Show 1 f r y: f ' 1 '' ' £ 3- t $ ’ j 5 HE TRANSCRIPT fA TUESDAY' JULY4 HERALD-REPUBUOANSALTLAKEOITYUTAH CONTEMPT NEWSPAPER IN 1811 CASE "4 NEW CHARGES IN isa other cases) I misbehavior of the court interfered were with physical force and violence it and) be I to far so as appears the understand that authorities have it been reported the subject upon to settled me to ber pretty well that! rather ‘Had was new disturbance noise k some or occurred such have had this as we down here morning I haven’t the slightest doubt underthe of statute interpretation this sunder the first of that subdivision section it be would a contempt' of especially court far so as counsel as I deaf as am are concerned who couldn’t hear but noise anything' but any loud talking in the" court room disturbs ceedings doubt seriously whether it of the-court presence or so thereto to near as obstruct the ad®f lastice Clearly it fallswitbin no other clause of section 725 vThese to words to refer seem me rather to rlotobs or in the unseemly conduct court room or in’ such Immediate proximity thereto to as the of the sessions court the or orderly therein’ and conduct of business riot to emhrace constructive of conflicts authority t ls still But there another ground upon w nich application be should refused The petitioner has a complete and adequate not only remedy by application to the sustate preme court of for a of minto damns the vseate order of the superior court but by writ of to error the Supreme court of the United States cited Cases T In this abundance of I shorild remedies refuse If this even a matter of diswere step which be So would t la the ' x I " ’ ' ’ I - ru - THE CASE HERAED-REPUDL1CAN " -can -Its ’ r u Proceedings by Brought Powers Marioneaux and for -the 4 i Thrown Kearns om in by the out Marshall Judge ederal Court ' ! A : likely (Csn Up tinned of presence He tlce Pae rom the me witn Interfere '-would One) ' must murrer ofz mandamus - in the conduct intercourt would a? or court s ousiness rjus-s of which Is true to the r with the ends that find he could -of said where contempt and publication a of court cited to authorities his support ktatementsi the Jury Influence Marshall said that Interfer- the t Judge - with ence jury the cause anything otherwise Influence the jury sufficiently case ’was which to the of court In the within to as trial the 5 the : Col con- I Booth said later assistant United had been directed W Powers act (as the! Demurrer is opening the: the the j- "ed : J 'ln ’ i refer may to permitted of copy be may No Whitecotton — in affidavit 4 this respondents the case original the Y’aa but I If I and It the ! (I nviCkviu I them a T The lito Court cause tne nee of I II The Order place Mt A of complaint: will have a and - the '' I i that because the following i( far in for before ' : that charges the fidavit ' court the order the for our forth set in litigation of £ - the suit bad i not affect be so far to appear j ( i ' i i : that y‘sh Now’ It j f i 1 somebody might criminal entitled we to crlmlnal is vast a and of judiciary the which at-i for discretion a contempt the with seventy been exercised but (which the that act n’ sa?eroKwC°:neT of in the the Telegram affidavit 'The after read Court — I have isn’t necessary The cases to to as Now? isn’t it respondents of the court Sir?1?8 directly affidavit Ztnd ' : " in that Isn’t I as I I thing remember there to the that contrary were In the affidavit forth various headlines constituting to articles the Court— Well The ?r I t In it t set remember Mr courts i affidavit set Whitecotton — Yes I remember charge ' as that charge comment or anything occurred from what 1 it different anything don’t" understand Is there Certainly no was charged 4 false charged 'statement I don’t think the question The Court that 'ot falsity of could truth enter Into Mr a 'J 1 the other' way Whitecotton — Well I know of that conflict authorityo’n one is or or in Jit subject : The Court— conflict is any subject there that understand I-don’t authority of on that the extent except to this of testimony publication may be of but so far as com-ment a court contempt Is I don’t understand concerned there'ls conflict 'on: that question any ' I all Mr charged don’t that we I Whitecotton— Well honor your with comment I Id on’ t are remember has been some but read this carefully I affidavit did this again over If this honr u 'juur vnur nuumorning kitrrlprtlv nurneaiy or 1 will !" glance over win pardon me ? '£ U‘ T' T f Directed te ike Order? The The Mr Whlte-: Court— demurrer fC°ttOn to directed be must Treated as order to show cause just as a since look ? - I ’ ’ t f-' ’ -the 1 -would I - -de-- e 4 - I - - t Mvvuiiuvu 'Cole vs - (auu Haykins in mui wb 275 lucand ruilngj 'Anjlrewa In some ’ is It is is from is manner -don’t the an appeal Caro? North by written that at place a room hundred of the court ' that Except — influenced was- jury this feet fifteen hundred but they don’t that say disturbed the ‘court was that orderly the say with Mr-Powers her(e by a court the They proceedings ‘ federal the stated it views applicable overruled published yards 500 any itst of power Powers — ifteen Whitecotton — Or feet of gives and that feet Mr were interfered the Verdict publication by the j' " - Mr Australia certainly provision by every ’ of Yes Whitecotton — that believe been done that by and they with They That 4was done may have in a published newspaper sent would of the here over n'ot come statute 'court so has passed far as I as It and that this within interpreted am aware (The-original- upon would seem to have been to kicking up a rumpus court n a one counsel insulting room In the another or assaulting another of is which referred to Carey by case of the Court the United Supreme ' a party - i : ' - in States the 128 ederal In the court referred passing' that to fadt the upon this that attempted an man Carey had upori assault the States? marshal United in the court and that having room 'fl been 'he removed from the court room lagaln in the renewed the assault mar 1 ! I of shal’s court office room immediately soa that the there is the to sending specific Intent not a adjoining in don’t I a know- interest pulling of ana verdict he against him adversary punished his by We' submit if affidavit utterly to been no parties that of provision It Counsel I authority of rule should But make subject these to the court not there pretense that anyuch that’the pretense