Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-11-30
THE BENCH AND PRESS.

In the current debate on the respective
rights of bench and press we think the
San Francisco Bulletin has rendered the
right verdict. 1t says:
Its a good and wholesome rule, except in
| some extreme cases, for the newspapers TO ab-
stain from judicial criticism when case Is on
| trial That is the rule which all conductors OF
| newspapers who acknowledge the responsible
| ties of their position lay down Tor their own
| guidance. The no,oriety which OF ne
| cessity the commission of crime secures ham
pers the administration OF the law badly enough,
/ without the resort to criticism on the lmpanel-
| ment Of the jury, the value of the testimony
| presented and the right OF wrong Of the rulings
\ of the Judge. When the case is tried and the
verdict rendered or the judgment recorded, 1t
| and everything connected with 1t becomes pub
| lie property. II there was collusion IN the IN
1 parchment of the jury, If the conduct OF the
l Judge was one-sided and biased, or II valuable
| testimony that was available was omitted there
/ is fair field for analysis under the penalty
| which comes of libel. IL does not appear that
| anything can be lost to the cause OF justice or
| morality by the delay.
The reason for the policy the Bulletin
thus lays down has always been apparent
to the RECORD UNION, and it has been its
rule to refrain from comment at all likely
to interfere with pending judicial trial.
And the reason for the rule is very simple
and convincing-if the press is to try the
case and its voice render the verdict, the
Office of the Court is ended. The press
need be none the less watchful of the tri-
bunals that are the last peaceful resort for
the protection of our rights venality and
corruption will be allowed no freer rein
because the press is silent while awaiting
the result Of trial. The press is responsible
| for the Justice of its comment only under
the law of libel, remedy that cannot clear
the stream of justice once muddied, nor
return it to its course if once diverted. 1t
| must be obvious that to favor the trial by
newspaper is to place mems rights at the
mercy of perhaps the ill-informed the
preiudiced or the vicious writer Or pub
Usher, a cruel injustice that can never be
| righted if once consented to. The press
can best conserve the public and its own
interest, win higher regard among the
men whose esteem is worth having, and
| can establish itself more firmly in the con-
fdence of the people if it contents itself
with reporting cases on trial as they occur,
without comment upon the conduct of
Judge or juror, without expression of opin-
ion as to the guilt or innocence of the de-
PENDANT, until the trial is concluded.
There are rare cases, of course, where the
open and bald corruption Of jury, the
uublushing venality of Judge or the out
rageous behavior of prisoner or of parties
to the action demand protest and even denun-
citation at the moment. But the rule should
be for the self-respecting press, that of re-
straint upon any comment that tends to
throw the paper into the case for one side
or the other. The tribunals the Constltu-
ton and the laws provide for the adjustment
of issues between the State and those who
offend her, should by the press be respected
and their dignity maintained, and all the
procedure provided for the trial should
find in the press champion, since if it is
wrong, unwise, absurd, the power resides
in the people to correct the law, and the
right is in the press to advocate as it
pleases such correction. We believe that
if it were possible to gather the statistics
in the matter it would be established that
the interference of the press in cases on trial
has tended to lessen the respect of the
people for the newspaper, as well as to
hinder and delay the ends of justice, and
interrupt and defeat the pursuit of Offend
ers. Full. fair and impartial reports of facts
concerning trials, no one objects to, but the
assumption of the Office of Judge and
juror is on the part of the press imperti-
nence, if not worse, pending trial
The Bulletin concludes, as the sum of the
whole matter, that sensational journalism
alone complains of the rule stated, and our
contemporary adds:
AS a matter of fact g newspaper cannot con-
Wet or release anybody charged with crime
But it can bedevil the panel from which the
jury is drawn. browbeat the witnesses and bring
the Judge into contempt 1t is quite evident
that that is kind of work in which no cOnsci-
entious journalist should wish to engage.
To permit the rights of liberty or property
to pass under the dominion of the atrociOus
ferment which results in sensational journal
ism, would be 10 allow the establishment of the
meanest and most corrupt despotism ever
known.