The Nevada journal., 1853-06-10
Opinions of the Press.
Continued.

Judge Barbour, for an alleged con-
tempt Of the District Court, by pub
fishing testimony taken befor justice
of the peace, which was to be again
rendered before this tribunal. We
have no word Of condemnation to give
this outrage, not that it does not merit
all that can be said, but because we
have no doubt the large space of the
enlarged Journal weekly and solemn
ly dedicated to the total annihilation
of the erring functiopary, will do him
ample justice. But if there is enough
left of him for name to stick to by
the time this reaches him, we hope
that our suggestion of the propriety
of an immediate emigration of whats
left of HIS Honor, to some 'congenial
Cline will be gratefully considered.
Golden Era.
In answer to a call from the Ma
rysville Herald for its opinion upon
the conduct of Judge Barbour to-
wards us, the Enprcss has the follow
ing singular statement
awe are accused of not having con-
demned the course of Judge Barbour
in the matter of the editor of the Ne
vada Journal. In reply, we have to
state, that at the time of the occur
renee we were absent from our post,
but that on returning we called upon
the gentleman, from whom we heard
statement widely differing from that
published in that Herald and other
journals. Judge Barbour stated that
he had simply cited the editor of the
Journal to show cause why he should
not be punished for contempt, and at
the editors request had given him
until the first day of the next term to
answer. He further informed us, that
he should make statement of the
facts, after the matter was finally dis
posed of, but preferred suffering the
libellous attacks made upon him by
the Herald and others, to answering
while the cause was still pending.
Recognizing the propriety of this
course, we refrained from commenting
upon the case"
"From a0hona qCe heard a statement
a0idely differing from that published
IN that HERALD" We are well aware
Judge Barbour is not fully committed
to the above, in that his signature is
not attached to such a statement, and
further that the ErpresS is noted for
zeal beyond its discretion. An hun
dred witnesses, of our best citizens,
will solemnly swear to the faithfulness
of our report. To that report no
member of our bar will dissent. If
Judge Barbour or any other has made
a widely different statement, his state
ment is fabrication, unworthy of q
gentleman, and one that will recoil on
his own head with damning force.
We frankly admit we believe the
Express has placed Barbour in false
position, and in its anxiety to reply
to the Herald has issued a most tor
menting libel against him. The lam
guage of the Express is q little am
biguous. We presume it means by
"that Herald" our paper-but if it
means its city cotemporary, the facts
as given by that paper were correct.
1t would be curious to see the infer
ences of the Erpress from such facts.
The features in the case are these
We are arrested for contempt " for
having on the lst day of April, A. D.
1888, published in newspaper called
the Necada Journal, an article pur-
porting to'be The testimony taken be-
fore Justice Colburn of said county,
on the 25th Of March, 1853, in the
case of the people VS.. Henry Jansen,
on the charge of assaulting E. Cook,
with the intent to kill, and for CON-
menting on the facts of the case in
said newspaper thereby prejudicing
the public mind, and corrupting and
preventing the administration of JUS
tice."
The above is a literal copy of the
material portion of the original sum-
mons, which document was published
entire by us and the Herald. To give
a widely different statement Judge
Rorhour must first of all deny this