El Nuevo mexicano., 1917-05-10


makes proper and necessary the pub
LEGATION by this newspaper OF many
details OF the conduct Of the Dreyful
case hitherto unpublished, and es
pecialIy relating to the presiding
Judge" II leaves no doubt, as we be
|lieye. OF the purpose to attack you al
the presiding Judge.
ID The statement "The New
Mexican since the returning Of indict
ments by the Socorro county grand
jury against this newspaper has neveI
been under delusion as to what it was
up against in the campaign or II. o
Bursum, absolute political dictator OF
Socorro county," and the first para.
graph of the editorial, which states :
"The New Mexican has realized from
the beginning Of the Bursum libel
suit campaign that it must try its case
before the people" charges in effect
that your court Is under the control
OF III. o. Bursum, that justice cannot
be obtained In your court In said pend.
ing suits and that 1t is the purpose OF
the defendants to try said pending
cause before the people by virtue OF
said publications in said newspaper;
and in our opinion constitutes con.
tempt Of court.
(c) The trial Of pending causes
before the people" by publications in
a newspaper is in u opinion not war.
ranted under any circumstances, and
constitutes contempt of court.
(d) The publishing in q newspaper
of what Is charged to be the political
and business affiliations of the pre-.
siding Judge, In connection with crit
icism relative to pending causes, and
especially in connection with the
statement in said publication that
"the New Mexican specifically sets
forth Judge Mechem's political affil-
iations merely for the purpose of in.
forming the people of the state who
may be uniformed" is not In our
opinion justified, and constitutes con-
tempt Of court.
(e) The statement in said publica-
ton that this is not an attack upon
the politics of Judge Mechem but the
statement of pertinent facts which
for many reasons the people should
know" in effect limits said criticism
to the fitness Of the presiding Judge
to do justice in said pending causes,
and assumes that the publication OF
the business and political affiliations
of a presiding Judge in connection
with criticism of the conduct of pend
ing cause is proper. It is our opin-
ion that the publication of charges Of
that nature In connection with COM
ments on pending causes is not JUS
titled under any circumstances, and
constitutes contempt of court.
f) The statement in the head
lines Of this publication: Amazing
Affidavit in Spicer Case" and Oath
Directly Contradicts Judges Own
Statement on Bench in Dreyfus Case
Is wholly unjustified when applied to
or made In connection with a pending
suit, and constitutes contempt OF
court. t~
(g) We have not considered the
libelous character of the publication
In question, but confined our exami-
nation entirely to the question as APP
piled to constituted courts of Justice,
and as to whether or not said publica-
ton constitutes contempt.
(h) We conclude that the publica-
lions referred to attack the integrity
of the court generally, and partic-
ularly in relation to said pending
suits; that said publications tend to
embarrass the due administration OF
in both the civil and criminal
cases above referred to; that the evil
dent purpose of said publication was
influence public opinion against
the court and to bring the court into
contempt and disrepute, and that the
persons responsible for said publica-
tions are guilty Of contempt Of court.
s. We are informed from the edi-
torial page of said Santa Fe New
Mexican that one of the defendants,
Bronson M. Cutting, Is president of
the company which prints said news.
paper; that another Of said defend
ants, e. Dana Johnson, is the editor
Of said newspaper; that Miguel A.
Otero, ST., is treasurer Of said pub
company. We are informed
the record in said pending suits
that Francis G. Wilson Is the attorney
Of record Of said defendants.
IS. II contempt proceedings are in
stituted, it is our opinion that from
the nature OF these acts 1t should pro.
coed In the name of the state against
the guilty parties in the nature of a
rule to show cause why they should
not be punished for contempt, or why
an attachment should not issue, and
the parties charged with contempt re-
to answer the same under oath.
either in the usual form Of an answer
Or upon in~terrogatories filed in said
proceeding.
z. The newspaper above referred
containing said publications is flied
herewith and made a. part of this re-
port.
Respectfully submitted,
JAMES G. FITCH,
JAMES l.. NICHOLAS.
ALONZO B. McMILLEN,
Amict Curiae.
|
-. Il