Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-07-29
THE PRESS AND THE COURTS.

THE PRESS AND THE COURTS.
In the Superior Court of San Francisco
filthy divorce case is being tried The
details are too scandalous for even mere
reference. In the exercise of its rights,
and in protection of public morality, and
for the conservation of the ends of justice,
the Court ordered its doors closed, and put
all parties to the case under orders not to
repeat the wretched details, nor to furnish
them for publication. However, the San
Francisco Examiner managed to find a
traitor in the camp, and published
from day to day the filthy details with
such partial suppression as made them
still more observation-disclosures as half dis
robement is more scandalous than nudity
Thereupon the Court called all the parties
before it, and each of them under oath
denied having broken the injunction of
secrecy. A reporter for the Examiner was
then called in, and admitting that he had
written the reports, and refusing to di-
vulge the source of his information, was
committed to prison for contempt Hewas
bailed out, and legal proceedings have been
commenced to shelter him from the order
for contempt. Thus far all is clear enough.
The Courts order of commitment was
clearly justified. Unless the Courts of the
land possess the power to protect them
selves from the Paul Prys of the press, and
to maintain their dignity, there is an end
of self-government. 1t is not Judge Sui
liyan who is upon the bench of the Su-
perior Court of San Francisco, but the
people of the State. Those who defy the
orders of Court do not offend against
the individual upon the Judgment seat
but against the sovereign himsef-in this
country, the people and every individual
person of the community. 1t may be
deemed smart" sensational" live" and
all that, to invade the order of Court
and defeat an end it has conserved, but
properly viewed it is an assault upon
free institutions. For it eultivates
contemptuous disregard for our Courts. the
bulwarks Of our liberties it fosters disre-
spect for due authority, and encourages the
sentiment that considers orderly govern
ment the enemy of personal liberty, a thing
to be coutemned, reviled and spit upon.
If these are neutrality-suspicious. to cultivate
in our children if this is the proper spirit
to encourage among the people, let us con-
tinue to assail public men and institutions
out of hand, to suspect all things of foul
ness, to break down the regard for the con-
stituted authority of the people A Sem
ator the other day, in the Legislature of
California, declared his belief that the
time had come to call halt to the assaults
of the press upon the characters of public
men. So it has To honest, straight-for-
ward criticism there never has been and
never can be reasonable objection; for ex-
posure of fraud and corruption in public
servants there should be only applause; as
watch and ward over public affairs and a
tireless guardian of public interests, the
press is needed and commendable infu-
ence. But for wholesale indulgence in in
nuendo, carping suspicion, the repetition of
mere airy rumor, the scandal-monging by
the newspaper, the vague and misty as
saults upon private character, in press or
in voice, there should be nothing but con-
demnation and punishment More dam
gerous, mean and scandaious are the meth
DDS employed to bring the Courts into
contempt and to work the defeat of their
orders The Erdnliaer scandalizes itself. it
encourages lawlessness, it degrades Journal
ism when it attempts to excuse the meth
DDS ii employed to defeat the rule of the
Court and to seek justification of the
means in the ends it attsins. Hear it:
How its reporter acquired the facts is a matter
FOR the exclusive consideration of the manager
of this journal. The public is only concerned
in knowing that the facts are correct. We do
not mean to say that the Court has no right to
employ all the reasonable means at its com
mand 10 enforce its order of secrecy aud expose
the leak through which the facts have found
their way TO the public, but its jurisdiction, we
respectfully submit, extends no further than to
the officers OF the Court and the lEigsnts in the
case Right at this point a question arises
when has confronted the Courts in nearly every
American city for years past, What authority
mas a Court over persons outside Of the case il
tries and outside of the place of trial with no
visible connection with the case?
\ Court has no authority whatever if it
has not the power to unearth crime in
whatever corner it seeks hiding. The con-
temptuous treatment of its orders is
crime of i certain class, and very danger-
Gus one. The jurisdiction of the Court ex-
tends to whomsoever violates its order.
That order is to all men. The very faet
that surreptitious means were employed to
secure IA report of the proceedings testi-
flies to the knowledge Of the reporter and
the journal that their acts were in viola |
ton Of the orders of the Court The case
then is not simply trial of wits between |
the Court on the one side, and the news
paper on the other, but of the deliberate
and planned violation of the
order Of tribunal of the people, which il
was competent to make, and which it is
he duty Of every self-respeeting citizen