The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1878-08-15
CONTEMPT OF cOURr.

CONIEb4kA We CUUhEs
1t was ono of the sources of pride to
our old judiciary that csses OF rules for
contempt Of court were very rarely nee
ossary in South Carolina for the protec-
ton Of the dignity or the character of
our Circuit Judges, but since recopstruc-
zion our people have grown SO familiar
with this onee extsaardinsry remedy that
we do not exaggeEste when we say that it
has fallen ;.ito dlssepute, and Is itself
viewed with contempt. We had hoped
that with the restoration " our judiciary
this proceeding would lapse into its an
cient disuse, and no longer appear upon
our Cours dockets as tacit Enforcement
os its frequent use by Judges like Car
penter, who felt they were continually an
object Of universal contempt, and we're
consts ally swapping and snarling at
every person they could imagine had
offered them any indignity, either actual
or constructive, but it seems from the
recent case of Mr.. Harvey Terry, of the
Columbia bar, that this hope is not to be
fully realized, for time at least. Mr..
Terry had case before Judge Shaw in
Columbia some time ago, in which he
failed to succeed, Oh account of essAich
he published in; the Charlotte GIIserves
an article criticizing the Judge and at
torneys, and rejecting upon the action
Of each. For this publication he ~as
ruled for contempt, and the case heard
by Judge Aldrich, who found Mr.. Terry
guilty of contempt, and fined him five
hundred dollars.
This reminds us strongly of the action
of Judge Carpenter in ruling the editor
of the True Southron for some publ; cation
about him, except that, perhaps. Judge
Carpenter had z more reasonable case
than the one of which we speak. Mr.
Terry's cffense was not in the presence OF
the Court, and was not in disobedience
of its orders, and therefore was not o
contempt within the decisions of our
State before the war. We comment
upon this case, not because OF any SYM
pathy on onr part for Mr.. Terry, for we
nave none, anu do not doubt that he has
acted very improperly, but there is a
principle underlying the case which is of
too much Importance to pass over. It
Involves the very liberty of the press, for
it establishes the precedent that if an
editor or correspondent criticises Cir
cult Judge he can be arraigned upon q
rule for contempt, and punished ut the
pleasure cg The Judge he has offended,
SO that if put into full practice no man
will dare criticise the Judges, and they
will become favored class, whose acts
cannot be held np In their true character,
anleas 1t ie good, through the press for
public scrutiny. Such o result w,ald
prove fatal to the very existence of our
fEes Institutions, ;s.Ii3 create = The ;ed;
ciary an arbitrary tribunal, whose pro-
ceedings cannot be mentioned except to
praise. We do not believe such deci-
sion is good law, or that it is good policy.
The Law has provided that for ibellous
publications the author and circnlator
can be punished, and this ahould be :ne
remedy for onr Judgs to puraue. If
an article ig not libellona the Court
should be too digniied to notice the
publication, and if it is libellous the
remedy 10 ample, withoutsaking up these
novel and arbitrary measures which Re-
.,nblicans had the privilege Of introdu-
cling into our Judiciary. It is bad policy
to encourage any such proceeding, be-
cause it is blow at the independence of
the press, without which liberty herself
Cannot live. It Is to the advantage of
society, OF government and of moraIity
that the liberty of the press ahould not
DO abridged, either as to its editors nor
its correspondence. except SO far as it is
controlled by the law of libel. Free
criticiani, 40 long IS it does not amount
TO crime, ought not to be denied, and
whenever 1t goes to the extent of crime,
as libel, then it ought to be met by q,
regular Indictment. Tnthe case of Mr.
Terry the publication was made In n
Carolina. out Of the Jurisdiction of the
Circuit Court of Richland In this State,
and If It be an offsnse, It was REst cnm-
mitted ia North Carolina, and only by
the papers being mailed into this State
could there be the rnerest pretext even Of
Jurisdiction, and If any crime has been
committed, an Indictment and not rule
is hsremedy. A free State cannot per.
init the decision made in this case to boz
come precedent, for il go, although our
Courts as at present organized would not
et,:se The ..e s,....,A-:ye1 AZ, i ..sight rat,rn 10
plague US greatly in the fature. We
hope the decision of the Supreme Court
will strike down this move. the effect
of which win be to mnszle the ress, SO
fer aa yudgss are concerned, land if this
Court dceBnot do so, then tho Legisla-
tnre sh6uld change it as soon as possible.
The press OF tho State has been perfectly
qnies upon this ciiss, bnt We have felt 1t
to 30 our duty as q Journalist to protest
againstwhas we deem q decision fraught
With esEos, and possibly immense mis-.
chief inthe future.
II ycn sslees good and healthy foad
Cor your family, y6n should also look TO
the welfare Of your Baby. Eos ell
troubles Of aafiv ChiIdhonfj sflothttg ia