kept together There in affidavit had been given read should not facts is what if took place heard' the if out and to ought how set in by the that they set it am publication the set out here they see They anybody manner of prejudice guilty no misbehavior either in are the court could thereto near so or to as in obstruct civil of treatment and is lasting a will will cure instead ’entitled temporarily Poison but remedy remove when the — a demurrer demurrer demurrer) (Reads the clmnlir cilliar? wording: tn me cnom rather a plea first hide quired had to treatment advice free' the SSS cover cause is sold at ' be to ’ J Up ound Required to detailed s and in Weber counties he the law though to issued by be s the on -dairies Summit I : (majority conditions were standard says to up use In ? to inspection in farmtf £ - the w? re-' few a warnings s keeping dairymen in their barns separators 200 separators inspected were 185 to which found number were to the law conform About of ? I Hay PERMANENHY OVERCOME PROPER PERSONAL EORTS BE BY WITH 'IHE to the O THE ONE LAXATIVE--SYRUP BENEICIAL I6S AND ELIXIRo’SENNA O WHICH TORN (REGUIAR TO ENABLES ONE HABITS DAILY SO THAT MAY BE NATURE WITH WHEN ARE ASSIST TO WHEN NATURE REQUIRED TO NOT AND NATURAL DEPEND TO UNCTIONS SUPPLANT WHICH ULTIMATELY UPON PROPER PROPER EORTS pelt is It NOURISHMENT avoidance and REMEDIES O BEST ASSISTANCE GRADUALLY DISPENSED NEEDED AS THE LONGER NO THE doesn’t demurrer a confession in ASSISTANCE RIGHT AND GENERALLY LIVING I - this TO be to a (My reason for believing if contempt honor criminal your it ?arises that has please from the fact 'direct only to injure the not a tendency to the but parties litigant corrupt Court Judge Powers Well may the that facts assume stated civil suit Mr i entitled Entitled —Yes is in in civil a suit suit? that in j SIZE BY 8V ALL THE i V THE Syrup ig LEADING ONLY BUY Elixir-Senna and MANUACTURED SALE OR ONE are in a proceeding warrant but the whole question contempt the proceeding being whether ALWAYS EECTS California to is in'I'al — fou BENEICIAL Syrup igs ITS GET Genuine justice of source (The A DRUGGISTS SO PRICE (q BOTTLE A GRAEENBERG 'J — 11 It I PILLS Z K are just the same as they were 6s years They ago purely vegetable are can harm no one and can albe -ways I relied forms all cure and I Liver- Stomach not violently bowels but cleansing mildly whole system the All i dy to jupon of Disorders do They purge Vz ' - x X Gf — u a c v a - xa x v AN j x Now If & act the & & DrugsLats MOTHERS It vindi-batiohof can Poison used with perfect safety in and With the assurance that certain mineral symptoms off the of medicines Contagious which Blood Returns disease always stomach and bowels in the Home drug but symptom's Treatment stores Book them removes' and any i : j i SWIT tainted CO ATLANTA proceeding So As the an title has while is It is decided not a mere in entitled a due course distinction the thle in packing sender Baby Ease in to 10c to the cover will be Shell carton ' company postage to mailed narcotics Ease M C South no opiates atr 25c ' sale on Z at 112" contains acids or Baby Druji -I Main all very BABY " 1 tihnn supreme to I truly’ EASE -bottle Lake I communion Yours the Store Salt St City Address ' s CO- Atlanta) Ga of all criminal criminal act They a nature Interference’ with justice and thatls of that I would TRAVELERS Q M make Gompers the Whitecotton — Did that they receive should criminal punishment? it did to not ithat Mr Powers — No extent— j the Mr Whitecotton— And what they after punishment was were ini '(M" hold easel - — that Mr held (case?- - ’ -- and the Exactly Powers that they — ought to have civil’ Thereseemed to be a the two between The'1 Case? Gompers punishment dls-MnctlonJ - 1 1 The I Court — ceedings in the It is true Gompers that case on L '- A4 O CREDIT i Countries' -oreign- Orders Mney Telegraphic Transfers j court ' V' Drafts Sfc ? AND — LETTERS '-criminal medical f mother’s Gold each -K found Ring sent’ when assum-ling action civil of allegations are They show a intentional shpw an by (A harm-less as a as 14 for and direct of that effect In do other that words by’ the source of Justice? the is the the thle t i: unlawful that now troubles teething It bowel importantmatterjand form matter court I SPECIIC to sold by all or soothing with ' so lb and Co : 1 Baby which I was phy- mothers guarantee and equal Coupon pub-Jiqhed and Ease bottle by 'kiss disobedience I thle all it tried for remedy 25c by positive has no and i RO-rmipn liquid Price recommended complaints 4 BABY?! YOU It the BABY EASE MEDI-CINE BEST BABY praised Baby It ( be is 1911 Jan A the dlls had who under a individual are HAVE give so sicians- the Ga Madam— children’s -or TO LETTER Atlanta WORLD’S It Is ’ -as left is up OPEN Dear ‘ i THE the f i ARMS and aj their ' external or after instances foundto be MUST attortloil of that p-all such as crirrnnal of the and the delicate form tissues are usually injured by these strong minerals? SSS made entirely of non-injurious roots herbs and barks of recognized curative and tonic value of the particle virus from the circulation and by enriching removes every l)lood‘ the the and strengthening disease permanently' cures does not eliminating Sajtair at DAiRY ( worse SSS any CO VARNISH Ohio Standard of it allegationthe that Blood There the representing Varnish” Cleveland hand-separators TRULY the of a T iprjcduced result trade-markor If i an'ce is (that th'ey Contagious br name Examined Morgan I s of us or imitate so - V itheirf SSS has - And i i or town a di-jrecting the to pleasant and and r for punished the contempt of in civil court serving process a upon of witness who under a subpena was the and court therefore privileged and that he the guilty of court held was only so Lake I immediately the’ and represent state dairy deputy Lambert has commissioner returned the not rather - r i£’ of ! prd- orderly Salt into j be is way associate themselves doing responsible therefor THE Arcade ! attend-The attend and did and was acquitted civil action commenced a against one of those witnesses for false imprisonment — or for malicious prose cution and he to was cited appear before the court he should tahow why defendant s notice no may ' to’ s an to be shall we The C that entitling of It the administration justice there the plain language simple to that constructive language a terms of interference with the court 12 that in the ed? Now I am aware is