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

although presenting no barrier to sum
mary punishment for direct contempts.
No court has ever yet held that the right
of trial by Jury extends to contempt pro-
ceedings, to so decide would be to defeat
the very object of the power. So to hold
would place it in the power OF vicious
person so to conduct himself as to pre-
vent any kind of trial. AS wehave seen
the power to punish summarily for con.
tempt is essential to the very existence
of the court Cooley Const. Lin. T. 800
notes 81. The authority of the courts to
punish summarily as for contemp pit parties
publishing articles in reference to causes
pending, when such publications tend to
corrupt or embarrass the administration
of justice, has been expressly upheld, not
withstanding the existence of such con
stitutional provisions. State vs.. Morrill,
supra; Myers vs. State ~ N. E. Reports
43; State VS.. Frew, supra; Sturoe's case
4s N. H. 1923; End Bish. Grim. Law $50
State vs. Morrill,, supra.
The conrt said: "The counsel for the
defense suppose that the power of the
CouEOb W. PuuioA 1o III ohS Puc
LEGATION of libels upon their proceedings
was cot off by the 7th section of the bill
of rights, which is in these words: "The
printing presses shall be free to every
person, no law shall ever be made to re-
strain the rights thereof. The free COM
munication of thoughts and opinions is
one of the invaluable rights of man, and
every citizen may freely speak, write and
think on any subject, being responsible
for
THE ABUSE OF THAT LIBERTY,
is an answer to the argument of the
learned counsel. 1t is well known fact
that the bench and bar has been in this
and all other countries, where the law has
existed as a distinct profession, the ablest
and most Jealous advocates of liberal in
situations, the freedom of conscience and
the liberty of the press; and none have
guarded more watchfully the encroach-
ments of power on one hand, or deprec-
ated more earnestly tendencies to lawless
anarchy and RIGHTEOUSNESS on the other.
The freedom of the press, therefore, has
nothing to fear from the bench in this
state. No attempt has ever been made,
and we may venture to say never will be
made, to interfere with its legitimate
province on the part of the judiciary by
the exercise of the power to punish con-
tempt"
In the opinion of State va. Faulds,
the supreme court of Montana, in an
opinion rendered November II, 1895,
quotes with approval the following from
the case of the State vs.. Morrill,, 16 Ark,
1884.
The court says: "If an ignorant or i'm
polite man stalks into court house with
his hat on, or makes a noise about the
door, or disobeys process, all agree that
he may be punished for contempt; but if
a man has an important case pending in
court, and, willing to resort to desperate
measures to succeed, publishes, on the
eve of the trial, libel, alleging that the
Judge has been bribed to charge the jury
against him, and that all the witnesses
who are to appear on behalf of the op-
posing party have been corrupted, and
are unworthy of credit, it is no contempt,
and the Judge must labor under the en-
barrassment of sitting in the case, under
such circumstances, with his mouth
closed. Or if Judgment is rendered
against man, as soon as the judge leaves
the bench, he is met at the door, insulted
and assaulted by the party, in conse.
quence of his decision, and then pub
LEGATION is made in a newspaper charging
him with corruption in rendering the
Judgment, and calling upon the com.
munity to disregard and resist its execu.
ton, and yet this is no contemptw
MONTANA SUPREME COURT.
The supreme court of Montana also
says: "Such publications are an abuse
of the liberty of the press, and tend tc
sap the very foundation of good order
and well-being in society, by obstructine
the courts of justice. If judge is real
ly corrupt and unworthy the station which
he holds, the constitution has provided
an ample remedy by impeachment or ad'
dress where he can meet his accuser face
to face, and his conduct may undergo q
full investigation. The liberty Of the
press is one thing, and licentious scanda
is another. The constitution guarantees
to every man the right to acquire and
hold property, by all lawful means; but
this furnishes no justification to mar
to rob his neighbor of his lands OF
goods"
This court in reference to the facts
stated that the constitution of Montana
limits the power of the two houses of the
legislature to punish for contempt, but
does not restrict the common law power
of the court says:
sand there is good reason why the
trainers of the constitution might vel
have made this distinction. The legisla
ture is political body. If Its proceed
ings and the conduct and motives Of its
members are unjustly assailed by libel
ous publications, they may defend theil
official conduct, and repel attacks
through the press and upon the stump
but it is not the usage of the country mol
would it comport with the dignity of Judi
cial stations for judges to resort tc
newspapers or the public forum in de-
Tense of the integrity of their decisions
ETC., and it should be an unwise policy
that would drive them to such course
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
Parties have constitutional right tc
have their causes tried fairly in court by
an impartial tribunal, uninfluenced by
newspaper dictation or popular clamor
What would become of this right if the
press may use language in reference to
q pending cause calculated to intimidate
or unduly influence or control judicial
actionS Days and sometimes weeks are
spent in the endeavor to secure an i'm par.
tiel Jury for the trial of case, and, when
selected, it is incumbent upon the court
to exercise the utmost care in excluding
evidence of matters foreign to the issues
involved SO that the mind OF the juror