The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1854-09-11
az DAILY i,i~rATGH
$500. y M. Inc. sap EaBLaI ,iss4

- 49,
Tar CouaTs AND THE PREss.-Aletterd a
ted at Liberty, Bedford county, from the Ed
itor of the Lynchburg Republican to his pa
per, states that Judge GILMER had refused to
allow him seat within the bar of the Court
to report the trial Of Christian. except upon
a pledge from him that the report should no,
appear until the conclusion of the trial. Mr..
IRVING very properly declined the privilege
with the condition annexed; and in his letter
he comments upon the conduct OF the Judge
with freedom.
We can see no earthly reason in this case
why the Judge should desire to impose such
a restriction upon any report MIR. IRVING
might make. The case Of Christian is alrea
dy generally understood-ah the testimony
in il having received wider publication in
the State than that of any criminal trial which
ever took place. Therefore, to refuse to al
low Mr.. 1. to publish an account of what oc-
CURED at the second trial is absurd.
There is seme degree of plausibility in re-
fusing to allow the evidence in a case brougl {
to trial for the first time, to be published IN
til the result is known; but there's only plausi-
bility. And the practice ofthe day being geI-
orally at variance with it, we are surprised
that any Judge should now set up such en-
objection. Mr. IRVING is perfectly right IN
complaining Of Judge GILMER's course. a
trial by jury in open court-a public scrutiny
of the guilt or innocence of the accused, so
that men as well as God may be witnesses OF
the fairness and business of the investigation
lis cardinal principle of our Constitution
and one of our most important personal rights
This publicity cannot be safely restricted In
deed il cannot be- without an infringement OIL
the Constitution. The Court cannot Keep
out spectators, nor can it impose secrecy
upon them, nor punish them for disclosing
what occurs before its open and pubic trl
buuaI. If no such power belongs 10 the
Court, how then is the journalist to be promo
tied from being present, from hearing what
occurs. and from repeating it, whether he
choose to do SO verbally or in writing! 1t
cannot be done, and wherever it has been
attempted in this country to restrict the press
in the courts from privilege enjoyed by any
and every one that chooses, VIZ TO hear ana
to repeat and describe what transplres Ill
court, the press has triumphed. 1t has been
established that what is public is as public
for the press as the people-nay, that it must
inevitably be public for the press to consti
tute the completeness of the popular publ
city of the tribunal under the Constitution.
The reason alleged that the reports of the
press forestan the public judgment is of no
consequence 1t no more forestalls the public
Judgment than does the evidence given in the
court for the press cannot of course publish
the evidence until it is given there But the
press assists rather than embarrasses justice;
for it publishes the truth as it is developed :;
whereas the imperfect details of the promis-
cuous assemblage in court room from all
parts of a county or district, are very likely
to mislead the public mind and throw obsta-
cles in the way of full hearing of the cause
and fair administration of the law. There
fore Justice is rather assisted than INSTRUCTED
by the accurate statements of a trial by the
press And this is matter over which the
court certainly does possess power which
IL Suouiu oh OIL oCOaoioao
1t has the right to see that reports are cor
rect, and it may very justly exclude report
er from the court room who misrepresents
evidence and occurrences there. The public
would certainly justify such an exclusion for
such cause.
1t is idle in this day to attempt to restric,
the presto deprive it of liberty accorded
to the people-to restrict the liberty of the
press and not of speech. These liberties can
not be separated