State v. Kaiser

• Decision Date: 01 May 1890
• Citation: 20 Or. 50,23 P. 964
• Parties: STATE v. KAISER.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

23 P. 964

20 Or. 50

STATE v. KAISER.

Supreme Court of Oregon

May 1, 1890

Appeal from a decision of the circuit court for the county of Jackson, in a matter of contempt.

Said circuit court, at a term thereof held on the 13th day of December, 1889, proceeded of its own motion to make and enter the following order: "In the circuit court for Jackson county, Oregon. Whereas, you, E.J. Kaiser and N.A. Jacobs, as editors and publishers of the Valley Record, a newspaper published at the city of Ashland, Jackson county, Oregon, on Thursday, the 12th of December, 1889, in an issue of said Valley Record published on said day, did publish of and concerning the above court, and the judge and officer thereof, the following, to-wit: 'The circuit judge has ordered an investigation into the whys and wherefores of a material witness disappearing in a criminal case, in which his important testimony was needed to convict. While the honorable court is at the investigation business, it might not be more than common justice to go into the wholesale business of investigating itself, and everybody else connected with the management and manipulation of the jurisprudence of southern Oregon. If some of the methods employed could be sifted to the bottom a system of debauchery would be unearthed that may be very warm and interesting to some of the executors. In fact, then, the evidence would be laid bare to the people of southern Oregon, and they would know just why one man can be convicted of murder in the first degree, and "hung by the neck until he is dead," on strong circumstantial evidence; and why another crime, of the same foul magnitude, is committed, and the courts fail to find the author, when the circumstantial evidence that made the first man stretch hemp was far less convicting in its circumstantialness than was the case that the blind Goddess of Justice could not find guilty; why attorneys can offer bribes to even such august personages as grand jurors to bring in suitable verdicts; and why--yes, why--a lot of other things, just as queer, irregular, and delicate, and too numerous to mention, are occurring as periodically as there are exigencies that make them. In fact the court would have an all year's job on its hands. The practicing condition of jurisprudence in this section of the world is as corrupt and criminal in its methods, in proportion to population amount and magnitude of crime, and purse of criminals, as it is in the cities where these cases are regularly "handled" by the political boss who "makes" the officials, "fixes" the juries, and attends to the case, for a large sum. These irregular methods are becoming so numerous that it seems as though they have encysted themselves upon, and are a part of the--unwritten--works of Blackstone. This is one of the conditions and dangerous consequences of the political methods in vogue in Jackson county, an immediate result of which is shown in the shameless way in which its representative officials are allowed to sell out their constituency for a beggarly fee. Another direct result of this condition of affairs has placed an indebtedness of from $100,000 to $150,000--such a magnitude that no one does know the actual amount--over the county, that is bearing practically ten per cent. interest, (mighty large returns and safe investment for big capital;) and no effort is being made to stop it from climbing right along up. When will the cupidity, indifference, and lack of courage of the people in public affairs cease, and an effort made to at least put a check to these grasping vultures?' It is, therefore, now hereby ordered that you, and each of you, be and appear before said court, at the court-house in Jacksonville, said county and state, on Monday, 16th December, 1889, at 9 o'clock in the forenoon, then and there to show cause, if any you have, why you should not be punished for contempt of said court for having so published and circulated the matter above set out as aforesaid. Done in open court on Friday 18th December, 1889. LIONEL R. WEBSTER." A certified copy of the order and citation having been personally served upon the said E.J. Kaiser on the 17th day of December, 1889 he appeared in accordance with the requirements thereof, and filed an answer duly verified by him, of which the following is a copy. "E.J. Kaiser comes, and, in answer to a citation issued out of the above-entitled court, and heretofore served on him, says that he is engaged in publishing a newspaper of general circulation at Ashland, Or; that, in publishing said article that appears in said citation, he did not make any reference to any action or proceeding then pending in said court, or before any grand jury, nor was there any grand jury in session at said time, as defendant is informed; that said article was, so far as the same relates to the courts of this county, a criticism of past acts therein, and the same was not intended to have, and would not have, any tendency to interfere with the proper and unbiased administration of the law in any case or cases then or now pending in said court; and that said article was published only, as the defendant believed, in the interest of society, and defendant earnestly disclaims any intentional disrespect towards said court, or the officers thereof, in the publishing of said article. And, further answering, defendant avers that said court has no jurisdiction of the person of this defendant under this proceeding, and denies that this court has any jurisdiction to punish this defendant, or to adjudge him in contempt, for the publishing of said article set forth in said citation." The said circuit court, upon the said order, citation, and answer, adjudged the said Kaiser guilty of contempt of the court in the publication of said article, and sentenced him to pay a fine of $50, and also that he be imprisoned in the county jail for the period of 15 days, from which adjudication the said Kaiser brought this appeal.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Acts and omissions deemed to be contempts of the authority of courts, under the laws of Oregon, are only those which are specified as such under the subdivisions of section 650 of the Civil Code, and in other sections thereof, and can be punished only in the mode therein prescribed.

. The publication of an article in a newspaper is not a contempt unless it reflect upon the conduct of the court in reference to a pending suit or preceeding, and tend in some impede, interrupt, or embarrass the proceedings of the court in reference thereto.

A court has no authority to proceed against a party for contempt on account of acts not committed in the immediate view and presence of the court, unless the facts constituting the contempt are shown by an affidavit presented to the court.

H.K. Hanna, for appellant.

Wm. M. Colvig, Dist.Atty., and A.S. Hammond, for respondent.

THAYER C.J.

Two questions are presented for our consideration upon this appeal: First, whether the matter published by the appellant was punishable as a contempt of the circuit court; second, whether said court had authority of its own motion to cite the appellant to appear before it, and inflict punishment upon him for the alleged offense.

The Civil Code of this state section six hundred and fifty prescribes what acts and omissions in respect to a court of justice, or proceedings therein, shall be deemed to be contempts of the authority of the court. They are as follows: Disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior towards the judge, while holding the court, tending to impair its authority, or to interrupt the due course of a trial or other judicial proceeding; a breach of the peace, boisterous conduct, or violent disturbance tending to interrupt the due course of a trial or other judicial proceeding; misbehavior in office, or other willful neglect or violation of duty, by an attorney, clerk, sheriff, or other person appointed or selected to perform a judicial or ministerial service; deceit or abuse of the process or proceedings of the court by a party to an action, suit, or special proceeding; disobedience of any lawful judgment, decree, order, or process of the court; assuming to be an attorney or other officer of the court, and acting as such, without authority, in a particular instance; rescuing any person or property in the custody of an officer by virtue of an order or process of such court unlawfully detaining a witness or party to an action, suit, or proceeding while going to, remaining at, or returning from the court where the same is for trial; any other unlawful interference with the process or proceedings of a court; disobedience of a subpoena duly served, or refusing to be sworn or answer as a witness; when summoned as a juror in a court, improperly conversing with ...