The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-02-04
IMPORTANT OPINION OF JUDGE JONES CONCERNING CONTEMPT OF THE COURTS

, There is very learned and thorough discussion, to which little can be added, of the general principles which govern cases of this sort. by the General Court of Virginia in Commonwealth V. Dand- ridge, ? Va. Cases, 234. That case and this differ, however. in some important features. There. the Judge was insulted about a suit against Dandridge's surety, which was still pending before the court. | The hour had arrived for its sitting, the Judge was on his way to the court room and near there. to take his place on the bench, when Dandridge denounced him for past, conduct in the case at a former term. Here. no proceeding whatever, in which Mcleod was interested, was pend- | ing either before the commissioner or the Circuit or District Court. at the time | Mcleod assaulted the Commissioner. The latter was not then in the discharge of any duty, as was the Judge in the Virginia Court In re Neagle, 135 U. s.. l. In Dandridge's case, there was insult only | by words and manner. Here, there was an attempt to do personal violence.
 l Judge Dade. who delivered the main | opinion in Dandridge's case, said: The reason why such indignities put upon the persons of judges when off the bench, | were punished summarily as contempts was, to use the language of Blackstone, | because they demonstrate that gross | want of regard and respect which, when courts of justice are once deprived of, | their authority so necessary to the good | of the kingdom, Is entirely lost among the people " Immediately following, Judge Dade further says: Nor in this partic- ular and for this end, is it of the least | importance whether the contumely is used 1 in open court, at the moment the occasion occurs. or at the moment afterwards, when the crier has proclaimed the ad- journment. as the Judge descends the steps of the bench, or those at the court ! house door. The only real question in either case is, whether 1t is his official , conduct for which he Is challenged and insulted." He then adds: Tt was, how ever, very necessary for the defendant to draw this distinction for which his counsel has contended If possible, because 1t was foreseen that there was no reason for protecting from insult the person of | the Judge in court on account of his off, cial conduct, which did not equally apply | to protection out of court on the same account. It would have been, shifting the ground to maintain that the insult in court was punishable because it inter rupted the business of the court; because, | besides Its being sometimes of such
 sort as not to produce this effect 1t Is
 
 of attachment, VIE: that for obstructing
 the power of the court Judges White and Parker rendered concurring opinions | to the same effect Judge Parker said: 1 If any of the officers of justice are so l threatened and insulted for their con-
 duct, as to make 1t apparent that such | attacks, if permitted, would have infiu-
 ence on the general administration of | the law the offender is obnoxious to i punishment on every principle of justice
 and expediency." The conclusion that
 Dandridge was guilty of a contempt was
 unanimous, the ten judges concurrlng in | the judgment. Commonwealth V. Dand- | ridge. supra. Is cited approvingly on the | general doctrine of contempts, though not 1 as to this precise point, by the Supreme Court of the United States, in ex parte
 Terry, 12S U. s., BOA
 | It is said that punishment, as for a
 contempt, of an assault upon the officer
 because of past discharge of duty. is in-
 consistent with the spirit of our institu-
 tions-that such an assault Is nothing
 more than an assault upon private per
 son, and can only be dealt with as such | that punishment under the contempt pow
 CT of the court of such an offense, in | vests the person of the Judge with priv ileges at war with the spirit of equality between citizens which our form of Gov
 ernment maintains, and that 1t Is, there- fore. without the power of the courts | in this country to treat any assault upon | the officer, no matter what the motive.
 when he Is not actually engaged In the l discharge of any duty, as a contempt or
 court. The necessities of Government re- ] auire, in many instances, that a differ , ence be made between public servants
 and private citizens. For instance, 1t Is | for the public good that representative | shall not be questioned, elsewhere than | in the House of which he is a member, | for words spoken in debate Such priv | ilege Is the prerogative of the whole peo- | pie; but it can only be made effective l by giving protection to the individual who | represents then. when 1t would not be i accorded under like circumstances, If he | were acting in mere private capacity
 So it is of many statutory and constitu- l tional privileges which are created for the public good. not for the sake of the in-
 dividuals who hold official position. An | assault upon a judicial officer which | grows out of official conduct, necessarily | differs from an assault upon private | individual about private matter. The
 consequences to society are not the same | One affects the administration of justice, | the other does not The motive of the | assault, under every system or law, de- l ternineS the gravity or the Oiiellse. All
 assault upon one who Is d Judge about
 q matter disconnected with his official | duties, is not of concern to the court. for
 1t does not affect the administration of | justice. and does not differ in any wise | CT in any degree, in it's legal aspects, ut 1 least from an assault upon any other individual. It would be bald usurpa- 1 ton of authority for the court to attempt | to pcrvert the contempt power to pun 1 ish!ng an act which in no way concerns i the administration of justice. The case
 here grows out of an assault upon judi | ciaI officer because of past discharge of
 duty, d thing which gravely affects the administration of justice. Justification of
 puuIshment in such a case. as for con- | tcmpt. is found in the consideration that
 an assault upon d judicial officer for such
 a reason, attacks the great prerogative l of the people to have and enforce the
 fearless administration of justice.
 1 If is vital to the enjoyment of civic rights and free institutions that tribunals
 which pass Ipon the life, liberty, and l prouerty of the citizen and his relations | to inc Government, and it's power over
 him. shall be- and remain, uncorrupted, l unawed and independent. Hence. the pow CT to punish summarily contempts of their authority. to use the language of Black stone. .'is an inscparable attendant of ev- cry superior court" From time imme- morial in the mother country, courts have exerted the power not only to com
 nel obedience t0 their commands, and to | nreserve order and decorum in their pres | a,ca b,,, also to crush unla wful influ-