Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1895-12-23
THE HUGHES CONTEMPT CASE
Judges Bantz and Hamilton Hold Edi-
tor Hughes Clearly entity
as Charged.
DISSENT FROM IMPRISONMENT DECREE
Jurisdiction to Punish for Contempt
Conceded by Hughes Counsel
Article False, Wicked and
Harmful - Views of Chief
Justice Smith.

On Saturday the New MEXICAN printed
the entire majority opinion of the su-
preme court by Judge Laughlin in the
Hughes contempt case. The supple
mental opinions of Judges Bantz, Hamil-
ton and Smith are appended:
In the supreme court of the Territory
of New Mexico, at the July term, 1895.
In the matter of Thomas Hughes, con-
TENT:
! This is proceeding in contempt
against the publishers of newspaper in
respect to an article rejecting upon the
members of this court, published in rela-
| tion to cause then pending.
It was conceded at the bar by counsel
for Mr. Hughes, one of the publishers,
that the article was false, wicked and
harmful; and, although our jurisdiction
to punish therefor as a contempt was full
ly conceded, yet we base our jurisdiction
upon tho distinct ground that the publ
| cation was of a nature calculated and in
tended to exercise an influence upon the
decision of a cause then pending, inde-
pendently of the law or the evidence pro-
duced, and thereby sought unlawfully to
interfere with and obstruct the admins
tration of justice.
The protection of the citizen against
that so-called liberty of the press in false,
reckless and malignant assaults, is ordi-
| narily to be found in a civil action or in
dictment Even though the publication
be In respect to court of justice, We arc
not prepared to hold, nor is it necessary
in this case to hold, that such publication
can be the lawful subject of contempt
proceedings, however harsh and unjust
the criticism; provided it does not I'M
pute impure motives, and is confined to
decisions or transactions entirely past,
and contains no element affecting some
cause pending and undetermined.
In People vs.. Wilson, 64 Ills, 214, after
announcing the general proposition that
published criticisms Of decisions, opin-
ions or official conduct of the court or its
members, in regard to cases that have
passed beyond the courts jurisdiction,
will not be punishable as contempt, and
that the judicial and all other depart
ments of the government are open to
examination and public discussion, yet
the court says, that it is not within the
liberty of the press "to control the ad-
ministfation of justice or influence the
decision of pending causes And Law
renee, G. j., pertinently observes: "a
court will, of course, endeavor to remain
wholly uninfuenced by publications like
that under consideration, but will the
community believe that it is able to dc
sos Can it even be certein in regard to
itself? Gan men always be sure of their
mental poise? A timid man might be in
fluenced to yield, while combative man
would be driven into the opposite direc-
ton. Whether the actual influence is on
one side or the other, 30 far as it is felt at
all, it becomes dangerous to the admins
tration of jpstice. Even if court is hap
PLY composed of judges of such firm and
equal temper that they remain wholly un.
Influenced in either direction, neverthe-
lesf disturbing element has been thrown
wise policy of the law to exclude"
In People vs.. Stapleton, 33 Pac. Rep,
1877, the supreme court of Colorado, in
1898, observed upon this subject: "If
the courts of justice may be publicly as
saulted by libel and slander or otherwise
threatened or traduced in respect to
causes civil or criminal pending before
them for hearing or trial, then, indeed, no
ones rights are any longer safe, and life,
liberty and property are held by feeble
tenure in this commonwealth"
Imperfect as judicial examinations may
be, both sides have full opportunity to
be heard in open court before judgment
is rendered; and more danger is to be ap-
pretended from the power of the press
over the courts than from the power of
the courts over the press.
In view of the nature and tendency Of
the publication set out in this proceeding,
and to which we have already called at
tention, we are entirely satisfied as to our
jurisdiction in this case and of the guilt
of the respondent.
The respondent declares under oath
that no contempt was in fact intended,
that since the publication he has ascer-
tained the falsity of the charges and ex-
presses a willingness to publish full re-
traction. If under all the circumstances
the language of the publication by any
fair Interpretation could be harm onized
with good faith on the part of the re-
spondent, we might consider ourselves
bound by this action, but the expressions
contained in the publication are too direct
and full to be ovsrborne by disclosure
now Of what were hitherto secret mental
reservations. Tie respondent, Thomas
Hughes, has not therefore purged him
self OF such contempt. But we do not
| believe the punishment of imprisonment
by the court is warranted.
GIpoN D. BANTz, A. j.
u II. B. HAMILTON, A. j.
J SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION OF JUDGE SMITH
concur in the conclusion that the re.
spondent is guilty of gross licentiousness