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

punlSnj DVab6 vs.. + rey zt W65b va. NO.
So where a number of the members Of
the bar unite in a publication falsely
charging the Judge of the supreme court
with having improperly participated in
politics, and insinuating that they would
favor their fellow partisans in their judi
cial deliberations, they are guilty of such
contempt as justifies their suspension
from practice, until they purge them
selves of it: Matter of Moore, So N. @.
1877. Tenney's case, 20 N. H. 1852, affords
another illustration of this rule"
Among the more recent cases, where
the publication of such articles in news
papers has been punished as contempt of
court, is Burks vs.. Territory, decided by
the supreme court of Oklahoma on Sep
TENDER Z, 1894. In that case, it was de-
cided that the power to punish for con-
tempt is inherent in courts of record /;
that the legislation has no power in the
| absence of constitutional provisions to
limit or regulate the inherent powers of
the courts to punish for contempt, and
that the party accused has no right of
trial by jury in contempt proceeding.
The court has also decided that the United
States statute of March 2, 1881, which is
embodied in section 1875 of the Revised
Statutes of the United States, limiting
the power of the courts of the United
States to inflict summary punishment for
contempt of court, is not applicable to
THE COURTS OF THE TERRITORY,
these courts not being under the courts
| of the United States, to which these pro-
visions of the acts of congress are ap-
plicable. The court decided in that case,
that publications made in daily news
paper, while matter is pending in the
court, as to whether or not a certain re-
port presented by the grand jury shall
be received by the court, or returned to
the grand jury for further proper action
and corrections to the effect that the &C.
ton of the Judge seemed to indicate that
he intended to withhold the report, and
the judge persisted in carrying out such
intention by suppressng the report of
the grand jury that act might be charac-
terized as fragrant violation of the peo-
ple's rights and charging by direct i'm
plication that the ac.ion of the court is
an effort to brow-beat the grand jury,
and an effort to bend the grand jury to
the will of the judge" and IA serious mat
ter" constituted contempt.
In the opinion it is said "Such con-
duct is often overlooked by the courts
when the acts are serious injury to the
public. The difidence of courts to take
up for investigation and punishment
matters which are aimed not only at the
court in its public capacity, but also in
its individuality, often permits such
transgressions as contempts of court to
be overlooked and allowed to 60 unnotic-
ee by the judges of the courts, and the
public welfare, the morals, the good be-
havior and the proper consideration of
community for governmental functions,
are thereby greatly injured"
The defendant insisted that the statute
of Oklahoma provided for the punish
ment of criminal contempt upon indict-
ment by the grand Jury. The court said:
"The legislature intended that the public
itself might also have right to prose
cute the offenses, mot to take away the
power which the court already had to
punish the offender, bnt prescribe a
means in addition to that already pos
sesed for such punishment" 1t then pro-
ceeds: "The power to punish for con-
tempt of court is inherent in all courts of
record" Elk parte Robinson, 10 Wall
sos; In re Millington, "a Kansas "a; Peo-
pie vs.. Stapleton 33 &C 1857; Middlebrook
v State, 43 Conn.,, 1893; Holman vs.. State
LOG Ind, 513.
MANUFACTURED SENTIMENT.
The court also very we'll says in it's
opinion: "We decline in this case to give
character to manufacture d sentiment by
joining in the too often repeated discus
sion of a perverted application of our
benefcent heritage of freedom of speech
and liberty of the press. During these
occasions when crime stalks abroad
cloaked in the garb of liberty, and when
the assassin of our highest and noblest
institutions of civil government would
audaciously bid the hand of Justice be.
stow reward for punishment too long de-
served we are reminded OF the historic
words of Madam Roland: oh! Liberty
how many crimes are committed in thy
name, and resolve that the shield of the
innocent shall not be the weapon of the
guilty"
In the case of the Territory vs.. Murray
decided by the supreme court of Mon
tana, and reported in Is Pac. Rep. 145, il
was decided that the sending and publ.
cation of telegram in newspaper OF
general circulation of dispatch that two
persons, real estate agents, on the day OF
the sending of the telegram made wage,
of $500 that, owing to the influence OF
some persons interested in cause, pend.
ing before the supreme court of Montana
the court would reverse their former de-
cision, was held fragrant contempt OF
court; aud this court also held that the
acts of congress had no application to
the courts Of territory, and that
THE p1so1A1MEB OF THE DEFENDANT
in his affidavit of any intention to treat
the court with the slightest contempt in
publishing the telegram was not binding
upon the court, but that it might inq uire
into the truth of the matter. "The mean
ing and intent of the defendant in pub
fishing the dispatch must be determined
by fair Interpretation of the language
used. The construction and tendency of
the publication as bearing upon its char
acter as contempt are matters of law
for the COURT" and cited Henry vs.. Ellis,
40 Ia. 245; People vs. Wilson, 81 Ills. 1876,
and numerous other authorities.
In the case of Cooper vs. the People,
decided by the supreme court of Colo
RADIO, ~ Pac. Report $50, the court
quotes from the case of Watson We. Will
Jams, So Miss. 381, as follows: "The right
to punish contempts by summary convic-
tione is necessary attribute of judicial
power inherent in all courts of justice
from the nature of their organization and
essential to their existence and protec-
ton and to the due administration of jus.
tice. It is trust given to the courts not
for themselves, but for the people whose
laws they enforce and whose authority
they exercise. and each court has the