New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-10-29
personal LIBERTY.


The case of the illegally imprisoned witness,
Mr.. Shanks, was adjourned yesterday until
the 9Th of November,-not however, until 1t
had been conclusyely shown, aud virtually
admitted ut last by Mr.. BrittOn himself, that
tho paper which the District-Attorney oil
Kings County presented to the Court on
Friday as the commitment upon which inc
prisoner was sent to jail. was not the
commitment at all, and that Mr.. Shanks
was never held by it. There are
various ugly facts in connection with
this fraudulent document, which Will come to
light before the investigation Is closed. Mr.
Brition was wofuly mistaken yesterday when
he exclaimed that "the case was not gong 10
amount to anything he will find that his
troubles have only begun, and that new ana
most serious count has been added TO the
tremendous Indictment for corruption and
malfeasance in Office which has been
hanging over him for so many months.
The copious extracts from the press which
we COPY this morning will show how this out
rage upon personal liberty is regarded all
over the country. Not one newspaper WIN
any pretensions TO responsibility, 80 lar rs We
have seen, has spoken of the conduct
of Mr.. Brtton except III terms OF Sc
we're reprobatiOn. He has been CEN
sured at q public meeting in Brooklyn'
and he received an indirect but most cutting
rebuke yesterday in the Supreme Court wheh
Judce Fancber replied to his demand that Mr.
Sbanks should be sent back to jail: 81 have
"perfect respect for the Oyer and Terminer
I" Init at the same time / shall pay perfect
respect TO personal liberty; / shall under no
circumstances disregard the rights of citi-
"zenship."
However the law may read, there seems to be
no doubt in the public mind that 1t IL against
common sense and public policy to compel
Journalist to disclose the sources OF his
! information. A free press is one OF the
chief safeguards of free government
and IT, is owing in no slight degree 10
The watchfulness of the newspapers that
some virtue yet remains in public officers.
But the press Is not really free if an editor
can be forced to tell the secrets of his office,
or a subordinate questioned about matters
which ought to be confidential between him
| and his employers. Journalists could never
obtain news unless it were an understood
thing that they would shield their
contributors and take the full respon-
| sibiity for whatever they publish.
Nor is there any good reason why the
law should 20 behind the responsible
editor to inquire where the paper gets its in
telligence Public morality and private char
acter are sufficiently protected when the chief
acknowledges his liability for the actions of
| his subordinates, and stands ready either to
pay or to prove. If the law demands more
than this, it only hampers and Expresses the
press, without securing any advantage TO the
community.
In the present case, however, the rights of
journalists in particular have been lost sight
of for the moment i'll the consideration OF the
grayer question of the rights Of citizens III
general. Even if Mr.. Shanks could have been
lawfully imprisoned for refusing to answer an
impairment question put for an evil pur-
pose, the fact is that lac was confined
without legal warrant of any kind, and
| that when he was about 10 be dis
charged in consequence of the void character
of the commitment, the Dictrict Attorney con-
| cocted fictitious warrant for the purpose of
holding him. and attempted to impose it upon
the court. 1t is fact also that the imprisOn-
ment was prompted by personal motives; that it
was the attempt of a disreputable politician to
revenge himself upon an opponent and TO
stop the mouth of one of his sharpest critics;
apd that the attempt still continues, even
after the exposures of the past week.
| The fgt,t that we are now waging
with District Attorney BrittOn is not
only our fight and that of our profession,
but it is the fight of all good
citizens. If newspaper man can be sent to
jail by a Ring official for exposing his mis-
conduct, any other man can be treated in the
same way. The true question now is not
whether a journalist can be compelled to tell
his professional secrets, but whether anybody
can be imprisoned without due process of law.