The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1891-01-22
THE LAW OF CONTEMPT.

We notice that bill has passed the as
sembly at Sacramento defining what shaH
constitute a contempt of court, Tor winch d
Judge may punish the offending party oui
report of the Legislative proceedings Say
After defining contempt OF couii 1T many N'''>
the act as passed declares; .,,to,,top re
"Rut m speeen, statement or puoHCA'lo" &c
an, mon or concerning any couII' OF any
- 17hnrcof shall b. treated or punished as
cnnlempt OF such court, unless made IN the I'M
mediate presence OF such court while In session,
and IN such manner as 10 actually interfere
with lis proceedings"
The enactment of such a law as that pro-
posed would place contempts of State courts
on an equality with those of the United
States courts. There is no good reason why
any more license should be given to Judge
of State court 10 punish what he may
c conceive TO be q contempt than there is for
Judge of a United States court. Both
classes Of courts should stand on an equality.
Mr.. Gould of MERGED is reported us being
ouispoken against the passage Of the bill:
On The ground. says the report. thar no
matter in what manner speeches, statements
or publications might interfere with the
proceedings of the courts the court is pow
etless 10 prevent or punish them. He said
he had no objection 10 unlimited criticism
and condemnation Of any decision or act
when CumUlefed, nut belltNGu me court SDuulu
nave power to protect Itself from insult and
actual interference during the trial of the case.
After trial is closed the evil which the
public have sometimes suffered in San Fran
cisco is past a remedy. Juries are i'm
properly manipulated or impaneled through
the connivance, sufferance or ignorance of
CORFU Judge. As the law las been in
terpreted in California Judge may use
this power to screen himself from Just CON-
ments-comments which would be for the
benefit of the public. There is an indefinite
| ness in the assumptions Of some Judges in
constituting contempt which would lead to
the suppression of almost any remarks eX-
cepL those of a fulSome or flattering nature.
| There is the law of libel which protects n
| Judge as well as other citizens to which A
resort may be had. OF course, in the pres-
ence of the court means should be provided
to punish disorderly or improper conduct.
Such power the United States Judges
have, and should the bill which has
passed the Assembly become a law State
Judges would also have. As the law
OF contempt has been in some instances de-
fined in California a man would be liable to
imprisonment for making remarks even in
a speech derogatory to the Judge, aud. no
! comments wonld be tolerated in a public
J"OIidl A' matter now imperative should be
the necessity for euljghtening the public as
! to what was Transporting while suit was
TRANSPORTING, which might be heightened into
weeks or months. With just Judges there
| has seldom been an abuse in the punish
ment of contempts, but with corrupt judges
the power has sometimes been used to cover
up misdeeds. THE CALI. believes it is in
the interest of good government that the
use OF contempts by State courts should be
Used -77a III n ~ in the United States courts