
    Respublica against Thomas Passmore.
    The interrogatories having been filed in the prothonotary’s office, the defendant answered them in substance as follows upon his oath : He believed that there was no suit depending on the 8th September last, and referred to the records.
    He denied that he had the most distant intention to prejudice the public mind in his favour, “ or to treat with disrespect “the judicial authority of his country, for which he had always “ entertained the highest respect. He felt much irritated when “ he first saw the exceptions, and in the moment of his heat and “passion, published the expressions he experienced, without allowing himself time to reflect on the harshness of the manner “ in which they were conceived, or the extent of their applica- “ tion.
    “ He thinks well of Andrew Pettit, and is sorry for the gene- “ rality of his expressions which might tend to implicate him ; “and though he thought at that time, and still thinks, that he “ was extremely ill used by Andrew Bayard, he certainly would “ not have adopted the measure of publishing, if the impetuosity “of the moment had not hurried him into it.”
    The defendant appearing in court towards the end of the term, Mr. Levy in his behalf contended, that he possessed the right of palliating his conduct, and extenuating his offence by every means in his power. The interrogatories are administered to him for the better information of the court, with respect to the circumstances of the contempt. 4 Bl. Com. 287.
    Mr. Dallas for the prosecution
    urged, that each step taken
    by the defendant was but an aggravation of his first offence; his answers are drawn up in such a manner, as to add fresh insult to Mr. Bayard, whom he so grossly injured before. He has # 1 *not extenuated his offence, but has aggravated it. He 44 i could not but know that his publication was a very improper act; but if his intentions were even innocent, the justice of the country and of the court requires, that he shall stand committed. 1 Wms. 675. Ignorance of the law will not justify an improper publication. 2 Vez. 521. He also cited 1 Dali. 328. Wallace’s Circ. Rep. 78. Mosel. 250, and Vern. and Scriv. 295, 296, 299. Where defendant submits to an attachment, the prosecutor has not a right to insist on exhibiting interrogatories to him. [Sed vide, 4 Burr. 2105, and 5 Term Rep. 362, contrad\
    
   Shippen, C. J.

However libellous the publication complained of may be, we have no cognizance of it in this summary mode, unless it be a contempt of the court. 2 Atky. 469. But we are unanimously of opinion, that in point of law it is such a contempt, and readily concur with Lord Hardwicice, that “ there “ cannot be any thing of greater consequence than to keep the “streams of justice clear and pure, that parties may proceed “with safety, both to themselves and their characters.” Ib. 471. If the minds of the public can be prejudiced by such improper publications, before a cause is heard, justice cannot be administered. The defendant has set at nought the advice we gave him when we ordered the attachment. He has made no atonement whatever to the person whom he has so deeply injured, and he can only blame himself for the consequences.

The judgment of the court is, that the defendant pay a fine of 50 dollars to the commonwealth, and be imprisoned in the debtor’s apartment for the space of 30 days; and afterwards, until the fine and costs are paid. 
      
      Present also Brackenridge, Justice.
     