New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-07-12

| not be something in t-whetber there must not De-
since the Court treats IL with such soemnty. Yet the
Lord ChiefJustice says-wth degree of sincerity OF
which erybOdy Judge for himself-that his only
anxiety is TO prevent discussion.
Alone among all the journals which see The Spectator
ventures on criticism of this performance IL points
out that the summaries of the evidence given daily py
the penny papers are a comment and very dangerous
comment on the evidence It does not draw the INFER
that these comments ought logically 20 be sup
pressed II Mr. onsow's letter is suppressed-perhaps
that would be contempt OF court. IL does not even
presume to say that this stringent doctrine to criticism
OF pending case ia otherwise than WISE" but II does
say that IL is quite inconsistent with any
| thing but strictly correct verbal report. which
very few papers can give land does. Now in fact,
what pass for summaries OF the proceedings in the daily
penny papers not merely comments colored ae-
counts they arguments OF the most insidious kind.
They are selections not summaries They bring ont the
salient points against the defendant with startling dis
| tlnctness They are written by who mean prob
ably 20 do nothing unfair but whose bias against the
defendant is too strongto be concealed They are, If
anything is under the present doctrine, contempt OF
| court But they are not suppressed. Why
YOu will hear il said over and again that the
claimant is scoundrel Of the worst sort for whom
nothing Is too bad believe he is a scoundrel, and
trust that he will day be put where shall not
have TO hear write anything more about him for
good many years. But Is he to be ynched or ia he 10
have legal riaf Is he or is he not entitled TO be tried
before impartial Judge Is he to be presumed nno
cent till proved guilty pronounced guilty tl proved
innocenti At present the latter presumption prevails
and Il support of this presumption that the pro
ceedings contempt pressed go far they affect
the defendant they against him. except the sup
preston of Mr.. Appleyard's libel. But they affect
the public and the press far deeply than they do
this wretched mpOser IL is OF the defects OF the
English mind that fails to take anything but what it
calls practical view Of things. lt cannot discover the
principle which lies MD behind this odous of flesh
OF which people get rid not much caring how.
And toerates the reiterated enforcement by the
Court OF doctrine which turns judicial authority
into judicial tyranny It is worthy OF no.
tice how timid the Court really is in its
most arbitrary movements 1 pointed out in my last
letter that while The Echo had offered an apology In
abiect terms The Pail MoH Gazette the most conspicuous
among the offending journals and the only London
paper named in court, had made apology whatever,
but only dignhed statement OF the circumstances In
which Mr. Onsows letter had appeared. There was not
so much as an expression of regret for the publication
Yet The Pail Nal Gazette now let of precisely as the
Ech0is and on the ground OF having purged itself OF
the contempt Plainly The Pan NAL Gazette thought
it had done wrong. IL must therefore, have
thought the Court wrong. it did not think it
prudent 10 say The papers here underrate their
power. They dread a collision with the Court. They
stand appalled, at the shadow OF that awful
power. They forget it Is only formidable when it is
rights that 1t would be poweress against just public
opinion; that they themselves the journals of London
have the right to public opinion against usurpa-
tons of this KIND that it is their duty to resist tbem
and that resisting them they have something beside
their orely on II they could put jeai
ousies aside and agreement to resist there
would not be conflict There is not institution
in England more sensitive than the Bench The moment
it was made understand that its doctrine Of con
tempt was condemned infringement upon popular
liberties the doctrine would be surrendered and the
doctrine of Free Speech would have won another and
lasting victory. CIV s.