New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-06-15
TPylJS OFT OF COTRT.

When the case OF 1lltOn VIZ. Deechcr, "ioci
an exhaustise aud disgusting discussion in the
public prints, was submitted to the judgment
of court of law, all the decent newspapers
and some of the indecent ORcs-congratuiateo
their readers that the great Issue was at last
to be tried before just and dispassionate
tribunal, with full powers to compel the cvl-
dence of reluctant witnesses, and the shrewd-
ness and experience to distinguish false
hood from truth. If very few really
supposed that the verdict of the jury "ouid
be conclusive rs to mems opinions, IL
wa, admitted on all hands that a fair trial
was tie best, if not the only means by which
men could obtain the material for the forma-
ton of an intelligent opinion, and slit the real
evidence in the case from the tangled mass OF
lies, conicctures, plumbers, truths and half
truths by which it had been cncompassed. For
n while the greater part of the press followed
the trial with the customary decor'i,n. But
since the testimony closed there has been
most extraordinary outbreak. Tho task OF
influencing the jury, which by common con-
sent of all respectable communicated
say nothing of the common LAWS LETT 10
the witnesses, the counsel. and the bench, has
been assumed by some of The newspapers with
as much energy as If they were paid for 1t.
The criminality of the defendant is hotly ar
g,,ed every day by these unofficial advocates,
who enjoy of course q freedom not permitted
TO the gentlemen within the bar, since these
latter must connc themselves to facts that
have been proved. Nor is this all. AT this
critical stage of the action, when the jury are
virtually deliberating upon their verdict. but
are not vet secluded from newspapers, we are
deluged with fresh statements" aud " omit
"ted testimony" put forth with the
evident purpose of affecting the iurymen,
but neither given under oath nor submitted
to the scrutiny of the cross-cxamincr. Mr..
Bowen and Mr. Carpenter might have been
called in court, but the Tilton party wait until
the trial is practically over and then spread
the crude and undigested mass Of their talk
before the jury through the medium of ire
sDonsible intcrvicwcrs. At the very last mo-
ment an unknown person Coniidos to re-
portcr what must be direct and damning evil
dcnce against Bcechcr if it is true, and this
being tossed into court in newspaper the
counsel for the prosecution first call attention
to it and then decline to take any steps for It's
yerifcatiOn. Finally a rumOr is set afloat that
some of the jury have been bought, and an IN
timatiOn is conveyed TO them that they will he
charged with corruption il they find for The
defendant.
If these things had happened in England
there would have been a dozen proceedings
for contempt of court. and probably u number
of editors would have been laid by the heels
in iail. Indeed if Judge Nelson had been
disposed to take notice of some Of these pal
pablc interfercnces with the course Of justice
he would have been sustained by prccedcnts
we believe even in our own country. The
American Interpretation of the liberty OF the
press, however, has been pretty liberal one In
such cases. and no good end would be served
by making it any strictcr. But there
are rules of deccncy and fairness quite as
stringent with gentlemen rs any rules of court,
and we protest against this constant violation
of them which is disgracing the newspaper
profession and bringing diseredit upon tire
community. The practice of refraning from
the discussion of a case while it il under cx-
animation in court is one of the unwrtttn laws
of decent journalism. After the tr.al it will be
time enough to pick the Witnesses to pieces,
argue about the verdict, and bring out the
supplementary testimony which the lawyers
would not produce in open court.