Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1895-12-21

offense consisted in the tendency of his
acts to prevent fair trial of the cause
then pending IN the court. 1t is this of
tense which constitutes the offense and
for which he could be punished summari-
ly, and the fact that in committing this
offense, he also libeled the judge, and
may be proceeded against by Indictment
thereof, is no reason way he may not and
should not be punished for the offense
against the administration of justice.
This is also decided In the case of the
People VS.. Stapleton, 80 Pac. Rep, 1877,
by this supreme court of Colorado, IN the
case of ex parte Barry, % Pac. Rep,
81.
1t is decided by the supreme court of
California that e publication made by a
newspaper made after the Judge OF the
superior court has sustained demurrer
to petition, with leave to amend, de-
nouncing the judge for his action, is fla
grant abuse of the liberty of the press
and an unlawful interference with the
proceedings of the court punishable by
fine and imprisonment as for contempt.
In the case of the State VS.. Frew, decided
by the supreme court of West Virginia, "a
w. Va. Rep, 416, 40 Am. Rep, 257 the au,
thorities are also reviewed at great length
| from nearly every state in the Union and
all to the same effect.
In Spalding VS.. People, z Hill, 3O1, it
was said by Nelson, chief justice, after
wards an associate Justice of the supreme
court of the United States: "The remedy
by indictment is Outlines found too tardy
for the exigency of the case, hence the
law has always authorized the more sum-
mary proceeding by attachment as for a
criminal contempt, whereby the offender
is arraigned at once upon the charges and
the courts of Justice more promptly
vindicated and sustained"
THE DUTY OF THE COURT.
But In our opinion the judges of this
court would have been guilty of most
fragrant failure to appreciate the dignity
of the position which they hold and their
duty to the proper administration Of
justice had they shrunk, however, un-
pleasant it might have been to themselves,
from netting out to the offender in this
case adequate punishment.
It may be properly said in this con-
nection that the court was under no OBJ
legations to credit the statement of the
respondent, Hughes, that he was ignorant
and could form no opinion as to who
was the author of the article in question.
The statement bears the stamp Of i'm
probability upon its face. The fact that
he has VIGOROUSLY suffered punishment
for the author of the article as we'll as
himself should not have commended him
to the sympathy of the court or in any
way induced it to mitigate the sentence
which was imposed upon him.
The court might feel itself called upon
to comment upon the conduct of the
author of the article in permitting the
publisher of the newspaper to stand be-
tween the author and the punishment
which Justice demands It is difficult to
conceive of man possessed of 80 con-
temptible spirit as, in the guise OF
secrecy, to write SO fragrant libel upon
the character of court, as this news
paper article was, and when the pub
lishers thereof publish to the world under
oath that they were ignorant of the
publication and still are SO ignorant, not
to come forth and avow its authorship
The retraction published by the respond
emit, Hughes, should in the minds of all
honest and fair-minded men answer al
once the proposition that the publica-
ton was made by him innocently. How
could such publication be made inno-
Gently when he admits that it was false
and that he had no information whatever
upon which to base 1t, and his attention
called to its libelous character by his as
sociates before it was printed
oFFENsE AGGRAVATED.
As already stated In this opinion, the
answer of the defendant and his subse
quent conduct aggravate instead of mitl'
gate his offense. 1t would have been idle
in the opinion of majority of this court
for the court to have imposed in this in.
stance mere fine. 1t might have been
possible and perhaps is probable that the
real author of the article, who escapes
punishment, would have come forward
and furnished the respondent sufficient
money to liquidate the fine had the pun.
ishment not been imprisonment.
1 The court has felt constrained to say
this much as the matter was one of duty
imposed upon it in the administration OF
justice and vindication of the law. It ie
true that the disbarment proceedings
seem to have stirred up great deal Of
political feeling and prejudice due to the
prominent standing of one, at least, Of
the respondents, but that fact neither
justified the publication of the libel MOI
relieved the court from the necessity oil
discbarging an unpleasant duty. Neither
was it in the power of the court, when
the charges were preferred against the
Il - in Aha a.
ing, to omit to cause those charges to he
investigated. Such an omission would
have been failure to discharge duty
i'm posed upon the court to the public in.
terest and the proper administration Of
justice, as well as to the respondents
themselves. 1t is hard to understand
how it could be commended for moment
that in Justice to the respondents them.
selves there should not have Leen full
and complete investigation of the charges
made against them.
POLITICAL cLAMoR AND pREJuD1os.
The failure OF every we'll meaning citi.
zen to dis passionately consider and I'M.
derstand the principles of law that gov.
ern the courts in such cases as this, and
to sustain the court without regard to the
different political compilations of the
judges who constituted the court or the
cltizen himself, is seriously to be deprec-
ated and argues badly for the prospect Of
good government in any community OF
state. Political clamor and prejudice
should never be permitted to interfere
with the administration of Justice and
the law, and the Judge who yields to it ID
unfit to fill the position which he holds.
/ N. B. LAuaHLrN,
We concur: Associate Justice, etc.
THOMAS SIXTH, O. j.
N. @. CoLLIER, A. j.
We have filed separate opinion, and
concur in finding respondents guilty OF