The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-05-01
ABRDGING FREE SPEECH.
From the ". Y. Tribune.

From the ". Y. Tribune
There is now in the hands of the Governor,
awaiting his signature, bill amending aud
adding to the code. One of these amend
ments is a blow at the right of free speech,
which should incite the Indignation of every
man who wishes to retain at least the right to
criticise those proceedings of the courts
which are constantly deprlving citizens of
their property. The amendment in question
is an addition to the code which provides that
courts of record shall have the power which
courts had at common law, to punish as for
contempts. Those acts or words which were
contempts at common law are declared to be
contempts of court now. The proceedings
to punish shall be conducted Gin such man
ner as the court shall direct, and the punish
ment-which may be by fine or imprison-
ment, or both-shall be Sin the discretion of
the court" All inconsistent laws are re-
pealed.
The object of this is very apparent. At
common law the rules in regard to contempts
of court we're very severe. As the liberty of
the press and freedom of speech extended,
statutes were passed restricting the power of
Furnishing for contempt to certain acts, and
within certain defined limits, which insured
the decorum and good order of courts, but
left to the citizen the right of free criticism.
And the maximum punishment which could
be inflicted in contempt proceeding was
fine of $3.50 and 30 days imprisonment. All
these restrictions and limitations are now to
be swept away. This amendment is designed
toprevent the press and the public from speak
ing of the proceedings of certain judges 1t
is an attempt to choke off all protest against
judicial outrages, by giving the absolutely un-
controlled power to any judge to fine and i'm
prison. Twenty years imprisonment ard a
fine of 300, 900 may be legally inflicted. We
are to be brought back to the stern rules of
the middle ages, when, for instance, it was a
contempt of court for a party to a cause
''upon a writ being served, to speak with con-
tempt before be knows the contents of the
writ, or from what court it issues" When an
c1 parte receiver comes to seize his prey, one
who speaks with indignation of the process
which is to deprive him of his property may
be imprisoned and fined at the discretion of
the court. We call public attention to this bill
before the Governor signs it, though perhaps
it might be well to let it take its course. Any
attempt to enforce this outrage against free
dom of speech may at last arouse a patient
community which has rested quietly under so
many wrongs.
Among tie other provisions of the amend
ments are the owing:-Allowing the Su-
preme Court to remove to itself any cause
pending or to be brought in the Court of
Common Pleas or the Superior Court-apply-
ing this to emotions heretofore made;" allow
ing foreclosure suits and partition suits to be
brought in this district only in the Supreme
Court; practically taking away the right to
obtain discovery of the books and papers
of corporation; requiring all actions against
corporations to be brought in the district
where the principal Office of the company is
situated. These last provisions are for the
benefit of the Erie Railroad Company. They
are to apply to all actions and proceedings
now pending If we had any other Governor
than the one who signed the Erie Directory
bill, the veto power would enable us to con-
template such legislative enormities with a
| composure not now attainable.