The Portland daily press., 1893-10-05

pal reasons they are offering for his nomi-
nation
The Portland Press tries to dodge the
issue by claiming that the breach OF
promise case which Judge Barker kept
from the newspapers doesn't concern the
public That isn't the point. The judge
has no right to make any such ruling
and the nature of the case doesn't enter
into the matter at all. And then breach
of promise cases which involve things
unit or publication do concern the pub
lie and the rich have no more right to be
shielded from public scorn than the
poor.-Bath Times.
The lodging which you accuse the
Press of consisted in pointing out that
the parallel that you attempted to draw
between the Harper case and the breach
of promise case did not exist, ,inasmuch
as the former was one closely involving
public rights, while the latter involved
no public right at all. How do you
know that Judge Barker had no right
to forbid the newspapers to publish the
details of the case from day to day?
How did you evolve this conclusion
which you announce in so dogmatlc
way? The Boston Journal asked the
opinion of several prominent Boston
lawyers people likely to know as
much about it as you) and they inclined
to the opinion that he had, at least they
advised the newspapers not to disregard
the injunction. The decision of the
California Supreme Court points in tn
same direction, for though it says thai
Judge has no right to set himself up as
censor sof the press, it implies
that he does have the right if
he believes that the publication
of the details of case will defeat the
ends of justice, to forbid it. Judge Bar
ker did not give the reason for his prohi-
bition, and there is just as much reason
for assuming that it was given in the
interest of justice to the litigants as for
the purpose of shutting off the news
papers.
But you have depressed from the point
you undertook to make in your first allu
sion to this matter. Then your chief
trouble was that there were men who
ought to be JEALOUS guardians of the peo-
ple's rights, lacking in spirit enough to
defend Them" you were in despair
because all the Newspapers did not de-
nounce Judge Barker's order as an in
fringement upon the liberties of the
American people, and the first act in
their enslavement. 1t is gratifying to
see that little reflection has convinced
you of the absurdity of such a cry as
that. You still cling, however, to the
idea that newspapers publish breach of
promise cases for the warning of the pub
lie rather than for the benefit of their
own circulation. A little more refec-
ton will convince you of the absurdity
of that notion. The case may have lots
of solemn warnings in it, but if it is not
spicy it never gets into any newspaper in
extenso unless it concerns person of
prominence.
If the case before Judge Bar
ker's court had been a controversy be-
tween two persons. about piece of land
or a sum of money with nothing spicy
about it, and Judge Barker had ordered
the publication of all the testimony on
the ground that some of the newspapers
are now taking, that the publication of
court cases is necessary to preserve our
liberties, wouldn't the protesting have
been just as violent as tits now over the
order that he did give?