of eral a Reporter case reported a in persort being held contempt because in being a defendant a criminal case-a jurisdiction witness from a foreign was not to in ' the subpenaed to I inferior article our “U-Au-To hold him! and sell Equipment is civil on a is i 4 1 bbsiness or authority in capacity or counterfeit either our or witnesses I the court right any ' for i defendants interfered with any the charge I these manner of connected no j articles have any a year we said is in Newland with this company! assertion 'set different as sin " than that more Varnish” give hereby “U-Au-To I ql ’ ' he Well that notwithstanding knows has corporation been undersigned making and selling varnish bearing the fall Range company while contempt ' it to liable is reason that -is sthey these of were a the : assertion here unable I up facts NOTICE -so-called food Under contempt this I ruling how case that cannot see be (distinguished from the Gompers can csise this particular matter on if Mryour Powers — We it contend is a criminal contempt that please honor it is distinguishable land that I to But first desire that But from case that is calll attention to this demurrer to be It rt Hnmiirror MA “seems UUllliVU p plea in confession and avoid-although argued and was and this this r ? “U-Au-To made a I kind no was made ever was claim this was there set out is is and judgment a call state the the ordinary j WARNING the that ground why is insufficient because the charge is ‘damage alleged by the there no by could be compensated plaintiff that or such the proceed San-rancisco J issued jury trying a case the jury demurrer is during is this it U-Au-To these have had ' a that that case this in Powers established That law a criminal (The Court — the distinction between (testimony is not charge of civil and a contempt at Most of comment common law contempt of publication is an assertion fact not but is be so That Mr Powers of a —that it may a matter statement testimony itpnot 4 Every asthat fact of facts involves not to simply itself the court would have power what of if it witness may it be a fact that sdme take under the cognizance came to but assertion an that he and that swore court view of the imtnediate dekl of A truly great this comment his affidavit swore anly citjzen present may is wrlter’d the simply conclusion facts before the court and bring these facts from the or instance: it arid take and when that is done is it is of to issued portion publication) order (Reads the show cause in citizen himself the even if in tills case a proceeding which dozen Now had to interest than these things ihag any no more sworn very in this publication' the due administration other citizen would pot be an of It for those Jaw becomes a matter what witnesses swore1 of the of to It the officers the does that by not state the prosecution any witness to it publishes The writer his swore government but it conclusion floes matter own not The Court — I by’call your attention ’to of is stated the whether a witness has has not what or supreme court to it testimony1 the States the fourteenth the United on sworn reported of be distinguished the case testimony and (so Gompers commencmust as page ithe at the that character ing top from comment if of Is MTw the writer thrown not into rather contraryit AVA o I (tol !my have thought the scale view of it as of (was for enform for a matter mere of Pretense No Testimony that case plainly Again it says: “It estabwas The Court — This isn’t a mere nlatter to LiiUL Liie of iibiicu reform formiriuuiies who had de ((The the clause catch trie big advertisers reads court shown to etc” ’Judge serie r it is uecause or ns evi ways Powers) w that Is There no pretense that Not Sult a Charge "It is inicburt published as testimony Mr Powers — Take the order to show It Is pubas not nuDiisnea testimony take the a lished as assertions first whole: Spnonfthe ca use as show it is js of to "and point alleged order nothing cause made there Ve of whatsoever that the that afforded independent any support! rv aunarent and not a suit J’ title that it is a charge is order to contention the There nothing in the show on second made Ic'a that it thei not so I sa in was near court tne aiiiuavn mat suuwa thlat It is by private a to disturb the orderly a proceeding (administration in for satisfaction the there is a conflict of author-of way of of justice but it is a itv conflict" proceeding considerable authordamages a money al the by private individual for The early ity decisions are as coun of the the authority court in of sel the nas presentea tnem One rind thd that is there charge that referred? to made Is federal cases was as th'at these people by their here of agents the in ?nn rnisnpna vinr out of tn and the of court proceedings the and court not in aware presence to the here this to be procured prior made ordr of the court of for the interfering it said‘ that the absolutely purpose court Lwas was of is the that the substance charge — powerless the Whateverii effect of with the orderly procedure the court— (for of the words jpurposein oher the verdict ofthe jury not upon DI the but they evidence upon that which such having to publishing the which of and here it Stove they -well of i tTie Buck true from not case ' things progress to It’scool i ' contempt is the to will '(points permitted A B that information one Newland is doing business at) Los Angeles and elsewhere as “The Varnish company” and making and selling a varnish the under Varnish” name entitled asserted facts jThatrts as that is ’always testimony comment J dlstinctibn That the at was (drawn law at and coinmon law the common distinction settled was that a that such and newspaper might publish such givein It testimony was was precluded the and newspapers in out this affidavit if the court the jury testimony what to to to I J take I Having 345 point to which I particular for the attention of counsel is their charge is whether being of or whether criminal contempt in civil' proceeding a case a it is a in civil charge of a case in decision the civil under ebntempt of against the Samuel Gompers case INowJ not has these court of any jury Is it I but? to attention views as own for the ertuse that I (wish point one Zl the the be i to infWence such as a character to is the court as verdict so their near of the trial cause disturb the proper orderly to disturb the in dther words it of justice that has administration administration of