Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1895-12-21
THE HUGHES CONTEMPT CASE
Continued from First Page.)

Continued from First Page.)
AS OUR ACTION IS CORRECTLY STATED,
and our official integrity is not i'm
peached. The respondents are correct in
saying in their answers that they have a
right to examine the proceedings of any
and every department of the government.
Far be it from us to deny that right.
Such freedom of the press is indispensa-
BILE to the preservation of the freedom of
the people. But certainly neither of these
respondents, nor any intelligent person
connected with the press, and having a
just idea of its responsibilities as we'll as
its powers, will claim that it may seek to
control the administration of Justice or
influence the decision of pending cases.
A court will of course endeavor to remain
wholly uninhuenced by publications like
that under consideration, but will the
community believe that it il able to do
SO? Can it even be certain In regard to
itself? Can men always be sure of their
mental poise? A timid man might be in
fluenced to yield, while combative man
would be driven in the opposite direction,
Whether the actual influence is on the one
side or the other, so far as it is felt at all
it becomes dangerous to the administra-
ton of Justice. Even if court is hap
PLY composed of judges of such firm and
equal temper, that they remain wholly
uninfluenced in either direction, never
theless disturbing element has been
thrcwn into the council chamber, which
it is the wise policy of the law to ex.
clude. 1t may be said that as long as the
court was conscious it had not been
frightened from its propriety by the arti-
Gle in question; the wiser course would
have been to pass it by in silence. So far
as we are personally concerned, we should
controversy with the press. But ma
jority of the court were of the opinion
that this publication could not be disre-
garded without infidelity to our duty. By
our relation to the bar, to the suitors in
our court, to the entire judiciary of tie
state, and to the state itself, we felt con-
strained to call the persons responsible
for this publication to account"
In note of the learned editor of the
American Decisions to the case entitled,
ain the matter of Sturoc," 81 Am. Dec,
page $50, the following will be found:
CONTEMPT IN NEWSPAPERS.
"Publlcations in newspapers as con-
tempts.-It has long been settled and ia
now generally acknowledged that certain
publications in newspapers may amount
to contempts of court, and may be sum-
marily punished as such. Publications
pending suit, rejecting on the court,
the jury, the parties, the 4ofiicers Of the
court or attorneys with reference to the
suit, and having tendency to influence
the action of the tribunal before which
the case is pending, is contempt of that
court, which may be summary punished
by attachment if the publication has a
tendency to prejudice the public, part
of whom may thereafter be summoned as
Jurors, with respect to the merits of a
case pending in the courts and to cor
rupt the administration of Justice. Pub
locations scandalizing and intended to
unduly influence and overawe its deliber-
atoms in causes pending are contempts
which this court is authorized to punish
by attachment and it is essential to the
dignity of character, the utility and indie
pendence of the court, that it should pos
sess and exercise such authority" Peo-
pie vs.. Wilson, Ga Ills, 221.
IMPOSING ARRAY OF AUTHORITIES.
To the same effect Hollingsworth Va.
Duane Wall, G. G., n; Bronson's case, IL
Johns AGO; State vs.. Morrill,, 16 Ark. 1884;
Republica vs.. Passmore, 8 Yates 1888; s.
c. Am. Dec, 1888, and note; Republlca
VS.. Oswald, Dali 3l9; 8. G. l Am. Dec,
246; Stewart vs.. People, Scam, 4Ob.
In treating on this sub ject, Mr.. Bishop
says: "Again, according to the general
doctrine, any publication whether by
parties or strangers, relating to a cause
in court, tending to prejudice the public
az to its merits, and to corrupt or en-
barrass the administration of justice, or
rejecting on the tribunal or its proceed
ings, or on the parties, the jurors, the
witnesses or the counsel, may be visited
as contempt"2 Bishops Criminal Law,
Sec. 259; In're'C heltenham, ETC., Ry. L. R.
8 Eq. $50; Daw We. Eley L. R. Eq. 49,
Littler vs.. Thompson Beav. 1873; In re
Crawford IS Am. Jur. 955; Regina vs..
Skipworth, L. R. 8 @. B. 219; 8. G. ~ Cox
{. C. S5s; Eng. Rep. 443; Regina vs..
skipworth L. r. Q. B. 219; 4. G. S Eng.
Rep. 456; Regina vs.. O'Dougherty Cox
@. G. 348; Anonymous, 2 Atk. 469.
POWER TO PUNISH FOB CONTEMPT.
In State vs.. Morrill,, 16 Ark. 800, the
court goes further and says: "Ths cases
above cited land many more might be
cited If deemed at all necessary sbund-
sntly show that, by the common law,
courts possessed the power to punish as
for contempt, libelous publications of
the character of the one under considera-
tion, upon their proceedings pending or
past, upon the ground that they tended
to degrade the tribunals, destroy the pub
lie confidence and respect for their judg-
ments and DEGREES, 70 essentially neces-
sary to the good order and well-being OF
society, and most efrectually obstructed
the free course of Justice" Applying
these principals, the supreme court Of
appeals of West Virginia, in late case,
held that publication in a newspaper
where the court was sitting with reference
to case then pending and undetermine
charging three of the four judges of the
court with having attended political
caucus more than year before, and in
the caucus advising the action out of
which the case arose, and promising the
caucus to hold its action legal and proper,
and charging the court with having
agreed to decide the case before an APP