The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1891-02-12
the CONTEMPT CASE.


The Supreme Court in banco re-
sumed its hearing on the contempt
case at 1 :35 yesterday afternoon.
Mr.. Ashford, for the respondent,
argued that, even if strict legal inter
probation should make it competent
for the Court to take summary pro-
ceedings, there were Overbearing
reasons why the Court should not
summarily try or punish the respond
ent. He quoted from Cooley's
Blackstone, showing that contempts
were formerly divided into direct
and consequential-the former being
contemptuous acts committed in pre-
Sence Of the Court. Consequential
contempt was what has lately been
known as constructive contempt,
consisting of acts done at distance
liable to bring the Court into dis
repute, or to prejudice the admins
trati0n Of justice. The law of 1888
virtually abolished constructive con-
tempt, and, unless the Court decid-
ed that the article in question was
direct instead Of constructive con-
tempt, he submitted that Their Hon
ors could not judge or punish the re-
spOndent summarilY. He cited
"Raffeliy on Contempt" further to
show the distinction between direct
and constructive contempts, also the
opinions OF this Court in two recent
cases similarly distinguishing be-
tween the two classes. Counsel adj
mitted that it was exceedingly I'M
fortunate that such an article us that
in question should have been pub
Iished in this country. 1t was q
matter demanding the most search
ing investigation. He submitted
that the article was not even in the
category of a constructive contempt
if the law of 1888 had not been pass
ed. 1t was libel of the grossest
kind against members of the Court,
although 1t did not define clearly
whom it'meant, but it did not inter.
iere with the Court itself, or affect
any cause pending before the Court,
or in any way interfere with or OBJ
stIuct the administration of justice.
The charge in the article that certain
of the judges went outside and got
information that influenced their adj
ministration of justice, and the
charge that one or more of them
favored relatives and friends in
Court, were not assaults on the Court
itself but on individual members of
it. He quoted from an Illinois deci-
sion in banco, where 1t was declared
that Court would sustain its dignity
better, however great the provoca-
ton, by passing over attacks on
its personnel by the press; that re-
spcct for court could not be en-
forced, but was secured by the moral
qualities of its members. While it
was desirable that lampoons against
members of the Court should be
punished, still he submitted that
they could only be treated as libels
against the judges as individuals.
There was no obstruction to justice
in this case, although there was APP
parentlY an atrOcious libel. Quoting
DR.. Wharton in the principle that
summary treatment was only justfi-
able when judge was inundated
or swerved out of the line of his duty,
but otherwise was a dangerous wea-
pom and preventive of any exposure
OF weakness or venality on the bench,
counsel contended that this was not
case where the Court could be
shown to have been hindered at all
in its functions; therefore it was not
case for summary proceedings. He
placed great reliance on an Illinois
decision (StOry VS.. The People)
where it was held that libel on the
court could not be treated as con-
tempt. The matter was one of great
gravity as well as delicacy, and the
decision Of their Honors would mark
an epoch in the relations between
the Court and the public. 1t was
infinitely better that they should
pass by the scandalous affront, in
stead of becoming accusers and
judges together, rather than that
they should place themselves in the
position of setting aside trial by
jury whenever it was deemed that
their own personality was involved.
Ii the Court should show itself strong
enough to allow this outrageous lam
poon to be tried by the regular tri-
bunals, he was sure it would rebound
greatly to the respect the Court en4
joyed III the community. The At
torney-General could prosecute the
respondent even after he was fined
or imprisoned by their Honors, and
he submitted that 1t would be IN
possible for him to have fair trial
before jury of his peers after sum
mary conviction. Mr.. Ashford
spoke an hour and twenty minutes,
and as he sat down thanked the
Court Tor its attention.
His Excellency A. P. Peterson,
Attorney-GeneraI, remarked in open,
ing that he had listened with much
interest to counsels argument, the
more so as he recognized Mr.. Ash
ford as the 'father of contempt" in
this country. Counsel had given
great deal Of ancient and modern
authority on contempt, but much of
it was not relevant to the case. He
would not characterize the offense in
any stronger language than had been
employed by counsel. MIR. Ashford
hnl nNnrlnnlrnl unnnn mnrIr Of tho |