the effect' disturbing of justice without say-in’gj goes effect as just as great an when lijuryi the street they were a went on by? of entreating people met a multitude particular a them to find a verdict ( As to there affidavit - (me will j command t - — to suit U-AU-TO wish to call corriplalrtant that ‘ this way demurrer 1 in and others who in with him -if of the testimony some published as little testimony comparatively Most of the purbbrlts publication to of be nothing shown injunction is that this -that that every newspaper has to a publish the testimony given at trial It a publish it must as and Assuming testimony not as comment aecjding without that now this is a criminal contepiptland not a civil and therefore that the contempt tiy charge not be must made inference arelentitled but that the to respondents difficulty know every essential element the with is the it that argument ignores the publication ifself There Is respondents wquld defendants show why order jury no is It this court for the t- my that unques-'-tionably punished of nothing be Is upon AuJf J opinion order and wllL tfe permitbe heard and In such support introduce evidence the his charge as may be at to all ichaning - There the argued charging when the contempt that show on cause is issued counsel representing returnable is T - it of -right different it this '-ery counsel’s a first violated Comment vommentt joints the huvo have fixed na Avr It first point seems no foundation either in in the order to show T There - to has Not iot to to as ' to have I where Oklahoma I and were cited I and review them and good there see no hands where Jthe " Upon a the I Court— 2 the United this discharge this on because in (publication a erranepusinj the proceedings court stated that the heaillnes have to the of prejudice the party jumbled up together They the of publication the whole Testimony ArsiiiuuDj on to INSPECTS opinion the on but decision for I disturbed been l -jury The decided case similar a of authorities occasion to I the not order by and take affithe of calling the the attention to of law to- direct violation and a to district the attorney proceed information affldXvfE by filing that an Decision Oklahoma I state ’ I of the presence with They are charged having the orderly of the proceedings in court' They have any published way things is there which no intimation If here the daily are untrue news your honor had for any reason seen fit to that the proceedings make an order of this trial be should not published then this would be under a wholly of this provision statute Had thjt plsSed they believe matter that the was frbmf (the influenced Judging verdict it if it wjould should doubt it be be in would favor of is the iman who and now complaining we respectfully that submit this affidavit and upon the authorities upon1 upon the limited of the federal to power court punish as for contempt conduct such as Is set forth noi here is' There to reason show why those respondents or any of be’ required them to further should be proceeded against dr to make further defense in the caqsej judgment the any I have branch! i all is say of of misbehavior in The the worked It I two-thirds the’ to payable am disposed show cause third other States order davit court I is isn’t take we fine a complainant the tions ( was statute L if for was to trade-mark court and was that ceedings payable dls-td'rbing one was of mis order bring these terms the compromise contempt of contempt prietese in this no affidavit syllable that anybody was printed not entitled to not know any pretense here than false (representations any had been JThere is made no if pretense that any your honor pledge of the headlines here Juntrue that are they import an construction authority in uo I - There have please set are whicn upon" fail made that the this cited for was ' £nat contempt honor your things the jury the published and was matter foit brought pending was two trial I it is take that this proceeding is there brought under that section no It is that held that the doubt about this section and that is court under the only section under which contempts of the federal courts and may be found if could an authority not be found under all and which in city same of that as the the of disturb would what of justice we administration orderly of cdurt that have the pronouncement is the It true that the! subject on statute from the Colorado was different federal statute but the question of of the orderly administration held and they justice 'was different no to’ of publica effect these tliat be the justice' So definition of-fer ’ the no court or I sets section then there was and there lawful was no there could be none sult was the 'suit the held Colorado publication simply a tin The a Supreme newspaper of said it court the States was United that such 'publication clear absolutely of administration disturbed the orderly tHei it!s set? wad! in Denver in supreme (sessions in-' because to i him' certain a ' the the on ' is-sued way charging case j - of - of seemed 80 $ the v - to rehearing entitled owners applies for take Thd to ' ted denouncing claim a adjudged guilty first grounds that’ the publication of that gavd not only tol matter jury but to the information court tpat neither had before nor was to have' and that tended to fluence the of minds the (court and jury in the case? of determinatipn the a it matter which (was because an of settlement and (compromise would have been the incompetent at have controversy the and while the it on here and ’for fraud advocating ri! be ’ publications There -omit-k-s-ting complainant of the pre-judging the to of the judges part after decision and decision a made and while it was was to file petition for a time yet a decision criticising the in it only as not erroneous df point law but as corrupt in point of in city the fact That publication was ami I orderly the law state different from it is statute made were courts might matter cause a the newspaper city claim had offered' claim of before mere a each other and night' of the one noon lawsuit had and juror the the newspapers morning of this-side on which he ad-‘ people thousand where perhaps jurors read the and may paper inay they not a breathing controversy that has been here and that going on if has been" going on your honor pleaseof the time the from when memory to the a runs contrary man scarcely in action tlement free in newspaper what they hundred a -ruptcy 1 else justice publication say thought punish f affldavjt“It the days 3000 - understand so believe newspaper or-'staking ' the of number a This of court opinion was circuit Judge The -I - J ‘ ' 1 the circuit Pritchard in to authority I 3 But i is that to as llna- t false at of fromthe Struct the (lawful writs orders rules processes decree or commands of these courts Now this in while terms is not for a petition an injunction the petitioner does for pray an proceeding! order restraining Quddy from steps against the any petitioner based theof service the upon process from the for 'superior and relief ! court general take it that the words “writ of Injunction” used In sectlonl! 