The Richfield recorder. (Richfield, Idaho) 1909-1931, 1913-01-09
THE IDAHO CONTEMPT CASE.

idan and c. O. Broxon, all Of the Boise Capital News, where
in the defendants were charged with contempt of the stat
supreme court for certain criticisms OF the court for the decis
ion throwing the Roosevelt electors off the state ticket, the
defendants were fined $500 each and sent to Jail for ten DAYS
1t was not a united opinion. Justice Ailshie, almost uni
versally held to be the strongest, the bravest, the humanes
Judge who ever sat on the Idaho court, dissented from prac-
tically every finding of his colleagues. He wrote the orig
inal opinion; he was the one most violently assailed, the one
to whom the cheap revenge of furnishing bound and gagged
victims might seem most pleasing. That he discussed this
case temporarily, legally and humanely, and delivered an
opinion in which essential human justice rather than passion
or unreal legal technicalities ruled, was evidence of his high
standing. Those who criticise the court for itsverdict should
differentiate between the majority and the minority opinions
as history does between the torres and the patriots IN the time
Of the revolution when men gave their lives for liberty. 1t is
charitable to believe that all--the patriot and the tory, the
minority and the majority of the court--are equally honest
yet history honors the one, and revnes the other. 1t is only
just to add further that in the bringing of this case, there was
the same division as in its closet
The Recorder does not now, any more than ever before,
question the integrity Of the court. They hardly needed their
own unappealable verdict that they are pure of heart and
mind; probably none doubt it, despite this certificate. 1t is
a pleasure to believe in the probty of the entire court, how
ever one may condemn the reasoning or the law that led up
to this truly lamentable decision.
Mere laymen do not pretend to understand the nice legal
points involved-yet they may have a prophetIcaly clear Wis
ion of the essential justice of a cause. For instance:
Would it not have been more Brave to bring this suit i'm
mediately upon the publication of the first alleged contempt
before the election, when the People had a chance to sit as
jurors on the case of one member of the court? The People
would have torn this court limb from limb for such a verdict
land they are few and dense who do not know lt-but would
not the truly brave man have dared destruction if he believ-
ed SO strongly in the justice of his cause? Few truly brave
men play the sure-thing game; gentemens clubs make this
the one objectionable sin.
Would it not be more law-like to punish at once, and live
up to the law the courts have laid down concerning the kill
ing of men? The written law, and public opinion which is
the yet higher law, may make the killing of a burglar, or a
ravsher, or certain other violent criminal assailants, a public
service and a deed of honor, if done the instant the criminal
makes his attack, and is armed for his offense; but to conceal
the crime, bide ones time and follow or waylay even a Grim
NAL assailant a day or a month or a year later, and poison or
sandbag or stab him, is not l%aw-like--it is a crime, punish
obla hv ipfrpVro md 6aofh VI Iau prac1roac a cfpItar mo Il
tive in delayed Justice.
Would it not have been more prudent to agree that, since
to sit in unappealable judgment in their own case against men
who were bound and gagged and could not defend them
selves, was such a fragrant violation of nice ethics, that they
could afford to pass by any hostile criticism of their own I'M
biased integrity, lest they themselves prove the justice Of the
charges against the court?
Would it not have been more just to waive their techni-
cal right to be accusers, court and executoner from which no
appeal can be taken, for the moral right of both sides to have
an unprejudiced court or a trial by jury? Possibly other
judges stepped in court dignity and precedent, might have
rendered the same decision: but it would at least look fair!
Would it not have been more humane for the court to
back over their own past, see where they as individuals
had violently criticised policies or men or measures that aft
erward might have proven good or lauded Others that proved
as false as falsehood itself-and credited their own critics with
as great though possibly mistaken honesty as they claim for
themselves?
In a grave and infallible opinion like this, on a case which
had for its principal foundation the claim that the contempt
committed. not in criticism itself but in criticising while
the original action was still pending before the court, would
not have been more consistent for the court to omit it's in II
erpolated condemnation Of undertaking and yellow journal II
and its reference to the dynamite cases so recently tried
N the east, and which, if memory serves Alright, were, and Il
ire, still pending through applications for rehearing! This :
not a dynamiting case; it is not comparable to it; to jud- :
cialy infer a likeness might be as criminal a libel or as damn II
ng an indictment, to the individuals sentenced, as to compare
he courts with the Judases and Ananiases and Benedict Ar
of history. The theory of American government gives
he individual as much protection against insult and injury as
t does the court. Must not a court be just, and abide by
he spirit OF the law under which it passes sentence? II
Even the majority opinion upholds the theoretical right
0 criticise the court. Yet how can one criticse in words of
one must doubt whether this court, from which IL
% appeal can be taken, ever seriously intended to invite or II
allow criticism. When the law takes action against a man. III
alleges criminal intent and a heart of evil that is not fully ii
disseminated. or believed. in one case out of ten. The law Ii