Evening star., 1923-11-30

as possible after his Inauguration. for
his campaign had been fought large
ly on the issue Of freedom of speech.
- u 4 X n
In the United States, under our
Constitution. all power comes from
the people. and it's Limitations are ex-
pressed in the Constitution. That
Constitution, in section 2, article 2.
provides that 'the President shall
have power to grant reprieves and
pardons for offenses against the
United States. except In cases or i'm
parchment"
Impeachment cases are brought by
n house of Representatives and tried
in a senate, whether state or federal.
They do not appear in any court. The
Craig case, therefore, is clearly not an
impeachment for II is q court case,
for contempt of court.
X X X
. Two Of the Supreme Court justices,
Mr.. Justice Holmes and Mr.. Justice
Brandeis, dissent. from the majority
ruling in the Craig appeal-not dis
cussing the merits Of the original
charge. but only the question of pro-
cedure in carrying the case from the
district court to circuit court on q
habeas corpus appeal. instead of a
writ of error. Chief Justice Taft
renders an opinion agreeing with the
decision of the majority In holding
that the procedure of carrying the
case up on habeas corpus proceedings
was faulty tactics. and suggesting.
by inference, that the case might
have come to the Supreme Court on
its merits, and been reviewed, but
that the appeal on habeas corpus
caused delay so that now the other
course Is barred by time limits.
Chief Justice Taft says: "If the
publication criticizes the judge or
court after the matter with which
criticism has to do has been finally
ad5udicated, and the proceedings are
ended. so that the carrying out Of the
courts judgment cannot be thereby
obstructed. the publication is not con-
tempt. and cannot be summarily pun
ished by the court however false, ma
licious or unjust 1t may be.
But the law gives the person con-
victed of contempt in such a case the
right to have the whole question on
facts and law reviewed by three
peals. who have had no part in the
proceedings. and IL not successful in
that court to apply to this tSupreme)
court for an opportunity for a similar
review here. The petitioner and his
counsel have made such a review i'm
plain remedy for injustice that may
have been done by the trial Judge
and securing by an appellate court a
review of this very serious question
on the merits. they sought, by apply
ing to a single Judge of only co-or-
dinate authority for a writ of habeas
corpus to release the prisoner on the
ground that the trial Judge was with
out jurisdiction to make the decision
he did. This raised the sole issue
whether the trial Judge had author
ity to decide the question. not wheth-
er he had rightly decided It."
In the light of Chief Justice Tafts
comments 1t appears that justice may
miscarry through faulty counsel
There are political prophets who are
constituting the whole matter from q
political standpoint as a deep-laid
plot to embarrass the President They
say that if President Coolidge re-
fuses TO grant pardon the refusal will
antagonize many who are ready to
deory the alleged tyranny of the
courts" There is much talk of con-
gressional investigation of the courts
Also talk is revived of measures for
the recall of judges" and for requir-
Ing all contempt cases to be tried be-
fore juries.
On the other hand, il President
Coolidge should pardon Mr.. Craig. the
pounce upon him for "undermfnsng
the dignity and authority Of ali
courts
Copyright. 1928. BY Paul v. coIlin,)