The record-union., 1891-01-24
ABUSE OF JUDGES.
The Barry Libel Bill Given Hearing
2 Last Night.

The Barry Libel Bill Given Hearing
2 Last Night.
There was very interesting meeting of
the Senate judiciary Committee last
evening The chief subject considered
was the Barry libel bill, a measure in
tended to remove all restrictions upon
press criticisms of Judges and courts.
Judge J. Mem. Shafter Of San Francisco
addressed the committee in opposition to
the bill, and delivered a scathing criti-
cism upon irresponsible newspapers and
publishers for their abuse of courts and
occupants of the bench. He was es-
pecially bitter against what he termed
1.-The pestiferous reporters who presumed
to criticise matters of which they are
totally ignorant.
de said that certain publishers had adj
mltted that they would not retract lies
published by them because to do so
would injure their standing. The Judges
lnvective against a certain class of news
papers and newspaper writers was severe
in the extreme, and the members of the
committee listened to him with close at
tention.
AT the conclusion of Judge Shafter's re-
marks Senator Sprague addressed the
committee. He said that if there was any
branch OF the Government that was i'm
portant, and which should be protected
from the assaults and interference and
influences Of corrupt journalism, it was
the Judiciary. II was the arbiter between
citizens, and its dignity and integrity
should be upheld. Ii newspapers were
allowed to dictate the course of courts,
then the Judiciary should be abandoned
and its functions and prerogatives usurped
by the press. The judicial system should
be held far above the influences OF ire
IL
case that was decided upon newspaper re-
ports, as he afterward learned from one
OF the jurors. The result had turned on
q point discussed by the press, but which
had not been before the jury in court.
There are papers, he said, published by
irresponsible persons whose opinions
were purchaseable, and which should not
be allowed to influence juries.
Mr.. Sprague moved that the bill be re-
ported back with the recommendation
that it do not pass. There was no dis
senting voice, and it was so ordered.
The committee had considered several
other bills when james Barry of San
Francisco appeared and asked for a hear
ing. He is the gentleman who was pun
ished by Judge Lawler for contempt of
court in publishing q very bitter attack
upon the latter.
Mr.. Barry was accorded a hearing, and
he addressed the committee in a very
forcible manner in support of the bill.
He held that twas not only the privilege,
but the duty, of the press TO expose cor
ruption on the bench, and denounced the
action in his case as an outrage on the
rights of an American citizen. He
claimed that the bill in question was not
intended to interfere with honest Judges
or courts, but to prevent the recurrence
of cases similar to his.
Senator Heacock asked Mr. Barry what
recourse an upright Judge would have il
assailed by an irresponsible or corrupt
newspaper. and he replied that the pub
Usher could be sued for libel.
Mr.. Heacock held that courts and
Judges should have more and better pro-
lection than that.
Finally, at the request of Mr. Barry,
the committee consented to withhold its
report on the bill until after another
meeting.