The character of the assertions made by the respondent, at the time {oz and which caused, his commit-iment, likewise necessitated prompt jand decisive action. Any other course. might have been taken as amounting to an admission. But these assertions have since been retracted, both-generally and specifically, by respondent. Of course it would never.do to establish the-precedent that a party, and especially a lawyer who of all persons ly presumed to know his duty toward the court—may commit any sort of contempt and then escape punishment by a mere verbal retraction. Such a doctrine would encourage lawlessness and render the court's protective power valueless. The personal phase of an indignity to the court is closed by an apology; but the public aspect is an entirely different matter, Here there is n0 personal phase.' For we believe that respondent himself will agree that there have never been any guilty or that he should be bound: We must next determine whether over to a higher court. I certainly reasons have arisen, since the sent-not." ence was imposed, which would now : personac differences between us, unless, indeed, the rendition of judgments adverse to an attor-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.