Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1884-07-08

case, a SANDER suit would be in the other.
SUCH SUGGESTION IS DISGUSTING
to man of honor. 1t will be sorry day
when the practice shall obtain, BY Judges Of
the court of last resort, whe hold in their
hands the dearest interests OF the people, and
who in their judicial capacity are grossly
libeled, to leave their high positions and go
before Jury in libel suit, be subjected to
the coarse criticisms of defendants coun-
sci, and if tley succeeded in their suit,
| have it cast in their teeth
that they we're influenced by sordid
motives Who would have any respect for
a Judge who would do such thing
Would he not, under such circumstances,
deserve the contempt of every good citizen?
Besides, what right would he have individ-
ually TO recover damages for wrong COM
m tied against him in his judicial capacity
for an il iur; done the people in his person?
In such es the individual must always
be separated from the judge. The court
has no right 10 punish as for contempt one
who libels an individual who happens to
be the judge; but ii IS
CONTEMPT OF The COURT
that the court alone can punish as such.
Scarcely less repulsive to all sense OF
judicial dignity is the suggestion that the
Judge should play the role Of prosecuting
witness in the trial Of an indictment for
libel.
II that day shall ever come when such
shall be the only protection left to courts of
| Justice against publications affecting their
| judicial integrity, none but the base and
vicious can be expected to occupy Judicial
position.
We are we'll aware that the trust repoSed
in us to protect the peoples courts from
degradation is delicate, as we'll as sacred.
The power claimed, it is said, is arbitrary
and liable to abuse. That is no reason why
the power should not exist and be repoSed
somewhere And the few cases in which 1t
has been exercised in century shows 1t is
not unsafe in the hands of the courts. 1t
is well established by the authorities that
the power is inherent in courts of justice to
summarily punish constructive as we'll as
direct .contempts And in this country,
where the courts are, in the division OF
powers by the constitutions Of the several
! States, constituted
\ SEfAkA1E AM us lNNI 'E.tAN 'h'--'A
Of government, clothed with jurisdiction
and not expressly limited by the constitu
ton in their power to punish contemptS the
inherent power that is thus necessarily
granted them cannot be taken away by tte
legislative department of the government.
Courts will tolerate the regulation Of the
power so that the legislature dos
not by such regulation substantially destroy
the efficiency of the coJrt. 1t must have
Just enough power ana will exercise II for
its own protection, and it wants AMI d
mandS no more. And Of the question
whether the court has left it sufficient for It's
protection, the court which is called to eNer-
els. it must be the sole Judge, unless lis
Judgment may he reviewed, and in tina
case the court of last resort would be the ey-
elusive Judge This is no dispositions on the
courts to desire
AN EXERCISE OF THIS POWER
and it will not be exercised unless there is a
necessity for it. When Judge remembers
that he has no right in this manner to
avengs his individual wrongs but only an
injury to the court, the peoples court, 1t be-
comes a matter of stern and inteXibIe duty,
from the performance of which under his
official oath, he does not shrink, to use the
power when the public good requires it.
For he well knows that as the ermine was
srotless when he put it on, the people ex-
pct him to leave it as untarniShel for his
| successor.
An examination of the constitution OF Nir-
GINA from her colonialperiod will show that
no time up to 1881 when the present chap
ter l4T Of the Code was substantially as now
first enacted. the inferior courts Of Virginia
were not constitutional courts but the crea-
ture of the legislature, and Of course bthe
legislature could control their jurisdiction
or entirely take it away Since then all the
courts of record have become constitution!
courts and whether said act is now cOnSi-
tutioual as applied to them is not nov de.
cidcd as the question is not now before us.
1t may or may not be that they are Suai-
cienty protected. 1t is not necessary to de
eide whether said act as applied to this
court is constitutional, as it is clear to us
that it does not nor was it ever intended to
apply to the Supreme Court Of Appeals.
The whole scope of
THg STATUTE CLEARLY SHOWS
this. 1t provides in cases of direct contemptS
for impaneling Jury. This court has no
Jury. 1t has not the machinery for carrying
out the requirements Of the statute. 1t does
not apply to this court, and the Supreme
Court as to contempts is clothed with
the power that exists at common law.
Is the publication OF complained of con-
tempt Of this court?
1t seems TO us the books do not furnish a
clearer contempt.
LISA contempt because it charges three
of the Judges OF this court, acting in their
judicial capacity, with an Oftense which il
true, is lust ground oG Impeachment. With
an offease calculated to degrade the court
and destroy all confidence of the people
tlerein If to charge court or ma orIty
oft, with prostituting lis high and sacred
trust TO base political purposes is not con
tempt, then we may.look in vain for con-
tempt
THE ARTICLE on ITS FACE
shows that it was intended to influence the
decision of the court in the cause to which ref
erence is therein made and which was then
pending, or to prevent the court from decid
ing il at the present term. That it hal nc
such effect is not material so far as the con
tempt is concerned. 1t first says, The
campaign is shaping itself 1t leaks Dat that
the Supreme Court Of Appeals is to be
brought to the rescue in decision Affirming
the unconstitutionality Of the exemption
act, and declaring the supplemental assess
ment order to be lawful and right. This is in
efec, what was promised By the three Su,
preme Court judges to the Democratic eau
Gus belo1e the order has issued Again
THEE out Of four Judges of the Supreme
Court tod the Democratic caucus more
than year ago, to go ahead and rely or
the backing Of the Court. This is charge
Of ;utamy against the Court. Then comes
The clause the manifest intent Of which
was
TO COMPEL THE COURT
TO decide against It's supposed convictions
or not decide now at all, and charging il
with being capable Of deciding cause not
from its convictions. but as convenience OF
political desires might dictate 1t says
"Of course it was not intended that the pur
| r,neo cr tlo T,vr. CLa,ll no r,oIa puhl;r