The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1893-09-16


/ made he would 'sdeal with the principals,
as he did not propose to exclude witnesses
and allow the newspapers to publish the
testimony. The clerk was instructed to
take note of all reporters who looked into
the minutes of the court
The Mercury came out with particulars
of the trial and the testimony. The par
ties were about 70 years old. The wife al
legged unfaithfulness and other nasty
conduct on the part of the husband, but
there was nothing reported which would
have been considered out Of the way were
it not for the strict order of the court.
Charles NJ. Shortridge, the editor and
publisher of the San Jose Mercury, by.
order of Judge Lorigan was cited to APP
pear in court to answer for contempt.
The defendant appeared and by his at
torneys made an elaborate answer, to the
effect that he was not party ncr witness
in the action of Price VS.. Price. That he
was not in the court when the order OF
secresy was issued, nor had it been served
on him. That he published s. true and
fair report of the testimony, and that it
was not made in the presence of the court
and did not interfere with the pro-
ceedings or reflect upon the charac
| ter OF the court or cast any dis
credit upon the court. And that he had
constitutional right and privilege Of
such publication which no court by any
valid decree could deprive him of. A de-
murrer was entered to the jurisdiction of
the court to make or enforce any order
forbidding such publication as had been
printed.
The case was ably argued on both sides,
and counsel for the defense, besides
standing up for the freedom of the press,
argued that the court might as well hold
people in contempt who talked of the
case, and the witnesses who out of court
might repeat the testimony they gave in
court. But the defendant was fined
500, and at once took an appeal.
| In the supreme court eloquent and
lengthy arguments were made, which we
have not space to introduce The scope
ana the limitations of the liberty of the
press were dilated upon with clearness
and force.
The Supreme court upheld the law of
the state which prohibits the publication
of all the proceedings in divorce cases
when testimony of a filthy character is
introduced, and gives power to courts to
prevent the spread of immoral influences
of that character, but did not con-
slider that such provisions were in
tended to prevent the publication OF
legitimate news, nor such publicity to
the proceedings Of public tribunals as is
consistent with truth and decency.
The authority given by statute to
courts to hold trials in certain cases with
closed doors, was to protect witnesses of
refined sensibilities from giving testi-
mony Of a delicate nature in the presence
OF vulgar or curious spectators, and to
prevent the circulation of obscene and
prurient particulars. But this did not
J extend to preventing the discussion and
/ publication of court proceedings with due
regard TO decency and morality.
! The Inherent power IN courts to punish
for contempt committed in their presence,
or ut Of their presence when it tends to
EN- barrass, impede or obstruct the court,
was dwelt upon and upheld as necessary
to maintain their dignity. indeed their
very existence. And it was stated that
though this is arbitrary. yet it Is only to
be used as an auxiliary means to attain
the ends OF justice.
The constitution of of every state in the
Union guarantees to every citizen the
right to freely speak, write and publish
his sentiments on all subjects and pro-
hibits the passage of any law ITO restrain
or abridge the liberty of speech or of the
press. The rights thus preserved by the
constitution are dear to the heart of every
American, and their exercise can be COM
planned of by courts in summary pro-
ceedings only when the publication or
speech interferes with the proper per-
Torrance of judicial duty. If there has
been no such interference there has been
no contempt.
With the moral aspect Of the case the
court said it had nothing to do. Courts
are not conservators OF public morals.
munity must proceed from the legislative
department. The court found nothing
in the publication which interfered with
the full and free investigation of the case
on trial.
The court said further: 1.-THE liberty
of the press stops where its further exer-
else would invade the rights Of others.
The provision of the constitution does
not authorize the usurpation of the func-
/ ton of courts. Under the plea OF the lib
erty of the press newspaper has no right
to assail litigants during the progress of a
trial, intimidate witnesses, dictate YER
diets or Judgments or spread before juries
its opinion of the merits of cases which
are on trial. As stated before, what may
be spoken may be written, and the con
verse of the proposition is true that what
may not be spoken under such circum-
stances may not be written. AS the arti-
Gle in question does not go beyond these
limitations, and as the section under
which the court below proceeded to judg
ment clearly does not authorize the order
which was made, the proceedings must
be annulled. -
This decision is of great value to the
press of the country. 1t not only treats
of the scope and limits Of the press, but
also of courts in their treatment OF The
press. The rule s'What may be spoken
may be written and published, - is broad
enough to cover the whole ground of the
question, and is eminently satisfactory to
the newspapers of the United States.
The Supreme Court of California in this
decision has maintained the high reputa-
ton which the judiciary of that state have