The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-03-14
HUMPHREYS FINDS SMITH
GUILTY Of CONTEMPT

! duty, not only to give to every sutton
MS demandable right. but TO give him
assurance that no banned and hostile
influence shall operate against him
while his cause is under consideration
4, before the court and before the jury.
A htigant is entitled not only to Just
! decision. but TO decision altogether
free from coercion or suspicion OF CO.
ercion. Nothing else Will satisfy him.
nothing less can fill the measure of his
expectations. He has no standard with
which to gauge judicial firmness; and
II the court has been exposed to infiu-
ences calculated. as in the Mccarthy
case, to tell against him, ne viii not
I Know whether an adverse decision is
the voice of the law or the cry of
cowardly and brutal editor.
Our views upon this matter are well
expressed in the following excerpt from
| the opinion Of Judge Lawrence in the
People against Wilson, GA Illinois.
page 1855: "A court will. of course en-
deaVor to remain wholly uninfiuenced
and unprejudiced by publications like
| that under considerat ton. but viii the
community believe that il was able to
do SO? Can it even be certain in re-
gard to itself? Can men always b.
certain of their mental poise? A timid
man might be influenced to yield, while
a combative man would be driven in
the opposite direction. While the ac-
tuai influences are on one side or the
other. so far as it is felt at all, il
becomes dangerous to the administra-
ton of justice. Even if court is
happily composed of men of mature
years and OF such firm and equal tenn
per that they remain wholly uninfiu-
enced in either direction, nevertheless
| disturbing influence has been thrown
into the counsel chamber, which il is
the wise policy of the law to exclude
Equally pertinent are the remarks of
Judge Elliott. in People ex rel. Common
VS. Stapleton. IS Colorado, SOS. Judges
are human; they are possessed of hui
man feelings. and when accusations
are publicly made as by newspaper
article charging them directly or indi-
rectly with dishonorable conduct in
case pending before them and about
to be determined, il is idle to say that
they need not DE embarrassed in their
consideration and determination of
such cause. They will inevitably suffer
more or less embarrassment in the
discharge of their duties according to
the nature of the charges and the
source from which such charges en-
anate. When a judge tries and deter
mines cause in connection with
which public charges against his judi
cial integrity have been published. the
public as well as parties interested are
frequently led by the publication of
the charges to diStruSt the honesty
and impartiality of the decision, and
thus confidence in the administration
of justice is impaired. 1t is not only
important that the trial of causes shall
be impartial and that the decisions
of the courts shall be just, but it is
important that causes shall be tried
and judgments rendered without bias.
without prejudice or improper influence
of any kind. 1t is not merely a private
wrong against the rights of litigants
and against the rights of judges. it is
"A public wrong. a crime against the
State, against the decency and good
order of society. That party does not
succeed in such undertaking which he
manifestly intends lessons his offense
only in degree. His ability to do harm
is confined. il is limited by the known
personal weaknesses of the writer OF
such articles, and the contempt into
which they generally bring him. We
feel quite sure that the publications
here in question have not in the least
deferred us from discharging with
fidelity our duty in the case at bar.
They were manifestly intended to over
awe and intimidate this court. they
appearing To be put forth for the pur-
pose of preventing a decision by the
jury in favor of the defendant. They
were under the circumstances palpable
acts of journalistic lawlessness and
anarchy calculated to weaken the in
dependence OF the court and to destroy
confidence in its judgment. To justify
them is to deny the supremacy of the
law, and to answer the doctrine OF
newspaper absolutism under the guiSe
of free press. To admit that publish
erS may promote their interests in
pending litigation by resorting to meth
DDS not available to others, is TO strike
down our much Wanted principle of
equality before the law" and to de-
clare that journalists who choose to (
become malefactors are privileged
class. and entitled as such to go I'M
whipped Of justice. But the law rec
ognizes no such distinction; it never ,
has recognized il. 1t accords to pub
fishers, says Chancellor Wallworth. no
rights but such as are common to all. .
They have just the same rights as the F!
rest of the community have; no more
and no less. a man who speaks in a 3
newspaper has no greater right than /
he who speaks out of it. A newspaper |
is no sanctuary behind which per- ,
son can shield himself for breaking the !
solemn laws of the land. We have not
acted in this case out of any spirit of
resentment: indeed, we have no reason I
to feel specially aggrieved. The natural /
tendency of the article is, however. and i
the cartoon is to interfere with and
obstruct the due administration OF jus 4
ticc of this court.
1t is the unanimous opinion of the
judges of this court that the defendant /
should be held guilty as charged in the /
complaint herein.
Mr. W o. Smith, in answer to the
of the court, said that there
was no necessity for a further showing
On the part of the respondent, that
sworn return had been made in which
personal knowledge was disclaimed.
and that the cartoon related TO the
first trial. a case in which the decision
had already been given.
Judge Gear replied that the contempt
was not a constructive one, and that
that statute did not apply to written
Or spoken words, and consequently the
defendant could not be purged of the
He said he would consider
the disclaimer Of personal knowledge
On the part OF Mr.. Smith in mitigation
Of sentence. In concluding Judge Gear
said:
1T is therefore the judgment of this
court that you be and you are hereby
adjudged guilty Of contempt of court
as set forth in the affidavit, and you