidden.
Now, is it strange, that this Court should dis
close to view any statute, much less, one only
made four years ago and in telling your story
about the Pennsylvania Judge, you say that he
was very harsh in his charge to the Jury, and
bore down with unusual severity on the delen-
dants, and finally sentenced them under 4 statute
which had been repealed two years before that
a writ Of error was taken out to the Supreme
Court, and that the Chief Justice of that Court
handled Judge Parsons with merited severity
and the press took the matter up so earnestly,
that the Judge was compelled to resign. You
allude to one writer on the subject as having
changed the said Judge with vindictiveness and
turning to the mistakes he made whilst Judge,
hands and characterized it thus
He wires in and wires out,
Leaving the people still in doubt.
Whether the snake that made the track
Is going South or coming back
1t is hoped that at your hearing. you will an
swer the following points
Has this Court charged any Jury in this case
Has it borne with any severity or even commented
on the defendant in this case at all Has the
Statute under which the inferior Courts have
been directed to proceed, been repealed?
If you must answer {" no to each one Of
these interogatiOns, where is the parallel of yOnr
case?
If your illustration has any meaning at all,
has 1t any other meaning than to charge this
Court with /" vindictiveness' in the Judgment
alluded to, and to inform the people by a ridicu-
I,nz oUOfation that the decisions of this CDurt