720 would Include every or’ process of its order irrespective form the office of' 'is which to in stay proceedings the state court Even If petitioner should this waive portion' of his relief and only for proceed lie be 'contempt: to seeking accomplish the I indirectly know of but same purpose exceptions to the rule two general contained In section: 720— one being the in: bankcases 'and the of other cases arising under liability the act limited Attain-' flint fhA concpdlnir But sAniM writ of tbe samlshment was a contempt at to I I 1 ’ federal it further principle in court punish ‘ at0 there settled proceedings of to Mr 'ypyioi so!’ear which cases well be of contempt -for fully only’ (section 725) limits our of to contempt misbehaviors of any Ini the of the person or' presence court tbu administra of justice the tion misbehavior of officers InX their official transactions and 'disobedience a — to refers court older and cases courts i other jurisdiction Citing appears character authorities this higher the constitution to pardon President the the very difficulty in this arises case however from the of the statutes United bno States of whlph (section 720) inhibits Injunction! to stay proceedings in any court of a state and In 392 Reporter the c cases of this’ as -proceeding that criticised their Now state in-the disurb- before which federal may the against It municipality the municipality had offered conduct to measure that had Colorado not pre-pared bd not they have' am VtLUUn USUI States up I -under untratnmeled i Orleans Wai large a a I there there be but-If set - concerning in in question arose again Cuyler against the Atlantic North Carolina oRailroad company that is reported in 131 ederal at 95 in and beginning page this call bankruptcy i it the case and and ' courtholds: -The governed applied a ‘Now h ’I punish the ederal with (authorizes the such offenders” of attention to a case “Ex Parte Schulenburg reported in the 25th at 211 page That was a case that in the arose eastern district of Michigan In the bpiniom course of the the I I doesn’t thef It affidavit there any was that differed else )I In court the ' doesn’t but the text subdivision S" its order 1 ’ that - Mr this --dPr the out- them against the published evidence — they they charged The Court — Aren’t of the publication headlines? the charge the 20 proceeding in is step Proceeding a general and elementary in not support of which authorities are in that that court alone needed which a or whose contempt is committed is or authority defied has power to proceedings it punish or to entertain to that end” The remainder of the discussion is in reference to the punishment for a contempt writers constructive as a I and believe contempt that I so far have been able as to examine the authorities the federal courts have '“he not jurisdiction in of cases kind? I to and of courts IthJeftM£HUhof?le"a8e’ don’t Whitecotton--! understand affidavit chargefs that the any that contained any headlines comments different in court occurred from what I have been The headlines assume to affidavit copled in the — there headlines no The Court — Are in order to out the show cause?! set sir Yes but the Whitecotton removal been have all under New company which is punishable ’ the contempt a Citing provisions to of-°tbe that clear construction the ‘JSuch is the proceedings There them were any way So the which federal court and must be criminal Effect moment of in within tfie 13 ed Ellerbe Rep 532 where lit is said that authority contempt of the of federal a court“has frequently been held to be offense an against the United States the within terms of ! here that these violate any order or rule It Isn’t claimed that they ?r interested £ any nianner the the 1875 the re the - ther charged contempt Mentioned Headlines the — undertakes that is made their of 3 Steamship vs charged in March of rules criminal cases proceeding under the first It subdivision be must that these con! in order to be guilty men of any lare tempt shown to have been guilty of misbehavior in the of presence thereto near to as obstruct the administration of justice Now that fr°m affidavit here it is that apparent this is is what denominated by the fact -headlines Mr command that any of in court or that regard here must be ( court or : view provisions for official that it of of that say ' are did persuasion if contemnt esneciallv pub-® lished false if hiatter were or IH W tnat not would available puoiisnea be as in evidence trial T a a remember case reported in the 172 df! MassachuJ oil setts where a man was held guilty for (in contempt publishing a news-1 of paper a statement offer to com? an It promise that the plaintiff appears in the be fact of administration justice to prevent witnesses from attending either by or fraud The fact coercion that the effect act this would have all that? this statute required was of Colorado' the PattersonIn case vs the Court of the United Supreme ji as -facts cases such de-ef the to 1 xiijr v vMuapcu not unmindful " cah powr the act from contempts the order decree rule courts” there due a Inflicted for the nature transactions and the disobedience or resistance by any such officer or by any party juror witness or other person! to lawful any writ process said courts courts not are their and the in ' the in ‘ establishes they ‘count and both cases served with was it wad privilege of state this affidavit li such tlie the Tt-lertal of by anv in of having in or so near administra-misbenavlor courts district it is perfectly quoted the adjudications that of said of courts law such to by the discussion press courts country The constituted are for the of the rights and protecting purpose liberties of the individual the and enact? rnent of law" gives any which