Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1873-10-30

LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.
Of late years there has been a great
lcal of noise made about what has been
termed the liberty of the press, but what
has been, in many instances, a clamor
for licentiousness and for personal ire
sponsbility on the part of editors and
owners of newspapers, for the damage
they may do to men and society by
SANDERS and backbitings, under their as
sumed privilege of commenting on the
current news of the day. We all re-
member a few months ago the tumult
raised in the whole country, because the
supreme Court of Illinois treated an at
tack upon one of the Judges of that
Court, by the Chicago E0entng Journal,
as contempt of Court, and imposed a
fine of one hundred dollars upon the
proprietors of that paper for the offense.
The journals of the State made political
capital of it against the Judges, and by
means Of it secured the defeat of Judge
Lawrence, who was candidate for re-
election last summer. We endeavOred
to look at that case candidly, and we are
of the opinion that, as matter of right
and of policy the Court was right, and
that it is time that men, whether they
conduct newspapers or not, should re-
cognize that other men and the tribunals
of justice have rights which they are
bound to respect.
There is another case in point that is
now agitating the public Journals of
New York. The New York Tribune
a short time since published an expose
of the frauds of the Brooklyn ring. If
these disclosures were true they ought
to destroy, for ever, the public conf
dence in all the men implicated in the
transactions to which they related, and
if false, the influential paper that gave
the reports currency, should be mulched
in penalty that would cure them from
ever again indulging in that kind of
malicious amusement. The charges
were so grave that the Grand Jury of
Brooklyn sommoned the city editor of
the Tribune before them, to testify what
he knew relative to the charges that his
paper had made, in relation to the con-
nection of Judge McCue with the Trust
Company, the Brooklyn bridge and the
swindles Of Rodman and Sprague. Mr.
w. F. B. Shanks, the editor, did not
know much about it, protested against
giving any information, but under pro-
test, did testify that Whitelaw Reid was
the responsible editor of the Trt5une,
but refused to disclose who was the
writer of the article in question, because
such disclosure would be contrary to the
rules of the Trt5une office.
The Grand Jury went into court and
reported the case to Judge Gilbert, of
the New York Supreme Court That
learned judge, after due consideration,
adjudged that there was no law exempt
ing an editor from answering such ques-
tons as the Grand Jury had put to Mr.
Shanks, and he ordered the question as
to the authorship of the article to be an
swered. Shanks still refused, and Judge
Gilbert issued an order for him to show
cause why he would not answer the quesr
ton, to which he could only say that the
rules Of the Tribune office forbid his do
ing so. The Court then gave him the
alternative to answer or go to Jail. Mr.
Shanks then asked to be heard by coun-
sci, which was refused. He then got up
aquibblo about being a witness in the
Stokes case; but Judge Gilbert helped
him out of that by committing him to
Raymond street jail, from which we
hope he will be released when he an
swers the questions that the court decide
to be proper, and pays such fine as may
be necessary to learn the Tribune
staff that their Office does not make the
Jaws of the State Of New York.
AS might be expected there is a hue
and cry raised. The Brooklyn Eagle
styles it a judicial outrage, while the
Fspress condemns it as a blow at the
liberty of the press. The status of news
paper rights are well defined, and they
have clear rights to entertain such
opinions as they see fit, but an editor is
held to the same accountability as other
men, and he has no greater privilege to
blacken private character or assault
public tribunals than others. We be-
lieve that it is the duty of conductors of
newspapers to keep the secrets of their
Office from the prying eyes of idle curl
osity, and if we should be accosted by
an individual upon the street as to who
wrote an article that has appeared in our
columns, we should certainly decline to
answer, and should quite probably tell
our interrogation that it was none of his
business; but when we are called into
Court and the Judge decides the ques-
ton proper, we should never plead any
rule of our Office as reason for refusing
TO answer, and if we should do such a
puerile thing and the Court should send
us to the FhoteI de SdaFe~scn for awhile.
every sensible man would say that it
served US right, and we should be forced
70 agree with that judgement. We think
II editors and publishers are accorded
the same license to abuse their neighbors.
!nat other people enjoy, they ought not
70 complain when they overstep these
oounds at being held to the same ac.
eOuntability to which other good citizens
are required to submit.