The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1891-08-11

concocted and which he hoped would nave
an influence. The court PASSED oy tne
publisher and turned it's attention 70 ths
offending sutton. A revisw Of authorities
shows clearly that a sutton Ia held 20 y
s~trister accountability for his conduct thar
parties in 40 way connected with the iiti-
CATION.
ut is not to be understood that this court
approves the propriets OF pueiishing com
ments of the nature contained in the xrti-
ole in question. We are passing upon a
question of law, as between the rights OF q
citizen and the power of the court to sum-
marily imprison upon acharge OF contempt.
1t is from this point of view that
VIC are considering the publication and the
proposition to punish therefor. The article
in question contains expressions concsrn-
ing y state OF influence and feeling. As be-
fore observed the object and power to pun
ish by process of contempt IL to enforce
obedience and respect to the authority OF
the court. For this purpose the powe Is
given, and TO this purpose the power is Inn
tied. 1t is not to enforcs sentimental re-
spect; that must be gained by other means,
and will How un~grudgingly from all gensr-
GUS II law-abiding people to that court
where law and justice is administered WITH
able, fearless and impartial fidelity. The
power to punish for contempt being given
to preserve proper order within the pre-
oincts of the court; to silence and remove
those distu bing elements which Interfere
with or interrupt the due and orderly pro-
gress of judicial business; to discern and
punish isobe dienc or resistance of the law
full authority OF tho court; we scan the acts
charged and admitted in the case at bar, to
SEQ wherein they run counter to this author
ity of the court. 1t ia clear that the pub
LEGATION of the views expressed as to bias IN
no way interrupts the orderly progress OF
tho said court in its adiudications; at least
no such effect has been suggested, and it
1nnp y,At u,,Y,ppr i ~ tina nAtnra nf thu NRm-
inents. TIT authority of the court Is
bowed to with unhesitating submission,
even by the party bold enough to publish
the in question. Sometimes
courts have interposed to prevent publica-
ton of matter in reference to the merits of
cases pending, and which seem to have a
prejudicial influence theraon. But IN the
case at bar nothing was said in relation to
the merits of the case, or the lltl2ants,
tending to prejudice. We do not under
stand that the suggestion. that the judge OF
u certain court, or the people OF q certain
case in litigation, would
make them biased or more biased. Concsd-
ing that would be near conceding the
charge of bias already. If the assertion
there is bias. subjects to punishment
for contempt, then how would those who
make application for a change of venue, on
ground, and those who asserted bias
and the facts which support the assertion,
Such is not the law. because that
character of assertion does not interfere
the authority of the court. 1t follows
then that this character Of assertion stands
in that broad field covered by constitution
al sanction of the freedom of speech and
press. What was the purpose OF this con
granting? Was it to grant free
dom to ordinary speech and publication
could excite the resentment OF no
one? If that was the purpose, b it would
be as nsedful to put into the constitution a
that people may freely
the streets. quietly and
peaceably. The history OF the struggle
supremacy of certain principles and
ideas, shows the purpose of the law. when
such principles or ideas are clothed with
toat force and dignity, and inscribed upon
constitution or statute. And 80 the history
of the struggle for the establishment of the
principle OF the freedom of speech and
press, shows that it was not ordinary talk
and publication. which was to be olsen
from censorship, suppression and
punishment. It was In a large degree a
species of talk and publication which had
been found distasteful to governmental
powers and agencies. The people of this
state did not omit that guaranty of free
dom of speech and publication from their
constitutions; and the ordinary RESPONSE
bility attached to the misuse thereof. (Act
3, section 10Y. 1t ID ordered that the pris-
oner be discharged."
Thompson Campbell, who appeared for
Judge Mediation also raised the question be-
fore the supreme court that it had no juris-
to bring up for review the pro-
ceedings of the lower court. This question
was rot sustained by the supreme court.
The opinion is by Associate Justice Har-
wood, the other members of the court con-
,u rripu |