Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-08-04
COURTS AND REPORTERS IN CONTEMPT.


Sullivan's court. How it is that Court
of the State is limited in its jurisdiction
where a newspaper reporter commits a
contempt of court, is not made by any
means clear. The Bulletin hits the nail on
the head when it says that the willful re-
ceiver of stolen goods is as guilty as the
thief The Examiner insists that the Court
has jurisdiction only of the persons in the
case on trial that it is not privileged to
inquire how newspaper reporters obtain
their news, because that inquiry could
throw no light whatever on the divorce
case" This is as lucid as darkness. The
premise is an unsupportable assertion, the
reason offered in support is dogmatic. Evil
IDENTIFY the law knowledge of the Examiner
is the thinnest sort of Cruel. 1t ought to
answer, if it can, this question, Under
our laws and system of government, how
does the relation of a man to a newspaper
exempt him from the pains and penalties
that may be visited by Court of the coun-
try upon citizen not related to a news
paper"
The simple statement of the case is this.
4 Court of the State forbade publicity to
be made of certain scandalous testimony
given in a case on trial. The San Fran
cisco Examiner, knowing this to be the
order of the Court, by surreptitious means
obtained, and in contempt of the order Of
the Court published the prohibited matter
The Court thereupon cited the reporter
who wrote and furnished the article to the
paper, to show cause why he should not be
punished for contempt. Upon which the
reporters paper entered the plea for its
employee that he is newspaper man."
and not answerable within the jurisdiction
of the Court for that reason, and the fur
ther one, because the inquiry into the mat
ter of contempt would throw no light
upon the case on trial. But the Court de-
MED the excuse and punished the man.
The hollOwness of the defense is shown
by the statement that matter of contempt
of Court need have no immediate relation
to a case on hand. 1t is settled principle
that in contempt proceedings the act of
guilt need not be material to the case; it
need have no relation whatever to the is
sue. 1t is side-bar question, a mere in
cidental matter, and one that relates solely
to the maintenance of the dignity of the
Court and respect for its high office and
its DEGREES. This is settled law, behind
which and beyond which it is not possible
to go. -
We look upon the Examiner case as one
of no mean Importance, for if the Courts
cannot maintain their position against the
novel plea of the paper, then they have no
power to punish any one for contempt Of
Court who is not Immediately related to a
case pending, and this involves very seri-
ously the character, integrity and useful
ness of our Courts, which must be sus-
tanned, and their Judicial character de-
Tended, as necessary to the due enforcement
of the laws.
But even if we accept the plea of the
Eramiaey, it is insufficient, for the reason
that when its reporter was called as a wit
ness in the case for the purpose of discover
ing who in or out of the case, had con-
temptuously treated Court order properly
made in the case, he became party to the
proceedings the legitimacy of which is
not questioned Therefore, when he add
mitted that he knew the source from
which his information was derived, knew
who had violated the order, and refused to
disclose that knowledge to the Court on
the plea that his word of honor was
pledged not to reveal his informant, he be-
came eontumacious witness, and the
Court had power, and properly exercised
it, to punish him for contempt From the
logic of this view of the case there ap-
pears to be no possible escape
Since the foregoing was put in type,
Judge Mcguire, to whom the Eraminer re-
porter appealed on writ of habeas corpus,
has remanded the prisoner. The Judge
afirms in strong language the power of the
Court to punish any one for contempt who
is guilty Of it, whether related to a case on
trial or not. lie holds, and he could not
hold otherwise under the law, that the
Court had exclusive jurisdiction to deter
mine whether or not the matter sought to
be elected by the question was pertinent,
relative and material to the issues which
were then being tried before him, and
adds:
am entirely satisfied that if. in the course of
trial, the Court finds that its lawful orders are
being violated. and that a wholesome provision
ofthe law is being nullified by the misconduct
of parties or the treachery of counsel it has a
right and is bound by duty to institute search
ing investigation, not only for the purpose of
placing the blame where il belongs, but for the
further purpose of maintaining the legal rights
of the parties and the public in the case on trial
The law gives to the parties and the public Il
| right to have such cases tried with closed doors
and such proceedings and testimony as may be
necessary TO enable the Court TO enforce that
legal right, in substance as well as in FORM are
as clearly part of the case as is the testimony
taken upon any issue raised by the pleadings
WHEN leader of the dominant party
in the State Senate eonfesses, from his place
in the chamber, that his vision was failing
him on the irrigation question, and that he
began to think the only way out was by
the States exercise of the right of eminent
domain, he expressed the involvment of
thought that has been experienced by all