Daily Yellowstone journal. [volume] (Miles City, Mont.) 1882-1893, 1891-08-12
NOT IN CONTEMPT.
The Supreme Court Decioes that
Editor MacKnight was
Innocent.
And JudgeMc HattonO Overstepped
his Authority in Imprison-
ing him.
Information Tor Judge Mediation.

Information for Judge Mediation.
HELENA, Aug 1O.-Judge HarwOOd,
of the supreme conrt. sent down de-
cisiOn this morning in the habeas cor
pus case of James A. MacKnignt.
The facts in the case are too well
known TO require repetition at this
time. In substance, IL appears that in
the issue of July Z, 1891, the Journal
published an article said to be the sub
stance Of the interview with IAN oil
Montanian" referring TO the Davis
will case and Of which Judge John J.
Mediation, of the Butte court, took
such offense that he ordered contempt
proceedings sgainst MacKnight.
When the case came before Judge
Mediation, MacKnight admitted that
he wrote and published the article,
but denied that il was intended as an
act Of contempt against this court.
In the proceedings, MacKnight re-
fused to reveal the name of the party
who had made the statement pub
lished, whereupon the court sdjudged
him guilty Of contempt for not stat
ing the name and refused to pass dpon
the originsl charge Of contempt or to
hear counsel for prisoner upon the
question IS to whether IN law any
contempt had been committed and
ordered the prisoner committed TO
Jail.
The case then went before the SUI
preme court on a writ of hsbess cor
pus.
The court finds that the jurisdic-
tiOnal question raised by counsel who
appeared in the court Glow as amicus
curiae in the ! roceedings, Is not sus-
tanned.
Returning TO the consideration Of
the merits of the proceeding under
review; the court says: we find coun.
eel for the prisoner challenging the
legality Of the imprisonment by two
propositions
First. That H. a contempt was COM
mitted by such publica ion a. charg-
ed, then the contempt was committed
by that act, aud relavant inquiry
ceased when it was EscertainCd who
was the suthor and publisher; that
the prisoner admitted the writing and
publishing Of the comments as eharg-
ed, and any inquiry beyond that was
Irrelevant and illegal; that refusal 10
answer such Irrelevant questions was
legal right Of n witness, and commit-
, ment for such refusal was unlawful.
Secondly, that in the main proceed
ings the matter charged. to-wii: the
writing and publishing of the matter
set forth, did not in law amount to q
contempt Of court and therefore the
court was proceeding without juris-
diction, .and all questions pertaining
70 the matter. in such proceedings
were Irrelevant and unauthorized,
and the witness had q legal right 70
respectfully decline TO answer any OIL
all questions In = case where the court
was houtjurisdiction.
In the opinion the court further
says: We ere of the opinion that in
this case the law fully sustains both
propositions In favor Of the prisoner
In the first proposition the records
shvw that the prisoner admitted every
fact charged as constituting the con-
tempt and what fact OF revelancy ther'
was in the questions which he refuseS
to answer. the counsel. who acted Al
amicus curiae was unable to explain
and we have been unable to ascertain
Witnesses are not bound 10 answer
questions Irrelevant to the issue
After the prisoner had admitted th'
facts set forth In the charge IS constitu
ting contempt. II then an inquiry as 3,
facts outside Of that charge was ssces
sary to establish contempt. Il follow
that no contempt was charged in th'
proceedings.
II the prisoner had answered thl
question put to him. and given ths
name Of "A" Is the author Of the re
marks, would the gravity Of tn
ofiense been any greater or less thar
IL "B'' bad made the remark? Or 1
"A" had been brought Into court. and
he had said that be got the Idea from
''B. and ''B' had said that he got tbs
idea from &C." and 50 on, would thu,
have changed the ofiense or ths
amount Of punishment due therefor
II Is not unlikely that comments
were made In reference to the spplica.
ton for change Of venue mentioned
IN the article. The supreme court wa,
called upon TO consider these matters
ana pceiudice. and bias In the viii
case. and now are the parties who en-