The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1871-06-04
Newspaper Dictation.

!
Newspaper Dictation.
Some of our city newspapers have ar
extremely peremptory and dictatorial way
of commenting on the judicial proceedings
in our various courts. They tell the Judges
beforehand what they ought to do, and
openly boast, after judgments are rendered
by the Supreme Court, that their own edi.
torials have suggested the reasons for such
judgments to both counsel and court
They very intellectually PREJUDICE cases OF
great moment, at the manifest risk of in
fluenciDg the Judges before whom they are
pending, and Of doing Unreasonable harm
to parties litigant through their own ignor-
! ance of the facts. Generally these facts
are assumed upon the statement of an at
torney interested ON one side, and who
happens to be q chum of the reporter, or
the editor, or the proprietor. Sometimes
the judge is attacked and his judicial
actions criticised in the most uncivil
terms, without waiting for the action Of an
appellate tribunal and without any regard
for the decorum which ought to preserve
the bench from the scurrility and levity
so common in political controversies.
These remarks are called forth by the ex-
ceeding grossness of an attack in the Times
of last Friday upon Judge Theard of the
Fourth District Court of this city, q
grossness originating with the Bee, if we
may credit the assertion of the Times. 1t
says:
We fully agree with our contemporary, the
Bee, as to the monstrous absurdity of Judge
Theard's charge to the jury in the case of
Larieu rs. Dumonteil.
The decorum of this style of criticism is
hard to find. If applied to the plausible
quibbling of pettifogger OF the transpa-
rent excuses of some public malefactor, it's
sweeping denunciation might be tolerated,
but in the case of an eminent and respected
magistrate, conscientiously discharging his
duty against the promptings of his own
feelings, we must think that such language
savors of license and is not justifable
under the claim of freedom for the press.
We say this supposing that there was a
good foundation for the critique. Even
then the rules Of public decency would
dictate certain moderation and dignity of
tone in announcing the face. But when the
reasoning upon which the writer's denunci-
alton is based is lamentably deficient in
conclusiveness the affair is much worse.
The gist of the argument is contained in
the following propositions:
No restrictions or burdens on the right of a
man to control and dispose of his own property
can be established by law. Suoh law would
be made o mockery, and utterly void, because
| it contravenes natural rights.
1t will be remembered that all over the
civilized world, tavern keepers are obliged
to entertain decent travellers without
regard to any caprice of their own. 1t will
be in vain for them to say to the stranger,
"My b d is my property ana my food
is my property; it is my natural right
to dispose of them as I choose
The law says to them '.you must sell your
food and you must rent your bed" No
body thinks this hard, and yet the Times
finds any restriction on the right of a man
to control or dispose of his own property
utterly null because it contravenes natural
rights"
| This law as to taverns, steamboats, and
other places and things necessary to human
comfort is SO utterly null according
to the Times, that it finds the charge of q
judge in favor of its enforcement mon
strous absurdity."
We have not read Judge Theard's charge
and have therefore no comments to make
upon it, but we are Satisfied from what
we have seen in the TSDses that if there
really ia q certain amount of mOnstroua
absurdity" in this connection it is to be
found elsewhere than in Judge Theard'a
decision.
ST. JosEPH's CHURcH.-At half past
nine O'Clock, Wednesday morning, 2Oe
/ n al..IA