The record-union., 1896-06-05

done in the presence of the court, in or
der to protect citizens from autocratic
action by the latter.
He read at great length from his
brief in the Barry case.
Judge Catlin said that he had had oc-
casion to examine into the law of 1881,
and thought at first that it was un-
constitutional and an attempt by the
Legislature to limit the authority OF
the courts. There is a later case In
point-in re Shortridge-which does
not uphold that law.
There are three equal and coordinate
branches of the Government, and 1t is
a question whether the Constitution
ever intended to allow one Of the
branches to limit the power of an
other branch to protect itself. If they
could SO limit it, they could go further
in their limitations. It is very doubt
full If under such circumstances it
would be possible to punish news
paper for contempt Of court, unless the
proprietor should bring the paper into
court and flourish it in the face of the
| court.
He read from the decision in the
| Shortridge case the words of the court
| to the effect that it knew of no declS-
| ions, no authority denying the inner
| ent right of a court in the absence OF
any limitation by the power creating
| it, to protect itself, and saying that the
| State Of Georgia was the only one that
| has by its Constitution limited it.
| Mr.. Reddy argued that it was dan
| gerous to lodge in the hands OF any
man or body Of men an arbitrary
| power to punish, and although the
power has very rarely been abused, the
! fact that it had been done SO was a
reason for limiting it. The only Dues
| ton at issue is, Did the Constitution
| limit the powers of the courts in this
respect? He would like to see the de-
murrer sustained, and in deciding 1t
| that the defendant be given the benel1t
| of any doubt on the subject.
| Judge Catlin then spoke as follows:
las l said before l had fully con-
| sidered all of the objections which have
| been raised by this demurrer, although
the point that you presented that un-
| der the new Constitution the Legls-
| lature was authorized to place llm1ta-
| tions upon the power of the courts in
addition to those already existing, had
never been presented before me, but the
| very point attracted my attention III
| considering this matter and l have
| come to the conclusion that it was not
the intention of the Constitution to
| deprive the courts of those necessary
| powers. as one the three equal branches
| of Government That it was necessary,
| in order that it should maintain itself,
| and enable it to freely administer just
! ice as between individuals. The great
| duty of a court is to freely and inde-
pendently try and decide all matters
| of controversy involving the rights OF
| property between individuals or in
volving their rights of personal liberty.
| And I hold that any obstruction or III
| reference with the freedom on the part
! of the courts is an unlawful interfer-
ence The matter upon which this pro-
| ceeding arises was a matter of evil
dence in the case, a matter of evidence
material to the controversy, and more
| or less material in the judgment of the
court, and claimed by both parties to
| be material. Upon the mere statement
by the court as to what was or was not
the evidence this defendant interferes
through his newspaper directly in the
matter by charging in language which
was coarse, violent, insolent and in
sulting that the courts comments on
matter Of evidence before 1t was false,
and brazenly and unmitigatedly false,
etc. You have seen the language. l do
not like to repeat 1t. If that is not an
interference with the just rights and
powers Of the court it would seem to
me to be almost impossible to find one
| that would be. But as this matter
| comes UP on demurrer, and there may
| be something more in the answer, / do
| not care to further comment upon it at
| this time, and I merely wish to say just
what Is sufficient to overrule the de-
murrer. will direct that the demur-
| rer be overruled."
| Mr. Reddy then put in an answer of
| seven typewriter pages, which, he
| said he thought the court would per-
| haps like to read before taking it up.
| and the court adjourned till l o'clock
| for that purpose.
| CONTINUED on Sixth Page)