Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1901-11-28
ABOUT CONTEMPT CASES.

|
The hearing came on before Judge Han.
ecv. who was the republican candidate
for mavor last spring, and lie decided the
case favorably to the gas trust. He made
this decision on the 28th oil October, pub
licly, and it was Immediately reported
bv the press; but he did not at once en-
ter the formal order dismissing the quo
wa,ranto proceedings. After this decision,
hut before the entry OF the order, the
Chicago American assailed Judge Hanecy
and his decision, both in writing and by
cartoon, whereupon the judge Instituted
3 ,mmary proceedings before himself
AGAINST the managing editor and report
er OF the American, who afterward ac-
knowledged that they alone were respon-
sible for the publications complained of.
After extended arguments upon the
law OF the case, Judge Hanecy adjudged
these two men guilty Of contempt Of court
and sentenced one to 40 and the other to
80 days imprisonment. The vital point
in the matter, as contempt proceeding
relates to the time when the offending
comment WAS published. According to
decisions of the Illinois supreme court. it
is contempt Of court to publish, pending
the decision of case, any comment upon
it which is calculated to influence the RI .
suit; and Judge Hanecy holds that these
decisions apply to comments made before
the formal order or decree which records
the decision, even though made utter the
decision ia officially announced from the
bench.
An explanation Of contempt proceed.
ings may make the position Of Judge
Hanecy in the American case more clear.
1t is long established and entirely
proper thing for courts to punish for con.
tempt persons who willfully disobey law
full orders of the court. But that practice
has no application to this case. The only
other class OF contempt proceedings is
that which rests upon disorderly behav.
ior in the presence OF the court, which 8
calculated to disturb interrupt, Or Other.
wise interfere with the orderly admins
tration OF justice. This second kind of
prosecution for contempt OF court is also
proper. 1t il manifest that unless judges
may summarily punish disorder in their
presence when sitting as courts OF justice,
they might be unable 10 conduct judicial
proceedings with becoming and necessary
dignity. But on the basle Of that author.
ity for the protection Of judicial decorum.
some judges have asse, ted the right, and
the supreme court Of Illinois appears to
have acquiesced in this judicial usurpa-
ton, to summarily punish for conduct
not actually but only constrnctively in
The presence OF the court.
An INSCRIPTIONS litigant, for illustra-
ton, meets the Judge upon the stree
during recess OF the court, or call upon
him at his house, and coaxes, threatens,
assaults or attempts to bride him, or
otherwise by personal conduct toward the
Judge while off the bench endeavors to
affect the action Of the court. Instead OF
turning this matter over to the grand
| jury for orderly prosecution under cir
cu,nstances and safeguards that would
enable the accused to get IL fair trial be-
fore jury and disnterested judge, the
fudge in question wrathfnlly hales the
alleged delinquent before himself for con-
tempt OF court constructively in the
courts presence; denies him jury; tries
him himself; and sentences him at his
own discretion. The mere statement OF
the theory of constructive contempt col .
DIT INNS it. Yet it is upon this theory tina t
newspapers are held in contempt for COM
menting upon court proceedings. Assert
ing that the printed comment is calculat-
ed to obstruct the due administration VI
justice, if published OF Il pending case,
Judges whose personal feelings aie hurt
by such comment, sometimes summary
arrest, summarilv try without u jury and
before themselves, summarily convict
(they never acquit, for they usually de-
eide the question Of gull. in advance),
summary sentence newspaper men
whose publications offend them. The
proceeding is in reality device to enable
Judges to try their own libel suits.
This is what Judge Hanecy has done
| in the case OF the two American employees.
The Americans criticism was leveled at
him personally. 1t was bitter, and may
have been unjust and unlawful. II il
seemed to be 80, disinterestei judge
and not the injured Judge Hanecy, should
have presided at the trial; jury, and
not Judge Hanecy, should have passed
upon the facts; the disinterested judge
and not Judge Hanecv, should have i'm
posed sentence. But that was not done
Judge Hanecy in his own person acted
as Judge and jury in what was substanti'
ally his own case. Asked for change
OF venue to disinterested judge he de-
MED the application. Asked to impanel
Jury, he denied that. The whole at
mosphere Of the proceeding vas aristo'
cratic, and calculated to cast suspicion
upon it's fairness.