Evening capital news. (Boise, Idaho) 1901-1927, 1912-12-10
ARGUMENT IN Behalf OF THE
DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT
CASE BY ]. S. bOCART

courts of the United States stang on
la higher plane than those of the old
countries. In the old country. at one
time, merely because of an article re-
fleeing on the decision Of judge.
made months prior to the time, 1t was
la subject for contempt. We don't ask
for that. The courts of Idaho ask for
criticism; they ask for fair criticism
II the court please, here 10 the only
statute I see under which this prose-
cution is brought. the publication of a
false or grossly inaccurate report Of
the proceedings Of the court; you must
get outside Of that; you must enlarge
on the limits set down by the statute
before you can possibly come into this
court with q cause of action. You
must take and abridge the constitution
Of the state OF Idaho, in order to get
in.
no matter pending before this court at
the time these articles were written
and think the court will bear me out
even in that great case in the state
of Colorado against the News Times.
which say to the prosecuting attor-
ney would be ashamed to put before
any court as the law Of this state.
they held that during rehearing and
as the counsel stated, even should you
want to reconsider the thing, any pub
LEGATION or criticism adverse to them
while that is in your hands-is con-
tempt.
Can 30 Criticised.
when this court has handed down
| it's opinion In case and thrown It
open to the world for criticism, has
invited the newspapers to publish that
opinion, and then because this court
may allow a rehearing, shall 1t hold
that any criticism by the newspapers
or individuals wfile there is possible
chance for a rehearing to be had-will
this court hold that those criticisms
are subject to contempt, to construc-
tive contempt? I do not believe this
court desires to be placed in the posi-
ton, that having invited criticism, 1t
will say that we are not sure of the
opinion that we handed down and your
remarks may influence us in arriving
at subsequent opinion; we would
thereby show a weakness which would
be more disastrous to public good than
any criticism, no matter how stringent
it might be on the opinion that you
originally handed down. I am going to
quote extensively from the dissenting
opinion of Judge Steele of Colorado in
this case I have heretofore mentioned
against the News Times.
This, I believe, II the court will
thoroughly consider 1t, is sound law
sound reasoning, and is the better po-
sition for the court to take in matters
/ of constructive contempt
Contradicts Theory Advanced.
] Counsel says that this court has ar
inherent power on account of being
judges to punish those who are brought
before 1t. I will call the courts at
tention to the fact that the governor
of the state Of Idaho has certain ju-
dicial functions or quasi judicial func-
tions by which II the newspapers OF
this state would criticise his action
he, then extending his power to the
extent that counsel would have II
done, would have the power to imme-
diately bring that publication or the
owners of 1t before him for contempt
He passes judicial or quasi -judicia
action on the pardons of this state
why, If they criticise the pardons anG
the pardon board, wouldn't they have
the power. under that theory as LAID
down by counsel for the state. to bring
the owners of the publication up fol
contempt?
One Justice a Candidate.
IF the court please, the court mus
realize that all these articles as pub
lished and considered contemptuou.
were published in the heat of the cam
paign. The court also must take rec.
ignition of the fact that one of Thu
bench was candidate before the PEG.
pie for that position that he nov
! holds. You must take into considera
ton that while he was a candidat,
u for that office for which he aspired