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

APOLOGIES IN CoURT-REMARKABL POSITION OF A
LEADING LONDON JOURNAL.
lFRoM THE REGULAR CORRESPONDENT OF THE TRIBUSE.l
LONDON, June ia final decision i'll the
contempt reached yesterday. The Attorney
General appeared in his warpaint The Leeds Express
by counsel and Mr. Appeyard his proper person. On
the Bench We're as usual the Lord ChiefJustce and
Justices Mellor and Lush. The circumstances in which
Mr. Guford Onslow's letter was published were duly
explained Mr. Mathews in behalf OF The Leeds EJpress
stated that the letter brought in 10y Mr. Hogg was
read by subedtor and then taken to Mr. Sparks, one
of the proprietors Mr. Sparks deposed that the paper
was about 10 go press; that lac had little time To
consider the letter; that lie had no notion OF commit
ting contempt Of court in publishing what seemed to
him matter OF public Interest," that he was very sorry,
and that he desired make the fullest apology 1t APP
peared, moreover that the article commenting on the
testimony OF Lord Beuew had been apoogized for in
deed apologies for one OF both ohenses had been
inserted in three successive numbers OF the pa
per L suppose il the Court had required Mr.. Sparks
to 20 down on his knees. to kiss the Lord CheiJus
tees great toe would have done either or both with
aacrity They content to accept his apologies.
and they accepted Mr. Appeyards also for his broad
side against the defendant.
What is interesting however, is not the precise degree
OF abaseInent through which terrified offender may
think II expedien pass but the further development
and exposition OF the law of contempt by the Court.
With reference to the article Lord Beew the Lord
license. He would permit newspaper 10 discuss the
abstract question whether imprOpreties and denquen
ees may be brought up against witness in cross exam
nation But he would not permit an argument how far
the evidence OF the witness could be relied Mr.. JUS
tce Melor said the sting OF 1t is That there Is distinct
reference 10 the jury in the article" After some further
explanations and tenderings OF apologies, and
gracious admission by the Court that the apologies
ample and proper, came short speech from the Lord
ChiefJustice which deserves attention He laid down
the law and explained his purpose as follows:
take this opportunity Of saying that what the Court
ssmpy to guard the administration OF justice against
improper ana undue interference with cause trial
any supposed Of dlsrespect shown TO the Court it,
self that think it necessary TO Interfere, but from
conviction that the due administration OF Justice be
defeated By public discussion oil the Incidents OF trial
| which is going on.
! His Lordsnip added that lie hoped what occurred
would act a caution and that there would be no more
interference of this any other description with the
due ofjustce for We are determined to repress
| il with firm hand"
Thought the Court had courage. When the
Lord ChefJustce uttered these highsoundng phrases
| he must have been fresh from reading The Tincss
| article OF that morning the Tchborne trial. had
read II with little surprise, and pleasure. IL
was an article discussing with moderation, but with
freedom the conduct OF that trial. expressing clear
opinion upon the guilt OF the defendant arguing that it
was waste OF time TO 90 proving over again what
was abundany proved already and advising the Court
TO stop the evidence FOR the prosecution and direct
defense 10 be opened. Considering all that had lately
been said about contempt, ana remembering that the
Attorney General was that very morning to appear in
Court 10 enforce the rule against The LsedS E1prcss
took this for signal that the patience OF The Times
exhausted it began at last TO perceive that
| usnrpation Of the Court serious the
freedom of the Press read the article a challenge
and certainly expected to IL taken up IL far
| beyond the limits which the Court has repeatedly pre-
scrbed TO discussion. It even within the Ian
guage above quoted, which, TO be sure. mad not been
uttered when the article written, but which Is much
! less strong tlan previous definitions.
Yet neither the Attorney General nor the Lord Chief
Justtcc nor any member OF the Court bad word IN
about me Times. am at a loss TO Imagine Why unless
that they put Interpretation on It's article that
did and shrank from the conflict. IL Is all very well
70 buy the me Leeds Express, but The Tunes is differ
eni matter said In my last letter that If the London
| naners woud put ieaOusies aside and stand together
NOV would .oou convince the Court Of Queens Bench Of
ner strength single journal has done 1t, aud at the
first defiance the Court retreats The Times 1t Is true
take the trouble to send challenge III form or
in terms II simply publishes an article saying Just
what the Court had declared should mol De SAID II
writes of the TchbOrne trial as If no such thing as
law Of cOnemp existed, and as the Court Dsd never
claimed arbitrary Jurisdiction over the Press Hholc'
the Court and It's law. And the Court submits instantly
In THIS as In many other cases 1t has one law Ior INC
strong sDd another for the weak An eye IKE MATS
threaten and command The Leeds Express but Dnd ana
cringing before TIE Times
A. 7hs Timers article 10 nearly column In Iens'o