Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1893-04-08
SATURDAY. APRIL g.. 1893.
The Norfolk Case OF Contempt.

Inc NOriolK case OF contempt
We published yesterday from Rev. PAUL
WHITEHEAD, ID. D., communication touch
sing the recent decision Of Judge BROOKE, OF
Norfolk. that newspaper reporters COM
ments upon the proceedings of court
might rightfully and lawfully be held to
be contempt of court. The reverend
gentleman was exceedingly careful in the
use of words. As became him. he en-
ployed no language that was Objectionable
or that was intended IN any way to give
offence.
The question discussed by Mr.. WHITE
HEAD Is not o new one. 1t has often been
raised as against judges who were dis
posed to stretch their own powers and
limit the rights Of the press. Only few
years ago the questions involved were
fully discussed in the Supreme Court of
Appeals of West Virginia and decision
rendered which we doubt not would fit
the Norfolk ease. We have had too, if we
ore not mistaken. n case in Virginia.
If the Norfolk reporter was guilty of
contempt of court in commenting upon
the Objectionable decision of Judge
OF that offence If he had published his
article in letter from Norfolk to o Rich
mond Petersburg. or Lynchburg paper or
20 paper in another State. If an editors
comments upon criminal proceedings may
nubject him to the penalties prescribed by
law for persons guilty of Objectionable
acts in the presence Of the Court. then the
liberty Of the press Is at the mercy not
only Of the good judges of the land, but
Of the USDERwooDs. These judges would
like TO be led by Judge BRooKK.
If the Norfolk reporter by word or deed,
said or did in the presence, or construc-
tive presence, of Judge BBooEE, sitting as
@ court. had attempted 10 behttle him or
render his court an object of contempt or
derision he would have deserved the pun
ishment inflicted upon him. Or If the
court had been trying case to which the
reporter had been party, or in which he
had been even a witness, and had treated
the court disrespectfully, the Judge would
have done only his duty IN fning the Of
fender or sending him to jail. So also if
the reporter had attacked anybody for
words spoken in court. But before a court
can rightfully adjudge q man TO be guilty
of contempt Of court that tribunal must
In some way have acquired jurisdiction
over him. Ii has not appeared to US that
Judge BRooKE had II any manner acquired
jurisdiction over the Norfolk report
br. 1t was not the reporters paper in
which the offensive article appeared.
If anybody had begun in the proper
court suit for libel against
the reporter and he had denied
that he was in any way or degree RESPONSE
bic for the utterances>ef the Norfolk Tir-
ginidn, the Court would have dismissed
the suit. Bat we need not set up this plea
in behalf OF the reporter for if our con-
tention can be maintained Judge BROOKE
had no right to call the reporter or any,
body else to account for the reporters
comments upon Judge BRooKE's proceed
ings in court. Congress" says the Fede-
raj Constitution, shall make no law "
abridging the freedom of the press Exact
ly the same prohibition is contained in the
State Constitution, which provides that
1.-THE General Assembly" shall not pass
ANY law "abrldging the freedom Of the
press" The courts must be protected,
but so must the American citizen.
We discuss the question as one of law
aud say nothing as to Judge BRooKEs
harsh language to the reporter. Nor have
we mentioned all the methods, or reasons.
or words, or acts which would Justify q
fudge in adjudging man to be guilty Of
contempt of court. We only argue that
audOe BRooKR punished "a man whom he
had no right TO punish.