Opinion of the Court-Talbot, J.

to abuse of the justices of this and other courts, and to imputations of their motives. The language quoted is tantamount to the charge that this tribunal and the Supreme Courts of Utah, Missouri, and of the United States, and the justices thereof who participated in the opinions upholding statutes limiting the hours of labor in mines, smelters, and other ore reduction works, were misguided by ignorance or base political considerations.

Taking the most charitable view, if counsel became so imbued and misguided by his own ideas and conclusions that he honestly and erroneously conceived that we were controlled by ignorance or sinister motives, instead of by law and justice, in determining constitutional or other questions, and that these other courts and judges and the members of the legislature and the governor were guilty of the accusation he made because they and we failed to follow the theories he advocated, and that his opinions ought to outweigh and turn the scale against the decisions of the four courts named, including the highest in the land, with nineteen justices concurring, nevertheless it was entirely inappropriate to make the statement in the brief. If he really believed or knew of facts to sustain the charge he made, he ought to have been aware that the purpose of such a document is to enlighten the court in regard to the controlling facts and the law, and convince by argument, and not to abuse or vilify, and that this court is not endowed with power to hear or determine charges impeaching its justices.

On the other hand, if he did not believe the accusation, and made it with desire to mislead, intimidate, or swerve from duty the court in its decision, the statement would be the more censurable. So that taking either view, whether respondent believed or disbelieved the heinous charge he made, such language is unwarranted and contemptuous. The duty of an attorney in his brief or argument is to assist the court in ascertaining the truth pertaining to the pertinent facts, the real effect of decisions and the law applicable to the case, and he far oversteps the bounds of professional conduct when he resorts to misrepresentation, false charges, or vilification. He may fully present, discuss, and argue the evidence and the

VOL. XXIX-8

Opinion of the Court-Talbot, J.

law, and freely indicate wherein he believes that decisions and rulings are wrong or erroneous, but this he may do effectually without making bald accusations against the motives and intelligence of the court, or being discourteous or resorting to abuse which is not argument nor convincing to reasoning minds. If respondent has no respect for the justices, he ought to have enough regard for his position at the bar to refrain from attacking the tribunal of which he is a member, and which the people through the constitution and by general consent have made the final interpreter of the laws which he, as an officer of the court, has sworn to uphold and protect. These duties are so plain that any departure from them by a member of the bar would seem to be wilful and intentional misconduct.

The power of courts to punish for contempt and to maintain decency and dignity in their proceedings is inherent, and is as old as courts are old. It is also provided by statute. By analogy we note the adjudications and penalties imposed in a few of the many cases.

Lord Cottingham imprisoned Edmund Lechmere Charlton, a barrister and member of the House of Commons, for sending a scandalous letter to one of the masters of the court, and a committee from that body, after an investigation, reported that, in their opinion, his "claim to be discharged from imprisonment by reason of privilege of parliament ought not to be admitted." (2 Milne & Craig, 317.)

When the case of People v. Tweed, in New York City, came up a second time before the same judge, before the trial commenced, the prisoner's counsel privately handed to the judge a letter, couched in respectful language, in which they stated, substantially, that their client feared, from the circumstances of the former trial, that the judge had conceived a prejudice against him, and that his mind was not in the unbiased condition necessary to afford an impartial trial, and respectfully requested him to consider whether he should not relinquish the duty of presiding at the trial to some other judge, at the same time declaring that no personal disrespect was intended toward the judge or the court. The judge retained the letter, and went on with the trial. At the

Opinion of the Court-Talbot, J.

close of the trial he sentenced three of the writers to a fine of $250 each, and publicly reprimanded the others, the junior counsel, at the same time expressing the opinion that if such a thing had been done by them in England, they would have been "expelled from the bar within one hour." The counsel at the time protested that they intended no contempt of court, that they felt and intended to express no disrespect for the judge, but that their action had been taken in furtherance of what they deemed the vital interests of their client and the faithful and conscientious discharge of their duty. The judge accepted the disclaimer of personal disrespect, but refused to believe the disclaimer of intention to commit a contempt, and enforced the fines. (11 Alb. Law J. 408; In re Pryor, 26 Am. Rep. 752.)

