Omaha daily bee., 1895-12-10
CONTEMPT or COURT.
Important Decision Rendered ny the
New York Court of Appeals.


The New York court Of appeals the high
| est judicial tribunal in that state, rendered
an important decision lately as to what con.
stitutes contempt Of court. newspaper
had criticised with severity the ruling OF a
judge In one OF the local courts. The Judge
ordered the arrest Of the newspaper pub
Usher and the writer OF the article. held
them guilty Of contempt and pronounced
judgment against them The case was car
rled up to the court OF appeals and the
Judgment OF the local court was reversed.
The court of appeals held that contempt
Of court is an offense that can be committed
only in the presence Of the court while in
session, by interference with its proceedings
and processes or elsewhere by violating It's
injunctions and other orders. A criticism OF
a judicial opinion out OF court. whether oral
or written and published, is not the technical
ofense described as contempt OF court and
punishable by summary proceedings against
the author OF the criticism No matter how
severe, unjust or even abusive the criticism
may be, If 1t is uttered or printed out OF
court proceedings for contempt cannot be
instituted.
II abusive and false charges are made
against the judge Of court he has his
remedy under the law OF libel, the same as
any other citizen. He has no prerogativs that
extends beyond the walls of his court room,
except for judicial purposes. to enforce his
lawful DEGREES in cases before him on trial,
In due course of law. Modern law does not
tolerate the arrest, trial and punishment
VI d CltlLtH III eases WHpre tne person on
the bench appears as informer, prosecutor
witness and judge, all in the same case, un-
less the offender has violated the proper
rules of order by which the proc sedngs In
court are regulated, or unless he dlsobeys
judicial decree properly made in a case
where the court had lawful Jurisdiction
III the feelings of judge are injured, II
his reputation suffers. If he incurs loss in
any way by unfair criticism, by vituperation,
by false allegations as to his judicial or per
Ia IN 1nIN
that every other man possesses in the courts
of the land. He may prosecute the assail-
ant for SANDER and libel, either in a civil suit
for damages or by criminal indictment. But
he cannot call before him man who has
slandered or lbeled him out of court and
avenge his own wrongs by the exercise of
his judicial powers. Under such circum-
stances he is on the same level with every
other public officer and every private citizen.
But very few instances have occurred in
recent years of attempts by judges to punish
newspaper or other critics for language used
out Of court. judge might as well say that
highwayman who knocked him down on
the street and robbed him had committed
contempt of court as to say that SANDER and
libel committed out of court are criminal
contempt Of judicial authority. There are
scattering judges. however, in the country
who have attempted to take the law into
their own hands where they thought that they
had suffered personal wrongs through the
press. This doctrine must be now dead
as mat OF lese-fnaJeste, which consisted in
speaking disrespectfully of anybody in au-
thority.
The decision of the New York court of
appeals on this subject, which is the product
Of enlightened common sense on the bench, |
was probably inspired, or at least it was
approved by Judge Rufus w. Peckham, re-
Gently appointed a member of the United |
States supreme court. The great democratic
jurst of New York will carry with him to
his exalted place Just opinions as to the
construction of law relating to freedom of
speech and to a free press.