the a judge to the free and power prevent unrestrained discussion of questions bewhich may come fore the court for adjudication in would instances the object for many defeat very the which courts established There were Instances where the of may be publication editorials in or other matter newspapers bring the would the author within limitations of the if statute or instance a newspaper editor should publish article an trial a which being considered was by' a jury and of should the send a copy containing to the jury paper such article or a member thereof during the of the progress trial for the of in Influencing purpose them their deliberations it would present question a whether such notbe conduct would misbehavior in the of the court or presence administration to the so thereto as obstruct near of ' ears administration the is caseand no follows irresistibly the state in court practice such be Putting followed here cannot that cases was of the courts tlie legislated upon of and the contempts having derived their sole court misbehavior and be punish Congress of imprisonment the moment of the caurt because the the was any here of controversy o)"limiting subject courts in anythe'offlcers charged untrue They were in that they (were do not charge any from thetestimony as manner in different court Having read the given Is that the honor your aware In forth the affidavit purports set matter Jn to been the proceeding have I and writs the due to circuit out of presence obstruct the official - f- the their in thereto affidavit to fine essential called Congress because of had power of except persons affidavit the by discretion inherent of and Tlie may their authority provided to power punish contempts notbe construed to extend to anv shall shin read the the but just state points The contention Mr Whitecotton — All right is of that all the respondents affidavit iln the facts stated true this as do not constitute a contempt fof affidavit The court the or its authority of publications that the does not state any it' so 1 company follows as contempts title the 1 Publishing is Runlsh the 510 Is the to no act act at and orders consequently - ' against for punish contempts in all its is courts existence the preservation of order in of to Wall to power the punishments 1831 19 ' be as by the of that! ' are law jurisdiction place punishable to ineffective court - or-dert I abuse and construed charged with account on liberty ex1-istence the for thM Vanish of the the take In ! i ’ author--s of to a corrupting to witness the In the set out order toshow cause title to the tend show a criminal is Thls contempt matter somewhat the to the fact Ithat involved owing of States at the United supreme court of the close the Issued May term an ’’ to the' alternative writ - of mandamus of circuit court appeals of this in a that case which court decided to be civil a and a dismissed contempt writ of the the error contempt beingof Issued in disobedience an injunction equity suit The an supremecourt of the States United on application an alternative writ of mandamus M in The the judgment contempt pro- matters and -circuit ’ of which the court being was It of held held that effect the was cqrruptlng the 'to disturb witness was the orderly of justice administration that it to be proximate as was so Nevada under this In statute a Hawley held by case it Judge was in fata opinion that conclusively the law that where a witness not to attend a witness was persuaded not under subpena and the persuasion was within the town in which the court held that fell the act this was within statute for 'the matter that a as reason of it ( of the is and the press abridged individuals imperiled all While citizens shhuld due for the entertain respect courts of the it does follow land not that editors and public to speakers are refrain from legitimate of the acts of criticism any tribunal be Such criticism should invited by public officials in order that the people understand what is being done by may fully those their in the who are acting as agents administration of the law Public questions settled In are generally the right and the fact that such is the way the to Congress judges If the rights shall as have been court prior to its state these a by Of such In but ministration question These created were by of their Congress and duties powers depend tlie act calling into upon them subsequent acts or extending their jurisdiction act of 1831 The is lavj therefore to the them specifying tlie cases in which punishment "for contempts summary the field taken ' rareand courts the and a of nPAnoo1 originally been as In engage court do not clared removed court press to they license a wholesale instances departure jj and of with the tendency” the happened building In same because witness while process under an interference the with subpena of which order and an courtwas It therefore and thd contempt was a held court that he should pay the cost$ of the and proceedings be released front service which he had made jyour I if know no cases honor please where federal any court has held 'a guilty of anyone contempt for unwarranted cannot construe court order therefore sei warrant from the'well-settled principles 1 of court art been court? said in justice to be between 1789 broadest s the them the ih-junctions dissolved such suit circuit all suits engage courts ‘the the the held the'liberty had1 6 sometimes criticism of the some instances In of re- In -there newspapers denied Ise into and existence were jurisdiction subject over any of this possessed But power (the hns been limited and br power defined the of act Congress of 2 March 1831 The act in terms applies to all courts Whether it be held limit can to the of the authority court Its supreme which derives existence :and the from be powers constitution mav perhaps of a matter doubt but that it applies The?vere ftof act the let exercise ’to “the had States United invested with they became limited by section of 725 ?feV?id Sp being part of the act Prldr to o?