The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-02-04
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTH ERIN DIVISION OF THE NORTH
 ERN DISTRICT OF ALA

Ex PARTE A. N. M'LEOI

FIX PARTE A. N. MLEOD.
 1. As courts can exercise judicial func- tons only through their judicial oficers, an assault upon a judicial officer because he has discharged a judicial duty, is nec- essarily an attack upon the court for what it has done in the administration of justice.
 ?. It is vital to the welfare of society that courts which pass upon the life, iib- erty and property of the citizen. be free to exercise their reason and conscience unawed by fear or violence, and the high est considerations of the public good de- mand that the courts protect their off, cers against revenges induced in conse- quence of the performance of their du- ties. as we'll as against violence while engaged in the actual discharge of duty.
 5. It is a high contempt of court to seek to punish a judicial officer for his official acts. elsewhere than before constitu- ted tribunal impeachment: and the of. fense culminates in Its malignity towards the court. when its officer is assaulted for judicial acts. by one who has been arraigned before him.
 4. An assault upon a United States Commissioner because of past discharge of duty, is a contempt of the authority of the court whose oflicer the commits sioner is, in the administration Of crim- inal laws. although no proceeding against the offender was then pending. and the commissioner was not at the time in the performance of any duty.
 5. Legislation on this subject review ed. Section 72S of the Revised Statutes of the United States held to take away the common law power of Federal courts to punish criticism of judicial acts, or publications which amount to no more than libels upon their officers, but not to deprive those courts of the power to punish summarily as for a, contempt, an assault upon a court officer, while yet in office, growing out of the performance of duty in past case.
 6. Courts win punish contempts of their authority only when the ends of justice will be best subserved thereby.
 CASE.
 A. N Mcleod was indicted on the 10th of March, 1902. under Section 5S99 of the Revised Statutes. The indictment charg- ed, in substance, that Mcleod, after ex- animation. upon a charge of violating Section $40 of the Revised Statutes, be- fore Commissioner Randolph. was on the 2oth day of June. 1900. held to answer be- fore the next Circuit and Dis trict Courts of the United States for this Division and District, and that on the 3Oth day of october. 1900, Mcleod, well knowing that Randolph was such Commissioner etc, went np- on the highway. and lawfully did threat en and assault the said G. B. Randolph, the said officer as aforesaid. for the req son that the said Randolph as such ofn- cer had required the said Mcleod to exc cute bond for his appearance" etc.
 The next sitting of the Grand Jury, af- ter the assault, was on the first Monday in March. 1901. It adjourned without talk ing action. This indictment was found year afterwards, and more than sixteen months after the assault. The case came on for trial at the September term, lso2 when the defendant interposed demurrers, on the ground that the offense charged was not indictable under the laws of the United States. During the argument the District Attorney stated 1T the demurrers were sustained, he would ask rule requiring the defendant to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt, and the court replied 1t would determine, in that event, whether the offense charged constituted contempt. The demurrers having been sustained, U. S. V. Mcleod. 11s Fed, 1S7, the Court an- nounced its conclusion as to the contempt feature, at subsequent day of the term