For sending to a district judge out of court a letter stating that "the ruling you have made is directly contrary to every principle of law, and everybody knows it, I believe, and it is our desire that no such decision shall stand unreversed in any court we practice in," an attorney was fined $50 and suspended from practice until the amount should be paid. In delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court of Kansas (In · re Pryor, 18 Kan. 72, Am. Rep. 747), Brewer, J., said: "Upon this we remark, in the first place, that the language of this letter is very insulting. To say to a judge that a certain ruling which he has made is contrary to every principle of law, and that everybody knows it, is certainly a most severe imputation. We remark, secondly, that an attorney is under special obligations to be considerate and respectful in his conduct and communications to a judge. He is an officer of the court, and it is therefore his duty to uphold its honor and dignity. The independence of the profession carries with it the right freely to challenge, criticise, and condemn all matters and things under review in evidence. But with this privilege goes the corresponding obligation of constant courtesy and respect toward the tribunal in which the proceedings are pending. And the fact that the tribunal is an inferior one, and its rulings not final and without appeal, does not diminish in the slightest degree this obligation of courtesy and respect. A justice of the peace before whom

Opinion of the Court-Talbot, J.

the most trifling matter is being litigated is entitled to receive from every attorney in the case courteous and respectful treatment. A failure to extend this courtesy and respectful treatment is a failure of duty; and it may be so gross a dereliction as to warrant the exercise of the power to punish for contempt. It is so that in every case where a judge decides for one party he decides against another; and ofttimes both parties are beforehand equally confident and sanguine. The disappointment, therefore, is great, and it is not in human nature that there should be other than bitter feeling which often reaches to the judge as the cause of the supposed wrong. A judge, therefore, ought to be patient, and tolerate everything which appears but the momentary outbreak of disappointment. A second thought will generally make a party ashamed of such outbreak. So an attorney sometimes, thinking it a mark of independence, may become wont to use contemptuous, angry, or insulting expressions at every adverse ruling, until it becomes the court's clear duty to check the habit by the severe lesson of a punishment for contempt. The single insulting expression for which the court punishes may therefore seem to those knowing nothing of the prior conduct of the attorney, and looking only at the single remark, a matter which might well be unnoticed; and yet, if all the conduct of the attorney was known, the duty of interference and punishment might be clear. We remark, finally, that while, from the very nature of things, the power of a court to punish for contempt is a vast power, and one which in the hands of a corrupt or unworthy judge may be used tyrannically and unjustly, yet protection to individuals lies in the publicity of all judicial proceedings, and the appeal which may be made to the legislature for proceedings against any judge who proves himself unworthy of the power intrusted to him.

Where a contention arose between counsel as to whether a witness had not already answered a certain question, and the court, after hearing the reporter's notes read, decided that she had answered it, whereupon one of the attorneys sprang to his feet, and, turning to the court, said, in loud tones and insulting manner: "She has not answered the question"

Opinion of the Court-Talbot, J.

held that "the attorney was guilty of contempt, regardless of the question whether the decision of the court was right or wrong." (Russell v. Circuit Judge, 67 Iowa, 102, 24 N. W. 741.)

In Sears v. Starbird, 75 Cal. 91, 16 Pac. 531, 7 Am. St. Rep. 123, a brief reflecting upon the trial judge was stricken from the record in the supreme court because it contained the following: "The court, out of a fullness of his love for a cause, the parties to it, or their counsel, or from an overzealous desire to adjudicate 'all matters, points, arguments, and things,' could not, with any degree of propriety under the law, patch and doctor up the case of the plaintiffs, which, perhaps, the carelessness of their counsel had left in such a condition as to entitle them to no relief whatever." In reference to this language, it was said in the opinion: "Here is a distinct intimation that the judge of the court below did not act from proper motives, but from a love of the parties or their counsel. We see nothing in the record which suggests that such was the case. On the contrary the action complained of seems to us to have been entirely proper. See Sill v. Reese, 47 Cal. 340. The brief, therefore, contains a groundless charge against the purity of motive of the judge of the court below. This we regard as a grave breach of professional propriety. Every person on his admission to the bar takes an oath to 'faithfully discharge the duties of an attorney and counselor.' Surely such a course as was taken in this case is not a compliance with that duty. In Friedlander v. Sumner G. & S. M. Co., 61 Cal. 117, the court said: 'If unfortunately counsel in any case shall ever so far forget himself as wilfully to employ language manifestly disrespectful to the judge of the superior court, a thing not to be anticipated, we shall deem it our duty to treat such conduct as a contempt of this court, and to proceed accordingly.' And the briefs in the case were ordered to be stricken from the files."

In U. S. v. Late Corporation of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints language used in a petition filed, in effect accusing the court of an attempt to shield its receiver and his attorneys from an investigation of charges of gross mis