The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1901-12-06
PUNISHMENT FOR CoNrEMpr.

to impose punishment Tor SO-Calcd con-
tempt. Chicago has been stirred in tne
lpast few weeks by the sending to jail
of the managing editor of Hearsts
Chicago American and n reporter on
that paper for reflections upon the
honesty Of judge in the Windy City
The consensus of opinion as gathered
In print Is that the power to punish
for contempt should be restricted. The
Sacramento Bee, in an editorial few
days ago takes this view. and says that
this Furnishing power is now too great.
! The Bee says:
| While 1t is proper and necessary that
some exercise of tbs lmmemorial judi
cial right should be permitted, no man
Nshould be allowed unbounded arb trary
power, to serve as judge and jury In his
own case.
Recently a Chicago Judge sentenced to
Imprisonment for terms of thirty and
forty days respectively the reporter who
wrote, and the managing editor wh1
published In the Chicago American an
article conta ming gro.s reflections upon
that same judge, because of a decision
rendered By HIM In favor OF. local gas
company.
In the hearing before the court coun-
sci for the newspaper admitted that the
attack was brutal, but argued that the
y
criminal l.bel, as in the case o. private
persons aggrieved by such Il pub ion.
1t was argued that If any court which
may feel or fancy Itself aggr eyed shall
act as the sole and final arbiter In It's
own case, great wrong and injust &c may
often be done.
With the merits of the Chicago case
we have nothing to do. 1t may be that
the attack upon the integrity or inie-
pendence of the Judge was wholly IN
wal ranted, in which event the paper
| or those of Its staff who may be person
ally responsible, certainly deserve pun
ishment. But it should be PLAZA to any
reasoning person that this power to pun
, ish for contempt Is a dangerous weapon
in the hands CT a corrupt judge. Anu
we all know there are such jurists. Now
If a rascally judge sells decision in a
case in which the public intei ests are at
o stake, thereby disgracing his high call
= ing and fi,cting Il shameful wIong upon
p the public should he have the power to
punish reporters and editors who tell the
u, truth about him? NO. Is it to the inter-
. est of the judiciary, as a body, or OF the
pc pie that "A judge should be enab ed
to escape press criticism for an Infamous
betrayal of his high duties?
- So long as every judge from the h gh-
est 10 the lowest, snail have the arb ira
ny right to throw into jail any writer or
Z publisher who may venture to accuse
him Of wrong doing on The bench, VIII tn
d err the accusation be truthful or un,ruth-
= full, the rights of the people and of it,
d giants cannot be properly guarded
, Here and there may be found an edl-
tor or a publisher willing to go 10 JAN
for II month or year. from sense Of
duty to the public but such examples of
3 moral hel o.sm are rare SO II o.ten hap
I pens that Il scoundrcl upon the bench
tGt. tIn, tHNt mol
q rupt, escapes censure from the press, ind
- repeatedly trails the judicial .rmine in
- the mire.
y Is court or "A Judge ever indicated
x befo,e the people by the exercise Of Its
% arbitrary power to punish for citc SIN!
n No In the great majority OF ms ancas
J. the judge wreaks veng, ance, and that l.
all. He cannot in the nature If The case
be impartial and just, unless H. be ar
exceptional man. And IL he be a rog de
Ut smarting from the exposure OF ...s ras
ID cality, lie is certain TO again violate JUS
l. tice by intilcting heavy punishment fol
"a the contempt which he richly deserves
=, He Is no more indicated THAI he wou.t
:, be were he to assault and beat his ac
!" cuser. Is the burglar vndicated when IL
'e shoots the policeman?
d. We doubt II ever an honest judge wa!
J. hurt In public estimation by an unlruth
ct full or unfair criticism of a dec sion. Ii
the Chicago case it Is probable that tn,
newspaper was more injured in the eye.
of the people than the judge who was
10 criticized. provided the latte.'s reputation
- was previously good. The public are
IN quick to sympathize with a judge, from
X the peculiar nature Of his position and re-
Ia spc nsib!lities.
Readers will understand that in any
w contempt proceeding the person c.ted tC
u appear Is Simply called upon to show
$ cause to the cou.t why he should not be
lie punished. And this showing reates
u merely to identification and persona, re-
IN sponsibility. Tie truth of the matter
ne complained If cannot be shown 10y tn,
" accused, even in mitigation of punish
!. ment. Unless the accused persoa car
prove that he is in no wise respons hi,
for the writing or publication that give!
in offense TO the court-perhaps from II:
r very truthfulness-h Is at the me rcy OF
ri the accuser and may by him by sent tc
"A Jail for months.
:, In trial for criminal libel, on the 9th.
y. er hand, the truth may be presented &c
~ the jury. In Caforn and other states
lie though the maxim of the old mmor
p law was that the greater the truth tn,
IN greater the libel" And in this state the
So law is that If the jury find the matter
Ia charged as libelous IS true and was pub
,e lished with good motives and for jusu
I'M fable ends, the accused shall be acquit
- ted. Furthermore, the jury have the
&c right 10 determine both the law and tn,
fact.
What n contrast between this fair ant
4 just law and the irrespons be arb trary
=, power exercised by judge in contemp,
~ proceedings, where he is both judge and
y july. from whose decision there is no
N appeal!
"a If all judges were fair and honest, the
Is power TO punish for contempt might safe
10 ly be left as it is. Ii Is no more thar
II. the due of certain high minded jurist!
H. to say that in contempt proceedings IN
A. volving personal offense to themselve
: they would be lenient to the offender
~ for fear of being based by personal feel
III ing. But there are Judges who, though
Sn honest, are v!ndictive and grossly unfair
ry and there are Judges who are mott e