The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1902-03-14

isss. 49, ,hapiri a.. iaef .f isss ph.uh
provides. sttipr fhaf NH nIlNOa-
finn ~ tNr urHU.ti|uF. before ans
.Huif rr iudEe shall uui hU deceived a.
b. contempt uuf HhuN tI.h uunNrh-
flon b. punishable 90 contempt Sr.-
flun &. 't'onstrurilNo rHufUuuts shall
not Do punishable as such
w are az the opinion that section
and section ~ the Act ni isss must Do
construed together under thH familiar
principle of law that statutes Boo pun
ma,eria must b. construed us whole.
Ths constructive Ooutpmpts which ave
declared not tn b. punishable ns suth
~ section 1T the Act ui 1855 mani
testify refers 10 section ! uf th" same
act. which declares that the publication
81 the proceedings before any court
shall not b. punishable as contempt
IN, right then 90 publish proceedings
of court truthful and fair proceed
ings-thA truthful and fair report OF
the proceedings Of the court. substan-
TALLY accurate reports, ls a right which
is expressly given Co the citizen by
the laws Of this Territory, and IL Is q
right which this court cannot impinge
upon even IL u were So disposed. But
this right is limited tO a substantial,
accurate publication of the proceedings,
and where the publication does not
consist or purport TO consist Of pub
LEGATION OF the proceedings. but con-
sists of invention and of falsehood,
calculated to bring the courts into
odium. hatred. ridicule and contempt,
thereby embarrassing the influence OF
The courts, obstructing and impeding.
embarrassing and hindering the admin
lstration of Justice IL is a contempt,
and punishable as such under our laws
Now. in the state against the Bee
Publishing Company, Lawyers Reports
Annotated volume 80. page 1877, II APP
peared that the publication was made
with reference to "A pending case. The
editor of the paper was cited to show
cause in that proceeding why he should
not be dealt with as and for con-
tempt of court He appeared in court
by counsel and defended the action
against him upon the grounds that no
disrespect TO the court or to any mem
Der of the court was intended, that the
case Of the state vs.. Smyth was not
pending: that the publications We're
made with good motives and We're not
calculated 10 obstruct the due admins
tration of Justice" The Kennedy case
was pending. 0f that, said the court.
we have judicial knowledge, and the
defendant must surely have known
that the case was in court and undc-
termined. for il appears that the at
tornpy for respondents brought his
blltl 10 MI. IAbtih dAti = blllNfs anu Alll /
the article headed worthy Of Serious
Consideration" Immediately followed
a meeting between the editor and The
lawyer.
The defendant in this case has not
taken the stand. He personally has
not denied under his corporal oath In
the vision Of this court that he had
no knowledge OF the pendency of the
case of the Territory of Hawaii against
I,fHa lYA Of ~
which contains the contemptuous car
toon in question also contains. in an
other column, "A notice of the fact that
this case is pending, and that jury
had been sworn in the cause for the
purpose of trying II.
The first and third defenses are puer-
lie; they amount to a denial that the
defendant intended to violate the law.
Under the conceded facts the course
pursued by him was indefensible. His
conduct is not susceptible of an innocent
or honorable construction. The statute
declares that any wilful attempt to OBJ
struct the proceedings or hinder the
due administration of justice in any
suit, proceedings, or process pending
before any court shall constitute Il
criminal contempt and be punished as
such.
This statute is merely declaratory of
the law as IL has existed for hundreds
of years. II is a legislative recognition
OF the authority of the courts To deal
in summary manner with persons
who do any wanton, deliberate or in
territorial act calculated to embarrass
them in the discharge of their impor-
tant duties. In the history of Ameri-
can Jurisprudence there can be found
no case in which this power has beer
harshly or oppressively exercised by d
court of final jurisdiction. Indeed, such
courts have not often called publishers
to account for constructive contempts
because II has rarely happened that a
respectable public journal welding any
considerable influence has deliberately
employed outlaw methods in attempt
ing to control Judicial action.
Cases of this kind originating in the
lower courts are very numerous. We
will not take the time to cite them ol
any OF them. But as was said by the
Supreme Court of Iowa In the case ol
Field against Thornell 1906 Iowa, pag'
Is, il seldom happens that an honora
BILE journalist 80 far fOrgets his sell
respect as to trespass upon the right
of the judiciary, or to seek to contro
or improperly influence it's conclusions
We have, of course no desire to re-
strain in the slightest degree the free
dom OF the press, or to maintain th'
dignity of the court by inflictng penal
ties on those who may assail us VIII
defamatory and malicious publications
our decisions and all our official ac
tons are public property, and the pres
and people have the undoubted righ
TO comment on them, and criticize then
and censure them as they see fit. Ju
dical officers, like other public ser
wants. must answer for their oiiicia
actions before the chancery of publ,
opinion; they must make good thei
claims to popular esteem by excellence
and by virtue, by faithful and efiicien
service, and by righteous conduct. Blu
while we concede to the press th'
right to criticize freely our decisioni
when made, we deny to any individual
or To any class of men a right to sub
ject US tn any form of coercion witt
the view Of affecting our judgment II
pending case In the Iowa cas-
above cited il is said: Courts are con
stantly passing on questions affecting
the life and liberty of the citizen a
well as the rights of property, and tn
freedom of the judiciary to Investigate
and decide ia mite "a iInnnrtant TO TN