Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1867-12-13

Hd~ The case of process for contempt
issued by Judge Hunter of the criminal
court against Messrs. Galloway, Rhea d
Cluskey was heard yesterday in argu-
ment by Messrs. Ed. Yerger and E. A.
Beecher for the defendants. The argu-
ment of Mr.. Beecher was a clear and
forcible presentation of legal PROPOSE
tons and that of Mr.. Yerger, an able,
eloquent and exhaustive demonstration.
We do not see how the case can be de-
cided otherwise than favorably to the
accused. 1t is delicate matter at best
for a judge to decide an issue in which he
has personal interest and in which he
will necessarily be suspected Of a de-
gree of prejudice difficult for men of the
utmost self command to overcome. A
Judge OF high character WILL in such
circumstances, be careful that he acts in
accordance with clear and indisputable
and not doubtful law; for he will rather
let his own Injuries 60 unavenged than
incur the suspicion Of using his Office
for the redress Of mere private grew
ances And this seems to us clearly a
case in which a mere personal indigniiy
has been offered TO an individual, but no
oGense coming within the purview and
meaning of the law, has been committed.
The court, as such, has in no wise been
treated with contempt, and the course Of
justice has not been clogged or impeded
The constitution of the State pro-
vides that The printing presses shall
be free to every person who undertakes
to examine the proceedings Of the Legis-
lature, or of any branch or officer of
Government; and no law shall ever be
made to restrain the right thereof" The
Acaldnche has examined the proceed
ings of an officer of the Government,
to.wit: Judge Hunter. How are its
publishers to be held responsible when
the Constitution forbids Judges are
not, like Congress, greater than the
Constitution, and to keep their oaths,
they must obey its mandates, end the in.
ferior judges are bound by the decisions
of the higher courts. The Avalanche
has committed no contempt in the
presence Of the Court, and has not OBJ
structed the administration of justice
1t has simply made publication which
the law guarantees the right to do, sub.
ject only to indictment for libel or
action for damages, if any untruthful
publication has been made. There is no
authority for treating this as coming
within the definition Of a contempt Of
court; and it is not "sny other act or
omission declared by Law to be con-
tempt" No clause Of any statute can
be named by any member of the Mem
pbis bar which declares a publication of
this sort TO be a contempt, and no au.
thority Of the common law since the
revolution, or decisions Of the American
courts, can b. found for it.
And IL such authsf:;y could be found,
It would be subyersive Of he spirit aud
principles Of Republican institutions. Il
would endanger liberty to require the
sentinels on its watchtowers to speak in
constant fear Of punishment at the viii,
and by law concealed in the breast Of
any single man. Our fathers would not
give it to Washington or Marshall, and
they would not now give It to BrownloE
or Hunter. When the press warns
against a public danger and denounces
crime snd summons al good mer to the
rescue sgairsis coming mischiefs' Il Is
doing what may be a great public good,
which, therefore, merits encouragement