Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1885-05-13

/ sNo&s CREME.
EDfToz PosT-IEzKLLzsKxcKn;
For some weeks We have read com
mshts Of the press relating 70 the Chie
Justice Of this Territory, and have Won
desed what It was all about. and, ~or
def1ngs have looked and asked an,
ssssfched n vain to find excuse for ,h,
tornado Of wrath which has been turne.
iorss aeainst him. That be has mad,
MISTAKES, none can deny. He is human
but mat hs has cofruptly done one OH
clal act We deny, and demand proof
much has been said about the CkrogSel
ahaiF, and what is III
ine Uours, et the request 81 litiRanta
appointed q reeeiver who took sharRs
OF the paper. This receiver vas an OH
otai Of the CouEt. under the control q;
the Court. Il was bis duty. under direc
ton OF the Court or Judge, 70 control
aud manage tbe property, pending Iii.
Rait ion. for what might be fonnd for the
best interest OF parties litieant. This
fsceiyer eoala be removed, could be
controlled by the appointing power.
lie law made him an officer, for the
time being, Of tha tribunal which sp-
pointed him. He was the editor Of the
IArasscle, IN contemplation Of law.
when Mr.. Montgomery spoke in the
columns ct that paper, IL was the vsice
OF the reeeiysf. when that paper went
out 10 It's readers, it contained the de-
claFatiuns aud assertions Of the receiver.
No matter who wrote its editorials, they
we're the thoughfs, expressions, Language
OF the receiveR.
With Mr. MentRomsry the Court had
nofhiag 70 do. Over him Il had no con-
troll. But with the receiver the Court
had muot TO tsos To him the Court
locked for the proper conducting OF the
paper, not 10 Mr.. Montgomery. Was it,
therefore. violatiEe Of the freedom OF
the pFess when the Court made the or
der oompiained of--the order to the re-
ceiver TO suspend publication. LIST US
see.
Judge Gre ne, 40 Jndee Of the Court,
appoints reoeiver, q baiiid, alerk.
Ibe oftieers daily try 20 bring him and
his Court into coDtcmpt By assaults, by
biiiingsRate, BY abuse. They 20 into
the eourt room and, while NOS techni-
eailg intemuptinR its pfoceedinRs. they
40 aaaonR the turies, spectators and bar
alike, making assertions of the unfitness
Of ths Judge TO preside therein. In q
vords they encourages characterization
and oonteuipt for his authority. Woald
the Court fIot be disloyal 10 she Law IL
he did not tiisoharge these cfiicsrsf
Do you say the cases are not parallel?
Is nos the h1e and cry against Judge
Greene the Iesuis uf pelificaI aspira-
tionsf ls not the animns Of this TRADE
traceable 20 the desire for another Jnaee
alonef Does the sppesiti0n come from
the fum-holess from the attorney who
has Eersonai fsniingE 10 crafty, the pol
itieia1 whs seeks the place.
Munh has been said about the liberty
Of tho press II the press crosses the
line dividing liberty aud licentieusness
Of uitsrAnces, courts never hesitate to
Interfere. The press 10 at liberty 10
eritieise oo1rts and judges: bat when IL
seeks 10 bring the courts into cUntempt
and ridicule. the instances ara not IN
frequent where editors have beea pun
ished for contempt. aEd that, tos, by
ahe highest courts in the United States.
Buts as before said, here vas no inter-
fsrenes With an editor, bot With an
officer Of coaFt, under tbs oonirol Of the
court.
Suppose this receiyer had been put in
charge Of any other kind of property,
instead 0f neespapsr. suppose u had
been railroad; and suppose the con-
duetor, employed by the receiver, oocu-
pied part 0f his time IN wFitiag insult
ing letters 20 the court and IN bringing
the judge Into contempt; and suppose
an order WIS issaed TO the receiver 20
discharge the coDduotos, no enc would
nondenau the act. Did Mr.. Montgomery
have rights superior to the supposed
uonductorf
Bot this IL NOS all. Judge Greene
could have hned and Imprisoned thoss
who published articles in the gAronirle,
II such articles tended 10 bring his court
into aontensps. He took she nfider
colfse. although there d abundant an
thority for saying ha has poser 20 punish
the editor OF q payer who seeks 20 bring
his court into dlsrepufs.
In thu easa Of People W. Wilson, "a
Ills., .. 1876. she SupFeme Court held that
such power was vested IN the courts. In
the aalss of Pryor, II Kansas, ~, where
an attorney wrote an insulting letter 10
the judge about & ease IN court, he vas
punished for oontempt asd ths Saprerne
Court sustained The conviction.
La the recent case OF Tyler. attorney
for Mrs sharon, l vol. West Coast Re
porter, the charge wae writing an opprD-
bFieos letter 10 the Grand Jury. He
was punished for contempt, and the So.
pfeme Ouuss OF California keld the pun.
ishmsnt valid. Bsshop's Criminal Law.
SEQ. 80. reads:
ANY publication. whether by parties
or strangers, which concerns esse
70 prejudice the public concerning the
merits. or which reflects on the tribunal
of iss proceedings, may be visited
20 . contempt"
IL there 100 much cry and - too
little wool " IN The bowl against yaaRe
Grsenef Mere anon. OmsRsxR.