°rk1831' that I time find JYaS Poetically limit no un dor der that That - “all under statute: in interference an true is was charged and that contempt' civil a proceedthere here affidavit the’ than “ here the- -the Justice of jit clearly that what more Ings was because it another would case "because Intimidate witnesses from coming with-' - ' a j In cane - removal shall which section to And circuit Judgments proceed- contempt i their judicialProceedings enforcement the (proceedings for contempt in federal courts from those in in use state fcourts state I (understand that understand of federal power courts to punish is In proceedings Ex Parte Robinson Justice ield said: The be difference said therein Mr I there court Powers understand all as in In gratification a courts t-hia 1 is he as A of court of powers a equity 4s those But powers originally exercised were It will be (observed that the while statute of the United is in States a certain sense declaratory of in n inherent tlie power federal to courts for it is punish contempts restrictive limits and tlie of that exercise to certain well-defined power classes of cases That it includes the exercise of this power by of a court equity is evident from the use of the words "order pile decree” and the rules of for the practice courts of equity bearing tills question to upon and referred by counsel in adopted subordination to were the statute had its origin which In 1831 is him said shall in nroviflinnu nt if the suit had In said circuit the to anv that the removed” of i in' ' Perhaps V1? in not X ' considering effedt is be what to these provisions of the act of March 3 1875 It is be to observed that the state statutes as have either we seen provide for the punishment ot a party who disobeys lawful a order of the court criminal as a for contempt or in the of punishment form pecuniary indemnity to the by party injured the coh-i misconduct which constitutes the tempt and in the latter class of cases the punishment indirectly tend to may promote the rights and advance the of the remedies to the party action thus sole injured The of tlte for power federal to punish courts contempts of its authority both law at apd iii is equity derived 725 of the from section Revised Statutes It by the argued was (senior counsel and not defendant that such power inherent in of and was court equity a not dependent the upon statutory provision the on subject in and his of the disenssion question he made a Clear and forcible statement for there ed-®ral was was make ’ removal” Before Rivento t cited them If 26 its removal effect until and commenced same proceeding Mr here for be from Kirk Dust Collector thesame under therein parties by: ' - other (o provides United States the represented of and act 1 is 3 by be i benefit no defendant -aPPly and of the my sufficient that is until there matter a was affidavit filed affidavit an stating fact which would constitute a contempt idf the court that the demurrer at affidavit the should be directed is as' that original pleading an upon these defendants brought (in which are It will be remembered that thisis case is entitled the original Sefrit case tachment! here does it against court it does But being that we are f apply ngs8’ (that ° af an this punished justify issuance construction the shall attachment an Issued benefit would is read said cotfrts” lu section 4 of the 1875 provides that prior force main or modified interest there the clause orders who is an interested defendant corporation why contempt of punishment a the ! and that not a the of suit tull sucn In that as affidavit in parties is true it is defendant who this proceeding is nothing asked these defendants lhiSwcayse should be the the to of party except to I company' officers March of in f far this It the but case In Jz So of one case person in that the Kearns concerned respondents is contention sufficient not are the net not is the command The last i a In is is case bring but to ! affidavit' this move here by stockholder to that honor your this as sufficient is t ju doubt no order-so j( -4 have by made the the i of affidavit shall that in i 1 it We We upon doubt1 for prater concerned made : 1 rootai j transactions the and disobedience or resistance by any officer by such or any juror party wltuess other to or any person lawful writ rule order decree process or be no was the 1 J not Is I that directed is benefit Interest any in i - while of any official inclined a lawsuit respondents named proceedings7 in for contempt entitled in their into court own proper persons the thetn and having heard affidavit against that the said read affidavit and the say Ih a£d matterstherein contained manner form the as are therein stated and same forth Ini law thht set not sufficient are and the said E J they George Hale Arthur and 'Brown red Bagby either of nor them by the are bound law of the dand to answer verify the and this they are ready to same Wherefore for want of sufficient charge in this said against them behalf they George E J and red Hale Arthur Brown Bagby that by the judgment and they pray court of discharged and each them from may be said in said premists affidavit and charge specified ' ®f ( there that 1 so- to think he takes Bagby and the above i facts -this I- - : all not Criminal Proceeding criminal proceeding A xu?1!13? prac- to be demurrer f that Mr The Whitecotton — demurrer this language your honor: e iiaie veorge Artnur ana now comes Brown' red the I' at I- - ' that cause show am —affidavit in to I sh’ow to cause T lO of have will argument Whitecotton — The affidavit? Court No not the affidavit — to takes That show cause Mr in? v Your oraer to snow a complaint' place j affi-A i - — directed to the otder then because under be ! T The ' 11UL UUOD BLttie AdClB HULLlCieni that the respondents or any of guilty constltut-lng act are any contempt of the coprt show I? J A think tor What case? I -’was of ' imprisonment stand here with the presumption that will nothing be inferred is against that in us not stated the the complaint that is filed against’ us My is recollection that nothing said was following about the but “that the comment publications made'’ and were setting it them out but being admitted that the is truth not contempt we have a right to that assume is until there archarge made of publishing something that Is untrue or of publishing something that did not occur If and there has been a publication of anything that did in not occur court in charged the affidavit is That I think clear I' — Is the point of The Court — What ’demurrer? l’point of Mr The Whitecotton r — is demurrer that the your honor Ihli entitled the bar has assistto t the served upon have examined J your Morris M morning Court — That original I? this case' Mr ’J Charles admitted been all the that - much considered ' counsel Nor is anything to show the that alleged1 