The Nevada journal., 1853-07-22
Judge Barbour's Opinion

Judge BarbOur's Opinion"
upon the alleged contempt ,of the District
Court is given at length on the first page
Some of our exchanges infer that in our last
issue we unfortunately forgot" to state
the nature Of that opinion. Not So We
simply designed TO give it in the very words
Of the functionary, SO that no inferences Of
ours from the document should be even sps-
pected of prejudice, and further to accom-
pany it with such remarks as we deemed an.
propriats. The "Opinion y in question is
the careful digestion of weeks, and eyerv
sentence bears marks of the sustained desire
OF the author to make out a case. The some
amount OF industry employed to vindicate
great principles of liberty and justice could
not fail to win the judge credit which can
scarcely accompany an effort to restrict the
freedom OF the press and obscure holy rights,
guaranteed by the constItution-which ex-
PresSiy says, :" No law shall be passed land
OF course adopted from less free communi.
ties, restricting the liberty of speech or of
the press"
Ihe first material point made by the Judge
Is the difficulty Of obtaining trial Jury. The
record OF the court will sustain US in the state
ments That the venire was issued while the
Judge was yet in MarysvilIe, and returned
before the sitting Of tie Court, and, of course
before the application for change of venue
The Opinion reads as if the "one linn.
dred Jurors" were summoned because appli-
cation for said change was made, and be.
cause we had published evidence. The ven.
Ire preceded the knowledge of the court of
either OF these circumstances, and if it was
unusually large, putting the county to extra
expense, the court is alone responsible. Fur.
thermore, On the return of the venre much
less than one hundred jurors answered in
court Of these the jury was empannelled
We cannet accept ofthe testimonial as 10 the
extent OF our circulation and influence with.
out qualification, however strong a recon-
mendatlon 1t may be of our columns az an
advertising medium. The killing of Cook
was an affair to be talked Of all over the
county. Hundreds heard the facts before the
issue OF our paper, and the public attended
the examination. Nothing was done in the
dark. No court attempted to repress the
circulation of the startling facts. Many per-
sons otherwise in possession of such facts
VIII read them in the columns of news
paper to seeif all reports agree; then, on a
leading question by a lawyer, will innocent.
~ imagine they form their opinion from
what they see in print Thus the press bears
the onus OF what would exist without its
action But 1t looks like snap judgment tc
declare we put the county to much Difficult
ty and great expense in procuring a Jury
when the original venire was not predicated
on our action, and there was no necessity fol
second one, or for a change of venue. i
will be remarked how the C. Opinion treat.
facts, we shall soon see how it deals with
law.
Secondly, in reference to the additiona
facts on the trial" We do not see theil
bearing on the case. We were not charged
with wrongfully obtaining the evidence. w,
asked Justice Colburn on the trial if he "in
tende to imply that we committed an,
breach of trust in retaining or copying from
the original record" He distinctly said HI
did not Yet the vigilant Judge seems t,
lose sight of this part of the additiona
facts" The testimony evinccd desire OF
our part to obtain the literal truth enly t,
give to the public and is so far to our credit
We asked no one to take or share our IRE
sponsibility." We admitted the publication
and defended it as a matter of right, first il
propria persona" and then by counsel
Judge Buckner, whose law opinions are gen
orally esteemed at least as high as those o
the author of the Opinion" distinctly in
formed the court that he told Mr.. Sarcen
at the time of the conversation that the pub
lication was no contempt OF court
Judge Barbour has considered this cas-,
for months. He has called testimony-ha.
IN a labored "Opinion y speaks of our pub
fishing evidence of witnesses and comment
'"g thereon" Judge Barbour should know
that no comments on the testimony have
been published in this paper. We gave the
evidence from the official record, unaccom
panied by any note or comment and it is ra
ther assuming for man of excellent discre
uon 70 say in carefully prepared opinion
with the whole case naked before him, thai
we commented on the evidence. Our com
ments all took place before there was com,
initial of Jansen for trial, even before any
examination was had. We understand the
Judge to say little farther on that There
are no legal objections why an editor may moi