The San Francisco call., 1896-06-24
CONTEMPT OF COURT.

There is at the present time a wide
pread discussion of the limits of the
powers which Judges may rightly exer-
else in Furnishing for what is known as
contempt of court. In California the
discussion turns mainly upon the recent
action of Judge Catlin in subiecting the
editor of the Sacramento Bee to a fine for
alleged contempt and refusing him a
right to prove the truth of the publication
in dispute. In the East the discussion is
an outgrowth of the Debs case, and covers
much wider ground than that involved in
the Sacramento case. In both, however,
the vital point is the issue whether the
courts have not carried the practice OF
Furnishing for contempt to point where
it has become danger to popular liberty.
1t is not denied that our courts must
have power to compel respect and keep
order. That has been an established
principle since the very beginning. In
the original theory, however, contempt Of
court was an indignity com mitted within
the precincts of the court itself, and cal
cuIated to disturb or interrupt the peace
able and orderly administration of justice.
Latterly In the United States there has
grown up a belief among certain class of
Judges that they can punish as con-
tempt alleged offenses committed miles
away from the courtroom. The form of
punishment is of course summary. The
accused is not put on trial before jury
and has no opportunity to defend himself.
1t can be easily seen that in the hands OF
unjust Judges the possession of such a
power would be totally destructive to the
full enjoyment of liberty of speech and
action by the people as well as by the
press.
That public opinion is adverse to this
dangerous exercise of power is beyond
question. The Inter Ocean in comment
ing on the subject cites IN proof of this
case which occurred in Chicago when the
EVeniag Press of that city criticized with
some severity the action of the Supreme
Court of Illinois in connection with a
murder case. The Inter Ocean SAYS:
Those comments were construed by that
court to be contempt and the proprietor
and editors were compelled to apologize or
go to jail for an indefinite time, as long in
fact as the court NAV see hit. That case
aroused a great deal of indignation 1t
was looked upon as dangerous violation
OF the lreeuOm OF the press. NCL long
after the Chief Justice was candidate for
reelection, and although a very able and
upright jurist, running in a district ordi-
narily good for majority of nearly two
to one, he was beaten. That as inter-
preted as popular rebuke of the abuse OF
the judicial right to punish for contempt
of court"
If similar question were submitted to
the people of California the result would
be the same as it was in Illinois. The
whole issue is in fact the simple one OF
whether the old-fashioned trial by jury
can be denied by judges at their pleasure
whenever they fancy they have been un-
worthiiy treated. No one denies that a
matter occurring in the presence of a
Judge, under his very eyes, and of a ma
ture to interfere with him in the perform
ance of his judicial duties, should be sum-
marty punished. In all other cases, how
ever, where Judges feel themselves
offended, the accused should have a fair
trial before jury. There can be no real
liberty of speech or action on any other
terms.