Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-12-17
THE BOYCOTT CASE.
THE BEE" OWNERS ADJUDGED NOT
GUILTY OF CONTEMPT.
Judge Buckles Was Not Satisfied Beyond
Reasonable Doubt-The De-
cision in Full.

The decision of Judge Buckles in the
matter of V. S. and c. X. McCIatchy,
charged with contempt of Court in having
published certain affidavits pending the
decision in the boycott case, has been
received.
The defendants are declared not guilty of
contempt and are discharged. Following
is the decision:
The plaintiffs are the publishers of the Sacra-
mento Euentng Bee. The compositors on the
Bee were members of the Typogra phical Union,
and disagreement having arisen between the
compositors, members OF the Union, and the
plaintiffs as 10 the management OF the printing
of the paper, etc, the plaintiffs maintaining
they would manage the matter 10 suit them
selves while The typographical Union insisted
that the printing and composing must be done
under the rules OF the Union, wnereuron the
compositors of the Bee, or scme or them, struck.
and at once commenced, with the aid of certain
members of the Federated Trades and the de-
PENDANTS, a system of boycott against the Bee
Suit was instituted against the defendants for
damages and 10 have them enjoined from
further prosecuting the boycott.
The suit commenced the defendants were
cited to show cause why an injunction should
not issue, and during the progress of the hear
ing the Court issued a temporary restraining
order. The question whether a Temporary in
junction should issue was taken under advise
ment by the Court The issuing of this tempo
rary Injunction depended upon the sufficiency
OF the facts stated in the complaint and this
was the only issue at the hearing and the only
matter the Court had under advisement and to
consider in determining whether a temporary
injunction should ISSUE The matter was sub
United, alter lengthy argument, on November
., 1880: On November u, 1890, and while the
Court had the matter under ADJUSTMENT, the
plaintiffs published in the Bee of that date GER
tain efhdavits relating to The controversy be-
tween the Bee and the boycotters, purporting to
give the history thereof and the facts surround
IA hnt maj h a-I ~
ton with certain comments OF which the fol.
lowing are the most important:
The Facts of the Boycott Curious Reading
Tor American Citizens-A Populous City Threat
ened by Boycotters-'We win Stop the Bees
Circulation or Strangle Trade'-A Washer
woman's Livelihood Attac ed-Shall Such
Home of the Brave?'
Such were the headlines printed in large
type Then follows the preamble: THE strike
ordered by the Typographical Union in the Bee
Office on October 1ith, and the boycott follow.
ing 1t, which has been taken part in by the
Federated Trades, culmin ated in the case to
test the legality of the boycott brought by the
Bee before Judge Armstrong, and submitted
after argument on Monday last The Court had
directed plaintiffs, the pTopTietors of the Bee,
to have number of afidavitS establishing the
truth OF their complaint, together with oral tes-
tlmony, in case 1t should tie admitted. The
athdavits, however, became unnecessary in the
preliminary hearing for an Injunction, as the
decision Will rest entirely on the points of law
For the information of the public the Bee prints
little of the inside history of the boycott,
principally in the form of affidayits There are
nearly hundred witnesses whom the Bee was
prepared to call to the stand, and whose oral
testimony would have been even more instruc-
i've i've tnah snythlng given, but these viii give
falr idea OF the methods resorted to By the boy
cotters, and possibly indicate the terrible re-
suits should such System of enforcing de-
mands be recognized and its use become gen
eral." Review of Facts"
The affidgvits which were published follow
ing the above comments were made by one of
Tue plalnuHs ana others, and were no doubt
made as strong against the defendants as tie
facts within the knowledge of the atlantis would
warrant Seven days thereafter, to wit No
Vemoer 18TH, Judge Armstrong rendered his
opinion in favor of the temporary Injunction
and ordered the same to issue
1t is claimed thatthe plaintiffs made this pub
ncation with the willful, corrupt and unlawful
design, unlawfully to interfere with the process
OF Court and for the purpose of influencing the
decision OF the Court IL the matter then under
adylsement, and were therefore in contempt of
Court. This proceeding is on rule to show
cause why the publishers, the plaintiffs should
not be punished for such contempt. The hear
TO show cause was issued and the affidayits of
respondents in answer TO the order
The respondents allege in their affidavit that
they made the publication without any yillful
corrupt or unlawful motive or design, or for The
purpose or intent OF unlawfully, or at all inter
fering with the process of the Court or for the
f1-rpose of influencing the decision of the Court
IN any way.
