CONTEMPT. A wilful disregard or diso bedience of a public authority.
By the constitution of the United States, each house of congress may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the con currence of two-thirds, expel a member. The same provision is substantially contain ed in the constitutions of the several states.
The power to make rules carries that of enforcing them, and to attach persons who violate them and punish them for contempts; 1 Kent 236; State v. Matthews, 37 N. H. 450; 14 East 1. But see 4 Moore, P. C. 63 ; 11 id. 347. This power of punishing for contempts is confined to punishment during the session of the legislature, and cannot extend beyond it; Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. (U. S.) 204, 230, 231, 5 L. Ed. 242; Rap. Contempt 2; and it seems this power cannot be exerted beyond imprisonment. It is often regulated by statute ; U. S. R. S. § 101-103. The arrest of the offending party is made by the sergeant-at-arms, act ing by virtue of the speaker's warrant, both in England and the United States ; Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. (U. S.) 204, 5 L. Ed. 242; 10 Q. B. 359. The power of congress to punish for contempt must be found in some express grant in the constitution or be found necessary to carry into effect such powers as are there granted ; Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 169, 26 L. Ed. 377; U. S. v. Lee, 106 U. S. 220, 1 Sup. Ct. 240, 27 L. Ed. 171. See CONGRESS.
Courts of justice have an inherent power to punish all persons for contempt of their rules and orders, for disobedience of their process, and for disturbing them in their proceedings; 8 Co. 38 b; State V. Matthews, 37 N. H. 450; State v. Morrill, 16 Ark. 384 ; Ex parte Walker, 25 Ala. 81; Ex parte Adams, 25 Miss. 883, 59 Am. Dec. 234 ; Clark v. People, Breese (Ill.) 340, 12 Am. Dec. 178; Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 289, 9 Sup. Ct. 77, 32 L. Ed. 405; Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co., 194 U. S. 324, 24 Sup. Ct. 665, 48 L. Ed. 997; Kregel v. Bartling, 23 Neb. 848, 37 N. W. 668 ; Matter of Moore, 63 N. C. 397; People v. Wilson, 64 Ill. 195, 16 Am. Rep. 528; Ex parte Wright, 65 Ind. 508. See In re Savin, 131 U. S. 267, 9 Sup. Ct. 699, 33 L. Ed. 150 ; Respublica v. Oswald, 1 Dall. (U. S.) 319, 1 L. Ed. 155; it is said that the legislature cannot restrict the power; Ex parte McCown, 139 N. C. 95, 51 S. E. 957, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 603. A court may commit for A period reaching beyond the at the contempt is committed; •Ex parte Maulsby, 13 1VId. 642. The punishment should not be by piecemeal, but must be entire and final; O'Rourke v. Cleveland, 49 N. J. Eq. 577, 25 Atl. 367, 31 Am. St. Rep. 719.
Contempts of court are of two kinds : such as are committed in the presence of the court, and which interrupt its proceedings, which may be summarily punished by order of the presiding judge ; and constructive contempts, arising from a refusal to comply with an order of court ; Androscoggin & K.
R. Co. v. R. Co., 49 Me. 392. In the court of chancery the failure or refusal to perform an order or decree is a contempt, and the enforcement of such orders and decrees is by attachment. For an exhaustive discus sion of the practice in such cases, see note to State v. Livingston, 4 Del. Ch. 265.
A prosecution for contempt of court in order to compel obedience to an order made in a chancery proceeding is a civil action; Leopold v. People, 140 Ill. 552, 30 N. E. 348.
The punishment is summary and general ly immediate in contempts committed in facie curice, and no process or evidence is necessary ; In re Noonan, 47 Kan. 771, 28 Pac. 1104 ; 2 L. R. H. L. 361; Middlebrook v. State, 43 Conn. 257, 21 Am. Rep. 650 ; and a party in contempt cannot be heard except to purge himself; Gross v. Clark, 87 N. Y. 272.
In some states, as in Pennsylvania, the power to punish for contempts is restricted to offences committed by the officers of the court, or in its presence, or in disobedience of its mandates, orders, or rules; but no one is guilty of a contempt for any publication made or act done out of court which is not in violation of such lawful rules or orders or in disobedience of its process. By Act of Congress, March 2, 1831, the power in the federal courts to punish for contempt has been limited. Whether it can be held to limit the authority of the Supreme Court, which derives its existence and powers from the constitution, may perhaps be a matter of doubt. The power of the circuit and district courts can only be exercised to en sure order and decorum in their presence, to secure faithfulness on the part of their officers in their official transactions, and to enforce obedience to their lawful orders, judgments, and processes ; Atwell v. U. 162 Fed. 97, 89 C. C. A. 97, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1049, 15 Ann. Cas. 253, where it was held a grand juror was not guilty of contempt for violating his oath to keep the counsel of the United States. See Oswald's Case, 4 Lloyd's Debates 141. If a newspaper article is per se libellous, making a direct charge against court or jury, or admitting of but one reasonable construction and requiring no innuendo to apply its meaning to the court, then the publisher cannot escape by denying under oath that he intended the plain mean ing which the language used conveys; v. State, 131 Ind. 599, 30 N. E. 1093. The question of contempt depends upon the act and not the intention of the party; 22 W. R. 398 ; Wartman v. Wartman, Taney 362, Fed. Cas. No. 17,210; 3 Burr. 1329; 3 C. B. 745. A publication in a newspaper, read by the jurors and attendants of the court, which has a tendency to interfere with the unbiased administration of the laws in pend ing cases, may be a contempt ; State v. Judge of Civil District Court, 45 La. Ann. 1250, 14 South. 310, 40 Am. St. Rep. 282.