Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1883-09-25
lancaster EntrIIiqenrrr.
TUESDAY EVENING. SEPT. a5. 1883
Publishing TesiIm Ony.


structures upon our Judge Livingston /,
for his order to the reporters not to pub
lish the testimony taken before him in |
the application to admit IIildebrand to |
bail The Judge assigned as his reason
the fact that jurors who have formed an |
opinion from what they had read of a
case are excused from service for that
reason. This he considered to be an i'm
pediment to the administration of jus
tice and the remedy he proposes is to
forbid the publication of the facts IN
homicide cases, so far as he can control
the matter.
We presume that he can forbid re
porters to take notes in his presence.
Just what judge may or may not do is
not very clear: but, practically, he
seems to have supreme power in the
court room. He can boss things there
pretty much at his pleasure. His orders
must be obeyed because he may conslrue
disobedience of them TO be a contempt Of
court. He is the judge and jury in de-
Gliding what contempt is and there is
no way open to avoid the consequences
of his decision. 1t is the part of pru.
dence in the lawyers, jurymeu, reporters
and audience generally to listen and
obey.
But when thereporters get out OF court
they can tell what trauspired in it. The
power of the court to hold their tongues
does not extend beyond the courtroom
door. 1t is true that our judges here
were lately tempted to hold differently,
but we used our eXertions with some
success, we think, to persuade them that
they were mistaken. In the lIildebrand
case, however, the desire of the judge
that the habeas corpus testimony should
not be published, was respected by US.
authority of the judge to prevent the
publication of all the facts in the case
that we were cognizant of. If we had
considered it worth while we would have
printed what our reporter learned in
court.
But the general facts had already been
published, and we were not prepared 10
differ with the judge in his conclusion
that the public interests would be sub
served by the publication Of the
testimony taken before him. We do not
agree with our contemporaries in the
sharpness oftheir criticism of his opinion.
A great deal can be said in its defense.
1t is undoubtedly true that the selection
of jurors is embarrassed by the fact that
those in the panel have generally made
up their minds, in grave cases, from what
they have read of their circumstances.
The public, of course, expects infOrma-
tion upon current events, and it is not
possible to deny the right Of the news
papers to give the news they are printed
TO furnish. But the courts and the
newspapers can get along very well 10
gether, II they are actuated by proper
sense Of their responsibilities and by an
intelligent disposition to do their duty
to the community. The newspapers
should exercise proper discretion in
their treatment Of the cases the courts
have to try. While they publish the facts
they can refrain from unnecessarily eX
citing public attention to them. There
is great room for Improvement by the
press in this particular. Take, for in.
stance, the Rose Ambler case, which now
daily hurtheus the newspaper columns
The woman was found slain on the roaC
side. 1t was It murder with nothing t,
make it remarkable but the fact tha
the murderer is unknown, and yet daily
the results Of the investigation!
are minutely teleCraphed over the
county and the several persons i'm
Ilicated are tried by the whole com
munity. There is nothing of conse
quence found against anyone, but thai
serves simply to keep up the interest
When the guilty person is found we ina!
be permitted 10 stop reading about Ros,
Amber. Meanwhile the newspaper
foment the excitement and the Clerg,
help them. One lirst-class fool of som
renown in New Haven church ol
Sunday delivered his verdict that tn,
ghPs lover had killed her, his opinion
being based on his belief that the love
was just the sort Of man to do the deed
If the authorities had been permitted I
investigate this case in quiet and th
newspapers had refrained from dali
beating it up, this one clergyman woul
have been saved from making an ass u
himself, and doubtless great man
more people, as foolish aS he is, wOul
have been spared very Improbable dis
cussion and mental disturbance.
No one in this day can deny freedom
10 the press, but neither can duyOn
deny that it is freedom that is ofte
abused but the abuse mus. be endured
since there is no cure for It, an
public sentiment is the only brea
upon it. Those who would mu;
Z.e the press to correct its utter
ances have not read history wit
profit nor considered wisely the essel
tials of liberty. accommodation
free people must be free atruth whiC
Postmaster General Gresham failed (
realize when he sought to suppress a lo
tery 10y violating the mails. The lottel
may be bad and the publication may
bad but the evil is not to be correctC
by stopping the mail or the press. Publ
sentiment can hold these, as all 9th
evils, in check but what that permi
IL is vain to dpnv