The record-union., 1896-06-05

ways citizens right to be tried on a
charge and to have a. chance to answer
it. He had a right ito answer in any
way to the attack. The answer speaks
of the Judge being prejudiced and vim
dictive
The court said that the article did not
charge prejudice and vindietiveness
against the defendant, but against one
of the parties to the suit. The answer
says the Judge is prejudiced and vim
dictive against the Bee" There is no
foundation for such charge. There
was no act in his life to authorize such
a charge or give a foundation TO such
an idea. There was nothing said by
him against the defendant He simply
characterized the report as false.
Mr.. Reddy stuck to his contention
that the defendant had been convicted
without trial, and the Judge reiter-
ated that nothing was said about him,
and that what was said related entirely
to the report. The attorney said that
the court stignlatized the article as a
base fabrication. The defendant was
defending his reporter, as newspapers
found it necessary to do if they wish to
retain them The defense was not
couched in choice language, but it was
natural. He felt he had a right to an
Swer, and he did so. He (Reddy)
thought the matter should be dropped
and that if the facts stated in the an
swer are true. he mad made a good
defense and would submit it.
S. S. Holl said he had listened to the
argument. He was a member of the
y1I of ha of o
State, and was interested in main
tanning the integrity of the courts. He
realized the necessity devolving on
the courts of repelling assaults that,
if permitted, must result in destroying
ell respect for them and their useful
ness in the country.
He understood the issues here to be
whether Mr.. McClatchy had been guilty
of contempt of court, and the 1mmedi-
ate point for consideration was the oc-
currence of the morning. The Bees"
report reflected severely on one of the
attorneys, and the court had character
ized the article as false His language
did not refer to Mr.. McClatchy or any
one else and only went to declare that
the statement in the report was false.
The court declared the statement false,
but assaulted no one and jeopardiZed no
reputation. Was it necessary, there
fore, for McClatchy to attack the in
tegrity of the court on account Of this?
Mr. Holl read portion of the second
article and said that after the Bee"
had affirmed it's report was correct, the
article stated it would go further and
that the Judge and attorney knew
r +Ioiy. c-to tom, MT aV
denied it, and that the Judge should be
lynched and removed from the bench.
The court, he said is different from the
Individual who sits on the bench, and
its dignity must be preserved. The
statemtnt that the defendant had not
been heard in his own defense was the
most absurd he had ever listened to
that before the court could express an
opinion it must send out and hunt up
a person making a false statement and
hear what he has to say.
The statement of the court that the
report was false had served as the
basis of most infamous assault on
it. The court has no alternative but to
punish the perpetrator in such a man.
ner as to prevent the repetition of the
offense by other persons. 1t should
strike out portions of the answer. No
circumstances whatever could justify
it. It would not be necessary to show
animus as the language itself was
proof of a malignant and vindictive
spirit.
Mr.. Reddy criticised the statement
that his argument was absurd and
urged that his defense was legal one.
The defendant, he said, had a right to
answer in relation to the adjudication
that had been made in his absence
The court stated that he deemed the