Arizona silver belt., 1894-07-28
srwsrArEns Asp rnn rouKrs.

As result of the proceedings in Judge Bakers court versus T. !. Wolf ley, editor and manager aI She Arizona Republican, for contempt of court in criticising the denial by Judge Bskar of change of venue in the G,la Bend e.nal se Mir. woldey was adjudged to pay fine of $500, for presuming to eritieise the learned Judges ruling,
 Contempt cases in courts of record nre, fortunately, exceedingly rare Criticism by the press is, perhaps, the most fertile field for this class of cases. Without discussing the merits of this particular case, we may witk propriety consider the subject of newspaper criticism of the bench generally. Both courts and press are mighty factors in our civilization. Both hold high posi-. tions, and incur responsibilities to1oh- ing the rights of and obligations to the people The judgment of court once pronounced is matter of public prop erty and subject for honest criti- cism The dignity of the courts must be upheld, and the statutes of all the States and Territories recognize and provide for this by giving the courts the right and power to punish for con tempt. If contempt has been commit ted, animated by malice and seeking to bring the court into disoredit and make itappear ridiculous, punishment to fit the crime should be meted ont to the offender.
 On the other hand, just, fair and impartial review and criticism Of judi cial proceeding by newspaper should be considered in the same light as any other subject of review. Courts except in fiagrant cases, in which malice dis colors the whole geyiev. usually and properly too, pass newspapes criticism unnotced. The court would beittie itSeK were it to lake notice of every trivial matter which might be construed to lower its dignity. An honest opin- ion, properly expressed, can not, CT ought not ,o subJect the writer to con- tempt.
 While 1t is necessary to the existence of the courts that they possess power to compel obedience of their process and enforce order in their immediate pres ence, yet it is not required for the maintenance of their authority that they possess the power summarily to fine and imprison a newspaper writer for publications out of oourt-to con- demn, without indictment by the grand jury or trial by a petit jury. This power violates the fundamental prinoi. pie that no judge shall try cause in which he has Q personal interest It makes the indge, who is the injured and therefore the offended party, at once the person who makes the aceIya ton, defines the cri me, furnishes the evidence, decides as to its suficiepcy, eonYicts, and fixes the term and de- gree of puniqhment.
 4 c4ss of some celebrity was that in yolTing the impeachment of Judge Peck of the U. $. Dist. Court for the District of Missouri. Judge Peck had published in the Missouri Republican {n March. 1926, an elaborate opin- lon favorable to the defendant in land case. Lake D. Lawless, alter pey for the plaintiffs, then published in the Inquirer, under the signature of
 Citizen, "a respectful criticism of the opinion in which he pointed out what he deemed errors in the decision, but without impugning tho motives of the judge. The authorship of tbq article in the Inquirer having been traced to Mir Lawless, he was brought into court on an attachment for contempt and sentenced to twenty-four hours impris- onment and to be suspended from practice ae en attorney for eighteen months, on the grounds that the pub hcation would tend to prejudice other land cases which were still pending.
 Mir. Lawless was released on writ of habeas corpus before his term of Imprisonment expired, and subsequent Y preferred charges against Judge Peck before the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. The committee voted unanimously to re- port articles of impeachment against the judge Mir Buchanan, chairman qf the committee (afterwards President in presenting the articles to the House, after passjng severe sttietdres on Judge Peck's action, argued that if Mir. Law less ec.s lad beep unlawful he should have been tried before jury, whereas Judge Peek lad combined Fin his own person the offices of prosecutor. the grand jury, the petit jury end the jndge.
 The impeachment was voted by the House and tried by the Senate. The vote upon the question of conviction stood, twenty-one guilty, twenty. two "not guilty" and the judge was ac- auitted. It was urged on behalf of the