Evening capital news. (Boise, Idaho) 1901-1927, 1913-01-02
Continued from First Page.)

court to punish for contempt was no
derived from the legislature, and sucl
power does not depend upon the legis
lative will.
'12. The legislature has not the au
thority to restrict the inherent powe
of the court to punish for contempts.
''13. Due process of law does not re
quire jury in contempt proceedings
and there is no necessity for calling
upon n jury to assist the court in tn,
exercise of that power.
IA, The legislature may prescribe
any reasonable procedure to be fol.
lowed in contempt prosecutions. but /
has failed to provide any procedure, anC
under the provisions Of Section 1925
Revised Codes, when the procedure Ii
not provided by the legislature, any
suitable process or mode of proceeding
may be adopted which may appear
most conformable to the spirit of the
Code.
rs. Under the provisions of Section
516s, Revised Codes, the judgments
and orders of the court or judges, in
cases OF contempt are made final and
conclusive.
"16. Where certain acts of contempt
are made a crime under our statute
the making of such acts punishable as
crimes does not affect any power con-
ferred on the court to impose or In
flict punishment for contempt. (Sec-
ton 63o5, Revised Codes.l
III. Section 6529, Revised Codes
provides that certain contempts are
misdemeanors, and Section 1921 pro-
vides that a criminal act is no the less
punishable as a crime because il is also
declared To be punishable as con-
tempt.
10 The inherent power of the
court to punish for contempt cannot
be interfered with or abridged by the
legislature, so far as courts of record
are concerned.
10. The freest criticism of all de-
cisions Of the court Is allowed and in
Fited, but criticism ceases and contempt
begins when malicious SANDER, villifi-
cation and defamation brings the courts
ana the administration of the law into
dishonor and disrepute among the peo-
pie.
20. Article l, Section ., of the state
constitution, provides that Every per-
son may freely speak, write and publish
on all subjects, being responsible for
the abuse of that liberty. While certain
liberty is there guaranteed, in the last
clause of said section the responsibility
for the abuse of that liberty is fixed
~. Said section Is not aud cannot
be made refuge for malicious SANDER
ers and libelers
"22. He'd, that the evidence is suf-
ficient to show thai the defendants are
guilty of wilful contempt of this court
Opipion RenderHd
The opinion of a majority of the
court reudeNd by Justice sullivan is
as follows with the heretofore pub
lished matter including the complaint,
answer. demurrer and evidence ex-
tracted:
This action involves proceedings for
contempt verified information by
the attorney general of the state, in
his official capacity. was filed in this
court on the second day Of December,
1912, charging tie defendants, r. S.
sheridan, G. o. Braxon and 4. r. CRU
zen with publishing IN the Evening
Capital News certain articles. wilfulIy
and malieiously misrenresenting the
position of this court In a certain case
then pending before ii. entitled state ex
rel Spofford rs. Clifford, secretary OF
state, ... Pac. ...., and charging that
said articles wilfu1ly and malleiously
misrepresented the court, and that
said articles were unwarranted, con-
temptible defamatorp ard eentum-
acious attack upon this supreme court
and the Judges thereof
Cite Roosevelt Appeal.
The opinion here sets forth in full
the complaint filed by the attorney
general on behalf of the court citing
the defendants for trial. together with
the editorials and news Items pub
lished in the Capital News and the ia
nous telegraphic appeal to the people
of Idaho issued by Theodore Roosevelt
recent presidential candidate during
the campaign and eriticlzng the
opinion of the court striking the Roose-
Roosevelt electors from the ballot
After this review the opinion con-
tinues.
I'm limine, If the judges OF this
court, in the discharge Of their Off
cial duties, could permit themselves to
be Influenced by personal considera-
tions. they certainly would deplore the
occurrence of this case. Should the
judges be reduced TO the alternative of
either submitting tame1y to contumely
and insult, of resenttng it by force, or
resorting to the doubtful remedy of an
action at law If such state Of
things existed it would rest in the
discretion of every party in court to
force the judge either to shrink from
his duty or incur the degradation of
his authority, which must unavoidably |
result from the adoption of either Of
the above alternatives. The Judges
cannot but feel it delicate task to
define and decide upon the extent of
their own powers, nor are they ignor-
ant OF the fact that the Judgment
they are called upon to render in this |
case may expose them, on the one
hand. to the imputation of cowardice, |
and irresolution, or, on the |
other hand, to that of usurpation and |
tyranny. The verify of these imputa-
lions or suspicious would not be more |
Of the judges than the fact
Of their shrinking from this question