The morning call., 1891-01-25
CONTEMPT OF CoURT.

The ancient doctrine of contempt OF court
was appropriately champoned on FRIDAY Ds
ex-Judge Shafter, in speech before Lie
Senate Judiciary Committee III uoGS nv
aprear from the reports that Ihe '"I IL
threw any new light on the question:
directed his efforts to convince '"e -
mittee that the press was n pei ny 'Iosa
tuition which required 10 DE Rep, .'.iio;.,,,
r..+~oint lest il should bring the Juuci"IS
.L.'a''I,,on,nt Whatever he said 1t seems
Inv ,.,,,a carried conviction to the minds OF
49,, ,,o,rn,ittee. for they unanimously agreed
to renrrU unfavOrably the Assembly Dill
which denies the power Of Judge TO pun
ish contempt not committed IN opeE court.
twill strike the average citizen that this
is a retrograde step. In the country from
which we borrowed cur doctrine OF con-
tempts the tendency TO mitigate the severity
of the old common law III this matter Is very
marked. There has been no legislation on
the subject. but in our day Judges are very
careful how they invoke the doctrine ol con-
tempt If court. 1t is felt that the old rules
are superaunuatel. ana that the public inter-
est requires their relaxation. Blackstone
tnumerateS among c0ntempts winch are
punishable summarily, speaking or Will
ng cOntem ptuousy of the court or Judges
acting in their judicial capacity, prihtlhE
false accounts, or even true accounts Will
out proper permSsi Il. OF causes depending
in Judgment" Under this statement OF the
law the republication in a new spaper Of the
stenographer's report oil the evidence IN
case without the express permission OF the
Judge would constitute a contempt punish
able in the discretion of the Judge by fine or
Imprisonment or both. 1t goes without say
ing that public sentiment would not justify
any such proceeding i'll this State
He who searches the books for an eXpla-
nation Of the arbitrary power claimed by
Judges in contempt cases will fad an in
struct!ve sentence in Chief Justice Wilmot' 5
decision in a wcll-known case. He said;
The arrangement Of the justice Of The Judges is
aIraigning the Kings justice. II IS an imIeach-
ment Of his Wisdom aud goodness III the choice
uf his Judges. and CNclies IN the minds OF The
Ieoj le a general dissatisfaction with all Judicial
determinations and indisposes lheir minds 10
obey them. To be universally thought impartial
is essential 10 the proper discharge Of Judges
functions.
II is thus seen that the extreme latitude
which Judges have claimed for coutempts
rests on the doctrine Of the royal prerogative
and that they have demanded immunity
from criticism On the ground that the King
can do no wrong. In this State we have no
King, no prerogative and no doctrine of
royal infalHbiliy. If the Judges represent
every body it is the pe pie who elected them
ana it has never been held that it was wrong
to criticize the people, In this country
any one IS free 10 say what he will Of the
public The foundation on which Chief
Justice Nilmot rested his case is thus
knocked away, and the law OF contempt,
like other laws, must stand or fail on It's
intrinsic merits.
In order that the administration of jus
tee shall be orderly, and that Judges shall
command the respect which IS needed for
the conduct of judicial business, they must
be ciCJreu WIN power TO prevent uuseemly
behavior in urf, TO direct the course Of
proceeding in the Trial of a case, and to put
STOP to language or acts Which tend to de-
feat the course of justice. The weapon
which IS used to enforce this power is the
law OF contempt, and it is proper weapon
for the purpose. But to extend this power
so as TO make it reach those who may see fit
outside Of the court to criticize the be-
haviur, the learning, or even the motives OF
a Judge, is a usurpation which is wholly
without justification in the principles OF
modern law.
There is nothing in the position of
Judge which distinguishes him from other
men or gives him access to remedies which
no other citizen can invoke. If he is SIAN
dered. he has his remedy like other men,
hers of the community-no more, no less.
The temper of juries insures him ample
yjndication if he is entitled to any. For
him to claim special privileges which are
denied to his fellow-citizens is an indication
of weakness which tends to sap confidence
in the wisdom of the judiciary.
1t is to be hoped that the Senate will re-
verse the action of its committee, and set
bounds to the offense known as contempt of