The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-02-04

In the first Section, which regulates tho. contempt power only The words ''obstruct | the administration of justice,' are found | in both sections. Why, when regulating the existing contempt power. in this care fully drawn statute, did Congress. in tho first Section dealing with the contempt power only, use the words, s'obstruct tho administration of justice" and then in the next Section. which does not regulate the contempt power, and only ds1nea crime. avoid the use of the general term, administration of justice" or rather qualify it by preceding the term with the word 'due." and following it by the | word "therein;" so as to read, "obstruct the due administration of justice there- imp The words ''obstruct the due ad-
 ministration of justice therein," used in a penal enactment, necessarily limit tho offense there denounced to cases "there-s in" in the court, still before the sanae.'s and exclude past cases. They do not cover "misbehavior," which, though not directed to a particular case. affects all | cases alike in the general administrator | of justice. The words "obstruct the ad- ministration of tustice," in the first Sec- | ton, which is not penal, regarding pow CT to preserve the purity and independ- | ence of the courts, and thereby promote | the dispensation of justice. are broad enough to include not only improper acts | in particular cases, but those which uii-
 dermine the general administration of justice as well.
 In view of the history of this statute, and its studied discrimination in the use of words in the different Sections. we cannot presume that Congress, in regu- | Hating, the first Section, an existing | power, the possession of which Is of such l Ttat>importance to the objects for which courts are created, regarding misheha- l vior "so near to the court. as to ob- l struct the administration of justice" used the term administration of justice'' in the same narrow sense in which 1t Is erri- | ployed in the subsequent section, creat- | ing an indictable offense against the ad- ministration of justice; which offense. by | the use of the qualifying word therein"
 Is confined to misbehavior in particular | cases pending in the court, and, there fore, does not include acts which tend to subvert the purity and independence | of courts or scandalize justice, unless done | In relation to a particular pending case. | The ruling on the indictment in this case | sharply illustrates the distinction. The
 assault here is blow at the fearlessness | and independence of judicial officers. and | scandalizes the general administration of | Justice: yet 1t could not be punished by | indictment under thls section Section of | the act of 1S31,-Secuon 5S9a of the Re- | yised Statutes-because 1t did not relate to any pending case in court-'therein."
 Bearing in mind that Congress in the present statute liberated the power so that 1t may deal with contempts. 'misbeha-
 vior." with reference to past as we'll as
 pending cases, if they fall within the | contingencies prescribed, and presuming, | as we must that Congress was desirous | that the inherent power the courts then possessed to preserve their purity and | independence in the general adniinistra-
 ton of justice, should not be unduiy
 shackeled. there car. De little doubt that Congress deliberately rejected the eni- ployment of the word therein" after
 the words ''obstruct the administrators of justice" in the first Section, in order | to avoid striking down the power to pre- vent evils which attack the administra- | ton of justice itself, and. by undermfn- | ing the security and independence or its | officials, bring 1t under suspicion and | scandaiize 1t in the face of the people. ai- | though, as here, the misbehavfor does not cbstruct justice In any particular case The assault here was clearly an | offense of this character.
 Violence done to the Judge, because Of the discharge of duty. may undermine his independence and constrain his judg- ment, and affect every subsequent case l which comes before his court. The ju- dicial mind which once yields and pro- nounces judgment according to the dic-
 tates of force or fear. is degraded ana impure. It will weaken again under the
 same influence, and successful exertion
 of the influence in one case, VIII Deses
 unlawful endeavors with like results.
 Such a mind Is not a fit source from
 which to seek justice in any case. So 1t
 is that such acts become obstructtons to
 justice which affect judicial feariessness
 and independence In every case before the
 court They thus fight against justice in
 the particular cases, as well as In It's ! general administration.
 What Is meant by the words ''so near | thereto" has not been defined by judi-
 ciaI decision. In view of the evil in-
 tended to be suppressed. they mean not
 inc place where the "misbehavior" is
 committed, but the power of the mis-
 behavior to harm the administration of
 justice If the force put in motion by
 the '1mlsbehavor," at whatever place 1t is committed. assails or threatens the
 authority and independence of the court.
 thsn the 'Inisbehavior' is 'so near there
 to-" as to be punishable under this sec
 ton. Myers V. State. i3 Ohio State Rep.
 4S7. In Savn. petitioner, 13l U. S.. 269.
 the matter came under discussion: but
 the Supreme Court declined to decide
 whether the words ''so near thereto as
 to obstruct the administration of justice
 refer "onIy to cases or misbehavior out
 side of the court room, or in the vicinity
 of the court building, causing such open
 or violent disturbance of the quiet and
 order of the court while in session. as
 to actually interrupt the transaction of it's business" In that case, Savin at
 tempted to bribe a witness in the witness | room, while he was waiting to be called into the court room. His offense took place out of sight and hearing of the
 court, though the trial In which the wit ness was to testify was then going on.
 The Judge did not know what transpired