The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-05-18
Sort of Electric Wire AZ
fidaVit?
Continued from Page One.)

/ of the intense personal interest in the
case on the part of people who know
| neither party to the controversy and
1 who are utterly unfamiliar with the
| law of contempt proceedings-as in
fact were the large majority of the
/ lawyers themselves before this sensa-
tional procedure sent them to their
| text books or reports
AS to the ultimate outcome of the
! particular case-that is as to whether
! the members of Robson bar are gull
| ty of contempt or not guilty-that is
| a question which has lost almost eV-
! erything of interest save in the locali-
| ties which have a personal interest in
! the result.
| However much of interest there
may be in the hardly contested legal
! proceedings which are certain to en-
sue; however finely may be drawn
| the technical questions of law involved
in the final decision as to the legal
aspect of the actions and publication
of the Lumberton lawyers-for the
purposes of this proceeding the re-
| spondents-the result in it's last analy-
sis will resolve itself in all practical
respects into the trial of the judge
and not the lawyers who have furnish
ed the press to this Statewide convul-
sion.
The question of the guilt or inno-
cence of the respondents has sunk
into insignificance in the great court
of public opinion; in that tribunal
it is the judge, and not the lawyers,
| who have been put upon his trial.
+ That Judge PEBBLES recognizes this
development is undoubtedly true. In
yesterdays hearing he clearly indicd-
ted that he recognized the issue when
he stated that if he could he proved
guilty of the charges made in the an
swer and the affidaVits, the proper and
| logical course for the aggrieved par
ties, would be the institution of pro-
ceedings in Impeachment. l will go
further and state that in the opinion
of these who knew the judge, who rec
ognize the bedrock personal courage
and honesty of the man he courts
rather than avoids this last mentioned
procedure as the only way in which
he can get the definite verdict of the
people as to his personal and judicial
character, both of which have been
definitely assailed in the answers and
affidaVits filed yesterday at Lumber
ton.
AS to the present status of the con-
tempt proceedings they are intrinsically
of the greatest interest. 1t must be re-
membered that the case has been vet
but half made up. There was the
complaint in Judge PEBBLES rule; the
answer of the one and a part of their
evidence in the affidavits which they
filed in support thereof There is yet
to come the whole of the judges evil
dence and additional evidence on be-
half of the respondents in rebuttal be-
fore the issues will be raised.
Yesterdays proceedings were, as
those in Fayetteville on Saturday, in a
certain sense insincere on the part
both of the judge and the counsel
for the respondents. BY this | do not
mean that the actions of both parties
were not entirely legitimate, but that
the measures urged by counsel and
the suggestions made from the bench
were both brought out with the GER
tainty that they WOULD not be accepted
by the adverse party.
For instance, while the respondents
desired a jury trial of the facts that
will be at issue. Judge PEBBLES well
knew that he ran no risk of being ia
ken at his word when he offered TO re-
move the case to another county and
grant a jury trial while he himself sat
on the case.
In like manner the defense under
stood perfectly that their motion to
remove to another judge would not be
granted and their insiStance upon this
motion was in no sense reliance uECn
any legal principle.
The real effect and, / imagine, the
real purpose of the motion and Of the
offers from the bench, was an appeal
to the whole body of the people; and it
is before that jury, as stated abo re,
that the whole question will be pul n
the end for definite decision.
1t must be remembered, also, that
up to this date the real questions at
issue in the controversy have scarcaly
been touched upon. The basic conten
ton of the whole matter-whether or
M ha a1y II n
constitute contempt in law have
scarcely been touched upon nor ar
4 gued. A brief statement of the law of
contempt in North Carolina could
probably be sumed up in these words:
THAT contempt of court is confined TO
words or actions, said published or
committed in the presence of the court
which tried to interrupt the orderly
procedure of the court or to interfere
with, hinder or delay the process of
the court or prejudice the rights of lit
igants in the court. Those matters
which happen in the immediate or
constructively immediate presence of
the court constitute direct contempt
and may be punished summarily by
the judge. Any other action
taken or publications made away
from the actual presence of the
court can be only considered in pro-
ceedings as for contempt, which is the
SeneFdf view taken OF the Robson
case. The chief interest in this pro-
ceeding, specifically, is how Judge
PEBBLES proposes to bring the re-
spondents under the provisions of the
Code, which have been briefly seen
marked above. Anything that was
done was done far from the actual
presence of the court itself and the
publications as to the reasons for the
action taken could scarcely seem to
fall under any cause of contempt set
down by the Code. While such publi-
cation might be taken with show OF
reason to tend to bring Judge PEBBLES
personally in contempt, it would seem
| to be straw argument to contend
that they operated so far against the
! judicial office itself as to interfere
with its process as the rights of liti-
giants in the court.
There is added color to this reason
ing when it is remembered that the
statuteS-1S69 and 1S71-upon which
lour present Code provisions are found