IN EE EDWABD S. MAT. 743 �te impossible for the federal courts to punish a juror, even for receiving a bribe, since there is no statute making the receipt of a bribe by a juror a crime. The act was passed for the purpose of preventing the courts from interfering with newspaper eomments upon trials. It seems to me it could not have been the intention of congress to take away from the courts the common law power of punishing jurors for misconduct. Upon this point, however, I express no opinion, as it is admitted there was an order given, and the only ques- tion is whether respondent disobeyed it. �It is a cardinal rule in proceedings for a criminal contempt that the answer of the respondent cannot be traversed and must be taken as true. If false, the government is remitted to a prosecution for perjury. -4 Black. Com. 287; In the mat- ter ofPitman, 1 Curt. 186; U. S. v. Dodge, 2 Gall. 313; State V. Earl, 41 Ired. 464; Burke v. The State, 47 Ired. 528 ; People T. Feed, 2 John. 290; In re Moore, 63 N. C. 397; Nomes v. Cummins, 1 Lester, 40. �But the answer must be credible and consistent with itself, and if the respondent states facts which are inconsistent with his avowed purpose and intention, the court will be at liberty to draw its own inferences from the facts stated. In the matter of Crosshy, 6 Term E. 701; Ex parte Nowlan, Id. 118. For instance, if the respondent in this case had stated that in his interview with Burnstine he had asked and received of him a $1,000, and had kept the money in his pocket until after the jury were discharged ; and had further stated that he did this for the purpose of delivering the money to the dis- trict attorney and prosecuting Burnstine for bribery, it would Bcarcely be contended that the court would be bound to draw the same inference from his conduct. So, then, it is, after ail, a question in every case whether the facts stated are con- sistent with an honest intent. �The prosecution insist in this case that Miller was a myth ; that respondent 's story with regard to his interview with him was concocted solely for the purpose of explaining the sub- sequent interview with Burnstine. The court, however, can- not accept this theory. I must take it for granted that tho ��� �
