Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/837

 778

77/6' Green Bag.

Statutes §725, which provides that Federal courts shall have power to punish contempt by fine or imprisonment, provided the power shall not extend to any cases except misbe havior in the presence of or so near the court as to obstruct the administration of justice, the misbehavior of any of the officers of the court, and the disobedience or resistance by any such officer, party, juror, witness, or other person, to any lawful writ, order, rule, decree, or command of the county, as a limi tation on the court's power to punish for contempt, and, therefore, comes to the con clusion that the Federal Court does not have power to punish a newspaper publisher for contempt for the publication of an article criticising the official conduct and integrity of the court. In support of this conclusion the court says: The inherent power of the court to punish for contempt is based upon the theory that it is essential that the court should possess ample authority to secure the free and unobstructed exercise of its func tions in the enforcement of the law. There fore, it is only such acts as tend to interfere with the orderly proceedings of the court or with the due administration of justice that can be properly punished as a contempt of court. Words written or spoken at a place other than where the court is held, and not so near thereto as to interfere with the pro ceeding of the court, do not render the au thor liable. Any loud noise or other dis turbance in the presence of the court, or in the street or other place so near thereto as to interfere with the orderly proceedings of the court, would undoubtedly tend to ob struct the administration of justice, and un der such circumstances the court is empow ered to summarily punish for contempt. That newspapers sometimes engage in un warranted criticism of the courts cannot be denied. In some instances they construe the liberty of the press as a license to authorize them to engage in a wholesale abuse of the court, but these instances are rare, and do not warrant a departure from the well-settled principles of the law as declared by Congress and construed by the courts. If judges charged with tin- administration ni the law

are not to be criticised on account of their official conduct, the liberty of the press is abridged, and the rights of the individuals imperiled. While all citizens should enter tain due respect for the courts of the land, it does not follow that editors and public speakers are to refrain from legitimate criticism of the acts of any tribunal. Such criticism should be invited by public officials, in order that the people may fully under stand what is being done by those who are acting as their agents in the administration of the law. Public questions are generally settled in the right way, and the fact that such is the case is due, in a large measure, to their free and untrammeled discussion by the press of the country. The courts are constituted for the purpose of protecting the rights and liberties of the individual, and the enactment of any law which gives a judge the power to present the free and unre strained discussion of questions which may come before the court for adjudication would, in many instances, defeat the very object for which the courts were established. There may be instances where the publica tion of editorials or other matter in news papers would bring the author within the limitations of the statute. For instance, if a newspaper editor should publish an article concerning a trial which was being consid ered by a jury, and should send a copy of the paper containing such article to the jury, or a member thereof, during the progress of the trial, for the purpose of influencing them in their deliberations, it would present a question whether such conduct would not be misbehavior in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the adminis tration of justice. The following cases are cited as sustaining the court's holding: Ex parte Robinson, 19 Wallace 510, 22 Lawyers' Edition 205; Case of Savin, 131 United States 274, 9 Supreme Court 701, 33 Law yers' Edition 150; Ex parie Poulston, 19 Fed eral Cases No. 11,350, page 1206. POLICE. (USURPATION OK AUTHORITY.) SUPREME COURT OK NEW YORK.

Certain methods employed by the police of Xew York come in for a caustic criticism