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


supreme court of the territory Of Ney
Mexico, its chief justice or any membe
of said court, nor had any desire or in
tention to impede or obstruct the cours
of Justice in any cause or matter pend
ing before it, and that if respondent hat
read the article in question with care be
fore it was published, or had been aware
of the character of its contents, the same
would not have been published in sait
newspaper, and respondent deeply re-
grets, that by reason of his haste, such a
publication should have appeared in his
paper, on October II, 1898.
After the answer had been filed, and
the case heard and the judgment render.
ed, but before the sentence of the court
had been pronounced, the respondent
published in his paper, a retr.es ~,
which is as follows, to it:
| RETRAoTIoN OF HUGHES.
An article appeared in the Daily Citi-
zen on the 9th day of this month, re-
flecting on Chief Justice Smith of the
territorial supreme court. Investigation
shows that the article was false in many
particulars. The article. appeared as an
editorial, though ii was not written by
the editor of this paper. We are nov
convinced that the Objectionable Ian
guage referred to in the article was fairly
and reasonably open to the construction
put upon it by the supreme court, though
no such construction was intended, or
thought of by the editor of this paper
when the same was published. We fully
realize the importance of having the
courts of justice unimpeded by news
paper articles or criticism rejecting upon
the character of the court or any mem ber
thereof. We wish to reiterate our regret
that said publication should have ap-
peared, and we desire to give this public
assurance that hereafter no such article
shall appear in these columns. 1t ap-
peared and was published through gross
careleesness, and without any malicious
intent on the part of the editor of this
paper, and we desire in this public man
ner to make apology to Chief Justice
Smith, and the members of the territorial
supreme court of New Mexico.
THos. HUGHES,
Editor Daily Citizen.
John P. Victory, solicitor general. A.
A. Jones and W. B. Childers for the prose-
cution. Edward l.. Bartlett for respond
ent.
OPINION OF JUDGE LAUGHLIN.
The question was argued before the
supreme court as to whether the said
Hughes should be punished for the pub.
lication of said article upon the. answers
filed by him. A majority of the court
held that the answers could not be con-
tradicted and excluded all testimony
offered for contradicting the same, partly
upon the ground that the practice did not
permit the answers of the respondent in
such cases to be contradicted, and partly
upon the ground that the answers of said
Hughes themselves showed guilty knowl-
edge of the contents of said editorial, and
that the publication thereof was admitted
by him. 1t will be seen from an exani-
nation of said answers that the said
Hughes claims that he was entirely ignor-
ant of the authorship of the said article;
that he found the same upon his table or
desk in his office, and was wholly ignorant
of how it came to be there; that he
caused same to be set up and published
in his paper without making any inquiry
whatever into the authorship of the
article, or as to the truth of the charges
therein made against the chief justice
and the other members of this court.
MOST FLAGRANT ATTACK.
An examination of the extracts, quoted
above from said article, will show that it
was not only most fragrant attack upon
the chief justice, but also other members
of the court, and the court as whole,
charging them with dishonest and par
tisan purposes in the entertainment of
the charges against the said Catron and
Spiess and the appointment of commit
tee to prosecute the same.
It would be difficult to find in the pro-
ceedings of courts for contempt, or In
the history of newspaper publications,
more fragrant and outrageous abuse of
the liberty Of the press; a more
fragrant contempt of court probably
never was perpetrated by the publi-
cation Of a newspaper article than in this
instance, and the answer of the defendant
effect of the article and of the authorship |
of it, instead of mitigating his offense,
aggravates it,; and it is impossible to
escape the conclusion that his flight
from New Mexico was in consequence of
the issuance of this writ of attachment
for his apprehension. No other salts
factory reason has been suggested to the
court for such flight.
The judgment Of this court in finding
the said Thomas Hughes guilty of con-
tempt and sentencing him to imprison-
ment in the Jail of the county of Ber-
nalillo for sixty days, and 81 fne and
costs, WAS rendered during the progress
Of the investigation of the charges against
The said Catron and Spiess.
But deeming the questions herein in
volved of such Importance to the public
that they should be thoroughly under
stood, we have concluded to state what
We believe to be the law concerning con-
Tempt of court committed by the. publica-
lion of articles in newspapers rejecting
upon judicial tribunals.
Mr.. Cooley, one of the most eminent
American jurists and writer's on constitu-
tional law, states the law as follows:
"It has been held in many cases that
The publication of an article in news
paper, commenting on proceedings in
,ourt, then pending and undetermined, or
1pon the court In its relation thereto,
made at time and under circumstances
calculated to affect the course of justice
in such proceedings, and obviously in
ended for that purpose, may be punished
Is a contempt, even though the court
was not in session when the publication
vas made"
A NOTED ILLINOIS OPINION.
In the case Of the People vs.. Wilson,
"A, ILL.,, 221, the supreme court of that
tate, the opinion being rendered by its
,hief Justice, says:
II merely qusts.the rules as laid down
,y Bishop, an American writer in his
work on criminal law, ZIG. He uses the
language: According to the
general doctrine, any publication, wheth-
,r BY parties or strangers, which con-