Evening capital news. (Boise, Idaho) 1901-1927, 1913-01-02

otdteS were calleQ INTO existence anC
vested with jurisdiction over any sub
ject, they became possessed Of this In.
herent power. Ex parte Terry, 1913 U
$. 2s9. 80 L. Ed. 4o5; In re Debs 15s
Y. $. 565, 80 l.. Ed. 1892.
1T was held in state V. Howell
Comm, 60 Att 1857. that the power
to punish contempts is inherent In
courts Of record to enable them to pre-
serve their own dignity and duly adj
minister Justice. In re Woolley (Ky.)
IL Bush. 95; Cooper V. People, 13 Colo
337; In re Chadwick, 100 Mich. $50.
Numerous cases are cited In the lat
ter opinion holding that the power to
punish for contempts Is inherent in all
4 courts of record. People V. News
Times Pub. Co. (ColoD, 81 Pac 912:
State v. Woodfin. q N. C. 6 Ired
1879, AZ Am Dec. 151. In State v. Nor
4 rill, 16 Ark. 3S4, the court held that the
power to punish for contempt was in
herent In courts OF justice as a neces-
sary incident to the exercise OF the
powers conferred upon them. In re
Perkins. 100 Fed. $50; State ex rel At
| torney General v. The Circuit Court,
81 Wis. l.
Tn re Woolley. II Bush. 90, the court
held that the inherent right in the
courts to punish for contempt was not
derived from the legislature and that
such power could not be made to de-
pend upon the will Of the Legislature.
| In Hale V. The State (Ohio), 36 L.. r.
! A. 254, the court held that the legis-
lature was without authority to abridge
| tho power of court created by the
constitution to punish contempts sum-
marily. such power being inherent and
necessary to the exercise of judicial
| functions.
| The legislature has not the author
| ity to restrict the inherent power of the
court to punish for contempt, for If it
| has the power to restrict such right,
| where will the line be drawn? II 1t
could abridge the right. it could SO
minimize 1t as TO make 1t ineffective
for any purpose.
In matters Of contempt Jury Is not
| required to try the matter under that
provision of the constitution providing
for due process OF law Interstate
Commerce Com. V. Crimson. 154 U. S.
| 447, 3S l.. Ed. 1047. Eilenbecker V. The
District Court. 134 u. S. 80, 33 L. Ed
sol. In the latter case 1t was held that
the power to punish for contempt was
inherent in the courts without the nee
essity Of calling upon a jury to assist
the court in the exercise of this power
In In re Feller1nan, 149 Fed. Pa, the
court held that a person charged with
contempt was not entitled to a Jury
trial and that the rules regarding in
dictments were not applicable to such
proceedings
TN regard to punishment Of con-
tempts by courts under the statutes of
this state. Sec. Bliss provides that GER
tain acts OF omissions In respect to a
court of Justice. or proceedings there
in. are contempts OF the authority of
the court, and then proceeds to define
IL different acts or omissions. Said
section does not declare that the con-
tempts therein mentioned are INSIDE
meanors or other crimes.
Under the foregoing provisions "
our statute, judgments and orders IN
contempt proceedings are made final
and conclusive and certain contempts
may be punished rs a misdemeanor
and also as a contempt. 1t Is also pro-
vided that certain contempts are mis-
demeanors and also that a criminal act
is not the less punishable as crime
because 1t Is punishable as a contempt.
The statute In no manner interferes or
could interfere with the inherent power
of the court to punish for contempt.
las appears by the authorities here
tofore cited, the inherent power OF the
court to punish for contempt cannot
be interfered with or abridged by the
legislature at least SO far as courts II
record are concerned While the leg
isature may prescribe any reasonable
proceedings to be followed in contempt
prosecutions. it has failed to do so, and
under the provisions of our statute,
when proceedings are 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. (See section
1925, revised codes.)
The reason for the strict rule in re-
gard to contempt cases is obvious 10
any earnest student of our republican
institutions. The language used in the
editorials and articles attached to the
Information has the effect of destroy I
Ing, in a measure at least, public con-
fidence in the highest judicial tribunal
OF the state, thus impairing respect for
the authority of the court. If any con-
siderable portion of the people Is led
to believe that the highest court of the
state Is guilty of selling It's opinions
and decisions, and that they cannot reiv
upon the courts to administer justice
the result may be mob violence with
all its detestable features.
ANY tribunal that cannot tolerate
criticism OF It's decisions Is justly en-
titled to contempt, but, on the other
hand, little respect Is due court that
will hesitate to checl, or discipline
those who vilify and maliciously mis-
represent II with the object and pur-
pose OF degrading It and bringing II
into contempt. The court is charged py
said articles with eepriving the people
of the right to vote In violation of
law. Is Ii possible to stab the court
more fatally than charging that by its
decision 1t has in violation of law de-
prived the people of the right to vote?
I