Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1884-08-05
THAT CoNrEMPr CASE.
TIA. Eii,nr AZ "A. R.aS,I,r.

THAT CONTEMPT CfA5b'
Tohs Editor Of tie Register.
Now. that the Intelhgencer has, during
whole month, posed as a martyr; now
that Mr.. Hart has received bouquet, and
now, that perhaps as many as three hun
bred and twenty-five cOppers haye been cast
into the contribution hOx for crippled men,
dsci,y il seems to me that this is good
time for calling the attention Of the public.
to the truth in relation to the somewhat
famous contempt case. Except to com
paratively few persons. mostly members of
the bar, the real facts Of the case are not
Known. The public mind has been abused
by false statements, bat / am confident
that the sober second though" of the peo-
pie viii render righteous verdict when the
truth is known.
The facts are these: Pending the hearing
and decision Of an important cause, cause
involving large public interests, cause
which the Court was compelled BY law
and by every consideration OF
dutE TO decide promptly, the
Wheeling Inteligeneer, published in the
city where the court was sitting, charged
thst three of the Judges had attended q
POLITICAL caucus more than year before
and had then and there pledged themselves
TO decide the question involved IN the
cause referred to, IN a certain predeter-
mined way, as soon as it should come be.
fore them. The paper further intimsted
that this was a second arrangement and
that, now that the secret was exposed, per-
haps the Judges would decide in way dit
terent from that formerly agreed upon.
Certainly no grosser insult could have
been offered to any court; no meaner at
tempt to influence unduly the Judgment OF
a court could possibly have been made.
Add to this that there was not word OF
truth, not even the semblsnee of truth in
the charge; that the whole story was a he
ton Of the editors own coinage; and the
reader will readily see that a grave
wrong would have been done If the
Islander had been permitted to pass by I'M
challenged and unrebuked.
In his answer to the rule issued by the
Court, Mr.. Hart said in substance that his
caucus story was based upon a statement
made in the Greenbrier Independent about
a year ago, to the effect that the Governor
letter to the Auditor known as the reas,
sessment order" had Been submitted to aud
approved BY three of the Judges of the
Supreme Court before it was issued. Ger
tainly this is a very sorry and Insufficient
foundation for the totally different and much
more offensive story invented by Mr.. Hart.
But even the alleged statement OF the
Greenbrier Independent was untrue, for IN
an opinion fled BY one Of the Judges in this
case il is expressly stated that the Gov
ernors letter and the Auditors circular re-
ferred to were written without consultation
with or knowledge on the part Of any OF
the Judges of this Court that anything OF
the sort was contemplated.
But il is alleged that "the freedom OF
the pres" has been assailed, and many fair
and honorable papers in this State and
elsewhere, have, under mistaken appre-
hensiOn Of the facts, criticised untayorably
the action Of the Court But surely it will
not be gravely contended by any prudent
friends of the press that the newspapers
have any right to interfere with the admin
istratien OF Justice in the Courts, or to IN
timidste Judges in the discharge Of their
official duty. fit were conceded that the
newspapers may do this, the practical re-
suit would be to transfer to the press the
decision of all legal questions and to make
the Courts simply instruments to record
editorial DEGREES. Ifthis can be permitted
in regard to questions Of public Importance
or ofState policy which are pending In the
courts for determination there is no good
! reason WHY the license may not extend
20 questions of private right. II John
| Smith sues Tom Brown for the recovery OF
| a debt, the defendant may hire newspa-
per and, when the court is considering the
questions of law involved in the case, the
newspaper NAV publish q statement, utterly
| false though It be, that the Judge had told
| Smith year ago to bring snit against
| Brown and the Court would decide In favor
| of the plaintiff, but that since thus secret
| and corrupt agreement has been exposed IN
the press, that palladium OF the people
| rights, perhaps the suit will be decided IN
| favor of Brownl
| Is this what the public understands to be
/ |the freedom of the pressF' Is this the
freedom guaranteed By the Bill of Rights
| Is this the freedom for which the conven-
ton az Parkersburg howled so Justify few
DAYS ago? Certainly and emphatically, Mo-
| And vet il was forljust this sort Of gross
and unlawful and inexcussble violation
| Of decency and right that editor Hart was
fined by the Supreme Court Of Appeals:
II is abundantly conceded by the courts
and BY all law, ers that the press has ample
right to discuss and denounce, If need be,
the decisions of the courts and the personal
conduct of the Judges. But between this
liberty and the license Of interfering with the
Judgment Of court before it is pronounced
and endeayoriug By falsehoOd and threat
to influence that judgment, there is very
| broad and well marked line, and that line
the Intelligeneer .most clearly and unmis-
takably overstepped.
And in the punishment Of the oaensC
the court did not resort to any medieval
theory or to look to the middle ages for pre-
cedents. In nearly every State in the Union
there have been instances in which the
courts have been compelled to exercise
their power of selfprotection. In most
! ofthe adiudicsted cases the otfense punish
| ed bv summary process has been committed
against the jury or the witnesses, but be
/ Heve the books fail to show a single case in
which so glsring and deliberate and agra
/ waited an ofense has been committed against
a court and against that respect for courts
which is necessary to the well being of so
ciety as in this instance.
The public press in this State and else
where has been misinformed as to what was
decided in the case of the State of West
Virginia vs.. John Frew and c. B. Hart
An Intentionally misleading dispatch went
abroad through the medium Of the associs-
I ted press and the comments of the editors
! of both secular and law journals have been
based upon false statement of the case and
of the points decided. When the facts
I are known there win be very
\ G.tla difference of opinion either