The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1890-09-12
BARRY IN CONTEMPT.
Dismissal of the Habeas Corpus
Writ in His Behalf.

A decision in the case of James II. Barry,
adjudged guilty of contempt of court and
sentenced to five days Imprisonment and to
pay fine of $500, was handed down by the
Supreme Court yesterday affirming the judg-
nent and dismisSing the writ OF habeaS cor
pus.
Barry was found in contempt in having
published criminal libel in paper called
the Weekly Star. The publication was a
most savage article in which he charged
Judge Lawler of the Superior Court with
deliberate lying and Justification of the
law" calling him mot only a fool, but an
mpudent rascal" saying that she ought to
be impeached and removed from office and
disfranchised, indicted and punished by fine
and imprisonment and made convict Of"
daring the Judge to have him arrested for
criminal libel. and saying that if he did not
do so he would be acknowledging his guilt.
The opinion was written by Justices Nc
Farland, Paterson, Fox and Thornton. Re-
ferring to the language made uSe of by
Barry as constituting "the liberty of the
press" Justice Works says:
The only check UPON this liberty Is the respon-
sibility the abuse OF IL. This may not be true
In the sense that the liberty TO speak and write
on any subject cannot DO restricted or prevented
In advance, and that the only remedy is TO pun
ish subsequently for any publication that
amounts to the abuse or such liberty. That IS
precisely what has been done In this case. If
The language used was improper, but Affected the
Judge IN his individ ual capacity, and was not an
Interference with the proceedings OF the court
over which he was presiding, the remedy could
be by proceeding for CONTEMPT.
So the question Is twOf0ld. Was the publica.
tiop an abuse OF the liberty OF the press, and If
So was It an interference with the proceedings
of the court? The last OF these We have already
determped As TO the former, the liberty OF the
pre- IS to fairly criticize the official conduct of
Judge or the decisions or proceedings OF the
courts and to expose and bring to light any
wrongful corrupt or improper act Of judicial
officer Is one that should be carefully preserved
and protected by the courts.
II public supervision and censure, through
the press or otherwise, Is necessary to suppress
corruption and keep the channels OF Justice pure
and ntaiDted, the right TO exercise such super
vision aud censure and expose wrong-d0ing
should be and must be Upheld by the courts.
But the publisher OF a newspaper who assumes
10 criticize eensure a public officer or the
proceedings OF q court must know whereof he
speaks IL he cenSures uDjusty or charges
falsely, he must be held strictly accountable.
abuse of 1t must be punished. The great trouble
win the freedom OF the press at the present day.
so far as affects the courts, is that 1t is used
ipdiscriminately In many cases, not with the
laudabe purpose OF correcting abuses and ex-
posing wToDg-doing, but to crafty i-wll and
passion or paBder to the passions or prejudices
of others. This tendency should be severely con-
demued and punished not Ouly for the protection
of the conIts and the preservation of ure aud
ipdepe ndent Judiciary but a means of uphold
irg the liberty OF the press In lis true sense.