The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1884-07-08

be constitutional now "a to the Circuj
Courts, as under the principle before On
nounced II might be deemed a regulation
otttha power Of courts In their punish
ment Tor contempte, as 1t leaves power 4
, the Ctfcult Courts by indictments urde
their own supervision to punish construe
tive contenp,s OF the character We ar
considering. Whether such power, unde
the Code, Is sufficient Tor the protection 0
said courts We will not now determine
leaving that question to be decided whsr
We are required to do. 80. Neither Is /
} necessary to decide whether the LegislR
ture could limit the power OF this cour
to punish Tor constructive contempt, as 4
US 1t is evident Il has not intended to d.
30. We would not upon settled principles
decide an act Of the Legislature to be I'M
constitutional unless 1t were neceesary
The whole scope Of the statute shows ths,
1t was intended to apply 10 inferior courts
and not 10 the Supreme Court Of Appeals
The 2S:h section provides for the punish.
ment OF direct contempts without q Jury,
60 that the fine ehall not exceed $50 and
tue imprisonment more than ten days
but" It further provides, 1.-THE court may
IN any such case impanel jary with.
ont an indictment or any formal pleadings)
TO ascertsin the fine or Imprisonment
proper to be If fl;cted, and may give Judy.
ment according to tho verdict" This court
cannot impsnel jury. II has no ma.
chinery to carry out the requirements Of
the statute, and therefore ii Is clear to us
that the Legislature did not intend 1t to
apply to this couss. This court, then, has
the unrestricted power, uncontrolled end
unregulated by statute, 10 punish by fine
or imprisonment, CT both, direct and con.
strnctive contempts. n,
1s the publication complained Of here a
contempt Of this Court? It seems 10 IA
that the hooks do not furnish clearer con.
tempt It lisa contempt, because It charges
three Of the judges Of this court, acting in
their judicial capacity, with an otispss
which, II true, ia just grounds Of impeach.
ment, with an eEense calculated to degrade
the Court, and destroy all confidence Of the
people therein. II to charge three Of the
Judges Of this Court to have attended a po-
!ltical caucus and advised q certain action
by the CAUCUS, coupled with the promise to
the caucus made that as court they
would sustain that action, and then in pur-
suance OF that pledge, made to the caucus
more than year ago, the came Judges as
court were about to decide the case then
before them IS the caucus deeired, is not a
contempt, then 1t seems to US that nothing
would constitute contempt. II to charge
court, or a majority OF It, OF having pros.
tituted their high and sacred trust 10 base
political purposes, is not contempt, then
We may truly say that such thing does
not exist. The article on it's face SHOVE,
moreover, thst it was intended to influence
the decision OF the court in the cause to
| which reference is therein made, and v kich
was then pending, or to prevent the cour.
from deciding it at the present term.
That it had no such effect is not ma.
terisl, 60 far IS the contempt is concerned,
It first eaya, "The campaign is shaping
itself. 1t leaks out that the Supreme Court
OF Appeals is to be brought to the rescue
in decision affirming the unconstitution.
ality OF the exemption act, and declaring
the supplemental assessment order TO be
lawful and right. This ia, in effect, what
was promised by the three Supreme Court
Judges to the Democratic caucus before the
order was Issued" Again, "Three out Of
four judges OF the Supreme Court told the
Democratic CAUCUS more than O year ago
to go ahead and rely On the backing Of the
court" This is charge Of iniamy against
the court. But it is further charged that
the decision should be fastened by the
court against the interests OF one OF the
candidates. for nomination for Governor,
thus again charging the court OF using its
power for political purposes. Then comes
the clause the manifest intent Of which Was
to compel the court to decide sgainst i,s
convictions or not now decide at all, and
charging it with being capable Of deciding
case, not from its convictions, but asrey-
enuc or political desires might dictate. In
every aspect OF the case the publication ia
clearly contempt Of this court. = "a
Can such publication be pallisted or
excuaed2 Far be it from US to take away
the liberty Of the press or to the slightest
degree interfere with its rights. The good
OF society and OF government demands
that the largest liberty should be accorded
the prees, which ia power and an engine
OF great good. Bat the press itself will not
for moment tolerate euch liceniiousness
as is exhibited In said editorial. The press
is interested in the purity Of the courts,
and il it bad no respect for the judges on
the bench 1t shou Id respect the court, for
after the judges who now fiji the bench are
only remembered in the decisions they
have rendered, the court still remains; It
never dies; it is the peoples court, and the
press as the champion of the peoples
rights is interested in preserving the re-.
spect dueto the court. 9T1'Fi
Have the defendants purged themselves
Of tho contempt? The. defendant Frew
dirclaims Acknowledge Of the tendency Of
the auit or that the article was published
until no read 1t in the paper. We think
be cannot be entirely acquitted, but that
be should suffer slight punishment. He
should not allow the paper (Which he Is the
publisher to indulge In such libelous edi-
toriala. The defendant Hart stands on dit.
terent ground. His answer Is great 90.
gravation Of his contempt. He does not
express the slightest regret for his act, nor
does he exhibit particle OF regard fer
good order or indicate in any degree ap.
probation OF those great principles that lie
at the foundation Of good government, By
his answer he seems to regard the highest
court OF the State as proper subject OF
AlOC1 PAONluCA 40 SuA w ouIA llUclUub pug
LEGATIONS gain a political advantage. He
aeems 10 forget that it is the court OF the
whole people, and can only have their re.
spect rs long rs it holds their
confidence. So lar from expressing any re.
greet, he attempts to justify himself by an.
other publication, in another paper, which
publication, he said, led him to believe the
charge was true, and he felt it hia duty to
publish 1t. And he says If this article was
libelous, 30 Was that; and further, that one
Of the judges Of this court was an Intimate
friend Of the editor Of the other paper, liv.
ing N the came town, and the court had
not denied tho truth OF that statement.
The court had not denied IL? The court
does not deny any charge made in the pa.
pers in reference 10 it. Itcan only deny a
libeloua charge in one way, and that it has
done in this case in the only way 1t ever
denies ouch charge. Besides, it is very
apparent that this article published on the
18th Of June is very different from that
,.,lsnk, Ia ho ~ hnn,, AL