Evening capital news. (Boise, Idaho) 1901-1927, 1912-12-10

EVENING CA
they had ! right to criticiss any action
they had : right to put before the
people anything upon which he paused
In order that II possible. they might
carry out their desire for the election
Of the One they were supportsns. Should
they have exceeded the rights than AMI
individual has. then that judge has the
same power to have them tried for IL
bel. but not for contempt.
No Rsfleetion On Justice.
TT must be further understood that
that squib In the paper that counsel
read. that the majority OF the court
might know they were wrong when
they agreed with Justice Su,livan--I
want to say don't see any reflection
there on Judge Sullivan II It
was anything, 1t was a joke, grant
ing that you are going to take 1t seri-
ously you can take the position Of
Justice Harland Of the supreme court
Of the United States. who has repu-
tation over the whole world, OF hardly
ever being In harmony with the bal
ance Of the court on decisions. He
generally dissents and yet, would any,
body imply that his motives were not
pure-that his understanding had not
been right? No. It is Just merely that
that simple article IL not contempt
In any sense Of the word.
Contempt Citation Limited.
IT the court please. the great ma
jority Of the authorities holds that YOU
have motor you should not take upon
yourselves that inherent power to
punish for contempt that is not direct.
will admit that counsers authorities
are correct when 1t comes to any at
torney Of this court or any witness
before any court In the state or any
juror that refuses to act on the pro-
cess Of the court. believe n there il
any order sent out from the court not
Immediately complied with, then you
should bring them In for contempt.
Il want to say / don't believe If the
court please. there is any contempt pro-
ceeding that will ever raise the respect
of the people of Idaho for the court
and l believe that respect must come
from the affection of the people, from
their personal like for you and from
the ability shown by this court in pass
ing on those opinions. l don't believe
that the people of the state of Idaho
pass upon the opinions of this court
from the newspaper articles printed in
a campaign; I don't believe the articles
printed in this campaign reflect on the
integrity. honesty or ability of this
nn yrt hnlf =
and published only to help out the Pro-
gressive ticket
Position 10 Sustained.
III the court please, the contention I
have taken in this has been sustained
by the Central Law Journal, by Wis
consin, Michigan, Illinois, Massachu-
sets, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota,
Missouri, the supreme court Of the Uni
ted States. West Virginia. Mississippi
and Maryland; and also the great text
writer's. Cooley. Lord Erskine and Lord
Campbell.
why take some isolated cases? Why
join in with three or four states in the
union and add to our laws another
statute. because this court must read
into the statutes of the state of Idaho
| constructive contempt; there is no law
In the state of Idaho that gives you
that power. If you do that, then want
to say that you have given an addi-
tional-or there will be an addition to
the laws of the state of Idaho, another
court made law. You go back then to
the old Blackstone--go back and dig up
the old archives, saying under this you
Lpx t,,I,N ,.l~I.A
man that criticfses any decision you
make after 1t has been handed down.
Don't pay any attention to this propo-
sition of the rehearing. We can't afford
to have the court of Idaho say that we
will show the weakness that comes
| under this proposition, that you must
| wait for length of time that is neces-
sary for us to rehear or. should you
criticise adversely and should anything
| in your publication be so as to influ-
ence us, we might change our opinion
| Under the law of rehearing 1t must
be some new matter that you will
pass upon, not the old; you have
passed on that; SO. then, what differ
ence would 1t make; what do these
criticisms have to do with the opinion
of this court? No, hope, If the court
please, there will not be written in the
laws Of the state of Idaho--that there
will not be placed down in the state
library--any law which says that the
press OF the state Of Idaho will not have
the right under the constitution to ex-
press their opinions about any opinion
that may be handed down by this court
or any other court in this state. !. say
no, let us throw out to the people OF
this state the right to criticise this