the' peti-misbehavior: of tloner interferred the court that it with or in the tended slightest to the degree disturb orderly of the in-' proceedings court The herent of the to for power court punish contempt is based upon-the it theory that is that S the possess" essential court should ample authority to the free and un-? secure obstructed of it si exercise functions in the enforcement of the law Therefore it is only acts such as tend to Interfere with the orderly of the proceedings court or with tho-jdue of administration justice that properly punished contempt of court as a Words written at "place or spoken a other than where the is held and not court so thereto to interfere the near as with proceedlng of the hot the court uo render liable author loud noise Any or other dlsin turbance the of the court presence or in the street place thereto or other so near to as Interfere with the orderly proceedIngs' of the court would undoubtedly tend to obstruct the of justice and administration such circumstances the is court emto for summarily punish powered contempt - Wllwaukee vs (Reading) the Perhaps would come of It There 'disrespectful counsel a witness to or sthe civil -have no : to that that abuse the privilege "had thing that ’Another violation and’ ant a Interference with of order the an court because the court had issued' Its bring subpena-to that witness Its jurisdiction and within to civil serve upon? him whicn process put him at disadvantage? service a not being able to be had unless" he went to one court witness the witness subdivision another Statutes of the United States that “Said shall courts have to punish by fine power and at the discretion of the court contempts of their authority that provided such to power punish shall not contempts be construed to to extend any except cases the misbehavior of in their any persons presence or so nbar thereto to as obstruct the administration of justice the tnisbehavlpr assumed were denied - is from the a and Beviaed provides which affidavit of In the preparation matters case ’and I desire (that hls name in entered associatecounsel! as The ? If filing Mr be that’ do not to be attempted construed against and no intendment will be read into the allegation which bear in aoesinot Implication the So I that think from the stand-point of & criminal proceeding we are the thts be this ! ' before ' may if ‘ the charging charged ds not the respondents i please who has just of this court - as - copy honor i is follows: ( Judge of directed 1 Court Mr j cohrt affidavit the Let the demurrer be filed — I risk will Whitecotton And that — you Powers accept service The ? Mr case in Whitecotton to response ‘presented a demurrer to the A transcript of the case r Court — That (Whitecotton Powers — What r Whitecotton — -were 'i iled of posslblebut rNow — of to or had that there might to protect the court or power the jury Y rom it such and influences was not that was Now contempt the law perhaps for some years I Outside oTi some few sporadic 'cases think It is the law not considered now The of United Supreme Court States' has held that the bribing of a witness court was a' conte'mpf’of fit disturbed the orderly administration was the fact that was had respondent who that upon summons 'for the same in the criminal cause his contempt through counsel witness it was misbehavior work somebody language another or from vs as court's the assaulting Milwaukee Manufacturing company to- arose others conflict therefore ofiKIrk ' -doesn’t attorney terday At has authorized special ‘assistant court to the possibly be Inferred from setting out these it headlines doesn’t that say those headlines were not a part of the in proceedings the court The Court — It doesn't say that they were a part of the proceedings of the court it Whitecotton — No Mr they say that they nor that were-not I if honor please that assume your Is a tnls I criminal assume proceeding ana that is nothing against presumed the in defendants the that the case charges in the case must be made with sufficient failure certainty and that the to allege a fact that is material to order the that' that so -that ’ Reporter 501 beginning at page That there was a case where was an O awv4 puuwii-wr tv of contempL i said the court prior to the of removal the federal cause 'Into the nhnrt: of the The power federal to courts punish for is contempts 725 derivedfrom section of the It as motion Is Manufacturing show may Mc-Crea M Mr and not In The question Mr unseemly an case Collector book? the MrthinkWhitecotton that the to in counsel prosecution M Morris assistant county to practice yeswas IsAdmitted and assisting in the defense Charles w : to - in affidavit but I affidavit order or bears out that statement attorney formulate ithe obedience The Marshall O to the the demurrer to order affidavit the this the ofJudge In charges The The Mr' States to Dust cause I that-W on there being affidavit that the things set out false are we say that the publication of the true in is' proceedings court a not a contempt of court -a charges show remember Whitecotton allegation and matters supreme contempt the It Is barely treat the demurrer order to show cause no pers-Mltchell-Morrlson ' the Mr ithe presence to amount can to attitude of (the In court the Gomand recase to ferred an opinion which he had filed in He took Ithe case Tn Oklahoma that the affidavit ground by drawn and Powers & Marloneaux which upon the case (was based did ndt constitute a of sufficient action and quashed cause It He then directed criminal the filing of tempt United t He discussed States tend of to upon I as Court— you or would based place The frubllcatlonh by order Whitecotton— is first ' '‘still based affidavit Mr ( ' ’ In -issued cause-was is to tha by of number a writ affidavit the 'was writ it Where order to show cause refers affidavit setting particular out the matter which the order to on I show to l alternative an to ' newspaper federal a to be -not the the no hadbeen authorities in lead authority Buctudlsturbances -writ nqisbehavior be the-counsel - 1 J- ’ - readr discovered distinct matters three served witness was party defendant - " Contempt It One -’ for the - - that case there were direful the will upon thbcounsel appears : tai-terrupt But- ! of considered this-thing - j-x Ing that " 1 ? f contempt -by ' ! 1 ORDERED Cable Money and payable throughout the world-AMERICAN Coln EXPRESS the pro-- show very h & C of MAIN-STREBtJ " |