The record-union., 1891-01-27
REVERSED IT'S ACTION.
The Senate judiciary Committee Re-
considers a Vote.
It VIII Recommend the Barry Con-
tempt Bill, But Has Clipped
Its Sting.

olCAiY ONlllS W itGOlsdSLSd ny blIS
Republican members on the Congress
sional apportionment bills. Mr.. Barry
and Mr.. Gator, of San Francisco, came to
the city by the $50 train, in order to adj
dress the committee. There were also
present Hon G. a. Blanchard, Hon.
Grove L. Johnson, ex-Judge Armstrong,
and others.
There was bare quorum Of the COM
mittee present-Messrs. SPrague, Hea-
cock, Goucher, Fraser, Frederick, Dray
and Seawell-the other members being
engaged in other committee meetings.
Mr.. Johnsonfwas the first to address
the committee in behalf of the bill The
latter provides; that the law of contempt
shall not apply To criticisms OF Judges and
courts when such criticisms are not made
in the presence Of the court. Mr.. Johnson
said that any amendment or modification
OF the contempt would be right aud
proper. Judges We're only men, after all.
and their acts, character and conduct
should be as open to criticism as those of
other men. Courts should be as open to
criticism rs legislative bodies. IF a Judge
violates his oath of Office, shoGld not the
newspapers criticise him? The contempt
law says this shall not be done. He
tailed to see why the law should make a
distinction between courts and legisla-
lures. The law Tow makes privileged
class of Judges-they can punish men for
contempt in doing that for which the
President of the United States has no re-
dress other than that accorded to ordinary
individuals. No honest Judge need fear
newspaper criticism, and no dishonest
Judge should have the shield of the con-
tempt law. There is really no such
thing as contempt Of court; the pres
ent law is only a form that has
come down to US from past generations
as expressing disobedience Of the order
of a court. Everyone should be allowed
SC criticise Judges freely, being response
be only under the law of libel. Disobe-
dielee of an order of court is quite an
other thing. The bill in question is a
step in the right direction, by taking
away frosa Judges OF courts the power TO
try and conS5ct men in cases from which
they have no Sppeal. There should be
and the bill before the committee was an
appeal in the interest OF right and justice
Is it right that, if newspaper editor
should charge Judge with being liar,
a perjurer, or a scoundrel, that Judge
should himself declare the editor guilty,
and himself infiict punishment upon
him? No one else can do thatcher men
have to rely upon the Judgment of courts
presided over by some one else.
When the courts of the land reach that
stage that they cannot be discussed
by the newspapers then the sooner they
are abolished the better. He (Johnson)
regarded the newspapers o. this State as
curse to the land, that should be sup
pressed. They are an injury to the peo-
pie. But others do not think so, and his
idea was to give them such liberty that
they would go so far i'll their wrong-do-
ing that it win reach and cause their de-
straction. Therefore give them free rein
1,,n IL h I. f.,1 4 ~
is in the right direction, because it recog-
niZes the constitutional right Of freedom
OF speech. There should also be the right
of appeal in contempt cases.
Mr.. Gator also spoke i'll support of the
bill. He, however, saw no relief III an
appeal from the Judgment of Il court
III 4 case Of contempt. The time would
come even when punishment for contempt
committed in the presence Of the court
viii not be couutenanced. He held that
the bill would not take away from courts
the rights they now have TO redress
wrongs resulting from the interference by
a newspaper with i case during its trial.
In his Judgment, however, the court
should not, even then, punish the news
paper editor for contempt, but should
grant the injured litigant a new trial.
Chairman Sprague next called upon
Judge Armstrong to express his views on
the bill. TWAS then II o'cock. The Judge
SttlNl IL NpNlO bt ipilIitl Iildt 1t ildti Deen
the uniform rule Of tie courts of the
country to punish persons for interfering
with their judgments. There is not the
power in the Legislature to take away
from courts their power to punish per-
sons guilty of attempts to influence
juries or Judges. That clause of the
Constitution which establishes the courts
of the land gives them the inherent right
to remove from their way all obstacles to
the administration of justice That is a
proposition which has been always sus-
tanned. While cause is pending and
undetermined, courts have, and should
have, the power to punish men for con-
tempt, and even constructive contempt
He had never known of an instance in
which a court punished any person for
criticisms upon either itself or the iury
after Il Judgment had been rendered. a
court is not merely the Judge on the
bench. 1t embraces not only the Judge,
but the jury, the officers, and even the
Grand jury, all these are required to
constitute the court. The bill
in question provides merely that
criticisms shall not be made in
the presence of the Court He
cited hypothetical cases to illustrate low
juries may be corrupted by newspapers
or persons outside the courts and no evil
dence thereof be obtained. Break down
the right of the Judiciary to protect itself
and the liberties Of the people would not
be worth Il snap of the finger. Independ-
ent courts are the bulwark of our liber-
ties. Even the Legislature has that
power to punish for contempt, and did 50
in the case of ID. Q. Mccarthy in 1865.
There is no law that directly gives tie
power-it is inherent inthe Legislature,
as ii is in the courts.
Judge Armstrong then cited several
Supreme Court decisions bearing on the
subject and which sustain the rights Of
courts to punish for contempt, both active
and constructive. There had been no
case in this State in which Judge had
punished any person for alleged con-
tempt committed after case had been
disposed of finally. But the vice OF the
bill which the Legislature is asked to
pass lies in the fact that il permits news
papers TO interfere in cases before they
are finally determined.
AT q quarter TO u o'clock Judge Arm
strong concluded his remarks, and was
followed by Mr.. Phiibrook Of San Fran
cisco, who spoke for nearly half an hour.
rehearsing many of the arguments made
by Messrs. Johnson, Barry and Gator.
On motion OF Mr.. Broderick, the vote
by which the committee had decided to
recommend that the bill do not pass was
reconsidered.
The committee then voted to amend the
bill by substituting the word .'or'' for
''and' IN the last line, so that the para
graph viii read:
But no speech, statement, or publication
rejecting upon or concerning any court, or
sany officer thereof, shall be treated or pun-
ished as q contempt of such court. unless
made in the immediate presence of such court
while in session o. in such manner as TO
actually interfere with its proceedings
As amended, the committee decided
to recommend the passage of the hin
But the change in the phraseology was
ANYTHING but satisfactory to Barry who