The record-union., 1896-06-05
TAKEN UNDER AMUSEMENT.
McClatehy Contempt Case on Hearing
Yesterday.
Judge Catlin Holds the Opinion That
the Barry Contempt Law is
Unconstitutional.

When Judge Catlin's court was
called to order yesterday morning the
room was well filed with persons who
were anxious to see the outcome or
the McClatchy contempt case. There
were many attorneys present also, who
wished to hear the arguments in the
proceeding.
When the court was opened Hon. p.
Reddy, counsel for McClatchy, inter
posed a demurrer, claiming that no Of
Tense was charged in the complaint,
except that 1.-The defendant had scan
dalized the COURT and the allegation
was so general that 1t was likely to pro-
duce confusion.
He further claimed that the writ
did not charge the defendant with
contempt of court. If the charge is
that the actions of the defendant were
scandalous and defamatory, it was not
contempt, but libel He wished to
know whether or not the charge was
libel.
Judge Catlin said the writ was prop
erly drawn, and it could not specify
fully all the points which had been set
forth in the affidavit, a copy of which
had been handed to A J. Bruner, de-
fendants counsel
Mr.. Reddy then inherposed de-
murrer on the grounds that there was
nothing to show that C. K McClatchy
had committed any offense against the
laws of California; there were not suffi-
cient acts to constitute an offense;
there was nothing to show that any
contempt had been shown in the pres
ence of the court; there was nothing to
or
published the words charged as having
constituted a contempt. There were
several other grounds for demurrer
stated.
Counsel argued that the affidavit was
defective in not stating sufficient facts.
they being stated only in a general way
and not with particularly enough. It
states ON information and belief that
the defendant wrote and published the
words complained of, but under the
laws Of the State; this is not sufficient
to make the charge hold good.
He cited several decisions in support
Of his position, and said the question
hinged on the constitutionality Of the
law of 1891, relating to contempt. He
claimed that the existing courts, ex-
cept the Justice and Police Courts,
were abolished by Section 3, Article
XXI, of the Constitution, and that
therefore the present courts are Gre
ated by and bound by the provisions of
the Constitution, and that the law in
cluded between Sections 1909 and 1922
were expressly continued in force. He
further claimed that the inherent
power Of the courts under the common
law and previous Constitution had
been Intentionally limited by the peo-
pie in the new Constitution, and that
people could not be punished for an ac-
tion which had not been previously de-
clared an offense. IF Section 1909 is
not sufficient to bind the courts, then
there is no limitation to their author
ity, and they can call anything con-
tempt, and a man can be punished for
anything the courts chose to designate
as contempt.
Judge Catlin asked if the Legislature,
being able to take away the power
from the court of Furnishing for con-
tempt in certain cases, it could not
take away the power of Furnishing In
all cases, and Mr.. Reddy said that it
was conceded that the Legislature
could not take away from the court the
power to protect itself in the exercise
Of its functions, but the Constitution
had limited its power. The Act of 1891
limited the offense OF contempt to acts