Whether all contempt proceedings are to be
treated as criminal trial or proeeeding-and
this seems to be the doctrine laid down in ex
parte Crittenden, 60 Cal, 534, where il is said
Contempt of Court is a specific criminal
ohense, approved in Tyler VS.. Connolly, 65
Cal. so and 81, and again in re Buckley So CAL
S-there can be no question but that the CON
tempt complained of here is criminal in its
nature.
The publication is admitted, and If published
for the purpose of influencing the decision OF
the Court in the matter submitted TO it. or if the
publication can properly be said to have
tendency 10 Go that, then the act is not only
criminal, but its purpose being to faint the de-
cision of the Court with suspicion, would tend
TO destroy judicial confidence and is most
heinous. 1t is of the highest importance that
the Judge on the bench, to whose keeping to
some extent at least, is confided the property
and the liberties of the people, should be pro-
tected and preserved, not only IRON all i'm
proper influences, but even from the suspicion
of such influence.
have not had the time nor opportunity to
examine all the authorities cited but have pur-
sued the investigation far enough, think to
arrive at the law in the case. in relation to
newspaper publications, the authorities seem to
establish the rule that where publication is
made during the tendency of suit which re-
meets on the Court, the parties to the suit, the
witnesses, counsel or other officers of the Court
which tends to prejudice the Court in its decis-
ION, or the public against the due and proper
administrator of justice in said action, is a
contempt of Court.
II is urged that the publication here com
planned of is contempt because an unlawful
and Illegal interference with the process and
proceedings OF said Court, and was an unlawful
ana illegal attempt, improperly and corruptiy,
TO influence the decision of the Court upon said
matter, so submitted to it.
1t is true, think, Court may punish for con-
tempt any act which may be shown to ne d con-
tempt on the hearing to show cause, although
not appearing in the alidayito or which the o!der
to show cause is issued; But apprehend some
evidence must be produced more than q mere
suggestion, and that the evidence must be suf
fcient to establish such contemptuous matter
beyond q reasonable doubt. 1t is possible the
ni1lliPatlpn here Of nv ba emf
hcient 70 or may tend TO prejudice the public
sgainst the defendants in the ultimate result OF
the suit which is yet to be tried; and if SO would
be contempt for which the publishers should
be punished by this Court. For no newspaper,
when 1t is party, even with the large liberty
guaranteed the press by the Constitution and
laws OF the nation and of our own State should
be permitted, by its publication of sworn state
ments OF its side of the controversy. while the
cause is pending, TO prejudice the minds of the
people against lts adversary and thereby pre-
vent due administraio ion of justice therein
But such is not the issue here. The only issue
presented and submitted and therefore the only
question to be considered and determined is
bid the publication have a tendency to in
fuence the decision of Judge Armstrong ia the
matter then being considered by him? That is,
whether or not the complaint stated facts sufh.
cient TO warrant temporary injunc ion issuing
in the suit pending-not that the Judge may or
may not have read the publication or that he
was influenced by It. nor that it tended to preiu-
dice the public mind against the defendant.
AS stated above, this is q criminal proceed
criminal eases-that is that the guilt of the de-
PENDANT must be proven beyond reasonable
doubt before conviction can be had-must
prevail here. Then, taking the matter as il
stood at the time OF the Observation-Disclosures
12th-we find the injunction matter had been
heard and submitted alone on the facts stated
in the complaint admitted (by force of the
pleadings) to be true, and that a restraining
order had issued.
The complaint alleges the cause of the trouble,
sets out generally the acts of the defendants in
their Boycott against the Bee alleges the intimi-
dation of non Union men, threats against those
who should enter the employ of the plaintiffs.
and that the defendants Systematically and
rersistently and maliciously visited a great
number of the patrons of the Bee, both the
subscribers and the advertisers, and by threats,
intimidation and inducements sought TO per-
susde and induce such patrons TO discontinue
their subscriptions TO ana advertisements in the
Bee; alleges the injury q ready done to the
business OF the plaintiffs, and tina. TO follow If
the boycott is allowed to continue All this il
must be borne in mind, was taken as true and
thousand afhdayits could not have made it
more true.
The athdayits published set out in detail the
names OF persons and firms approached by de-
PENDANTS and gave 8 more minute detail of the
acts admitted 10 be true. With the exception.
possibly, that the affidavit of v 6 McClatchy
oil hot efAarz Fr