The record-union., 1894-08-25
TOR THE PROTECTION oE THE
COURTS.

COURTS.
VS. have positive information that
there is class of daily and weekly jour
nails in San Francisco who enter into
contracts with litigants in which it is
stipulated that the journals are to have
certain sum of money contingent on
decree of the court in favor OF the hti-
CANT with whom these contracts are
made.
This class of blackman is practlsed
chiefly as relates to the estates of de-
ceased persons. The Blythe case was a
prolific source of this species Of oorrup-
ton. Contracts were entered into by
Florence Blythe and the syndicate rep
resented by her with certain newspapers
in San Francisco by which they were to
receive various sums of money. stipu-
lated in the contract, in the event Judge
Coffey, who does the probate business for
the Superior Court of San Francisco, de-
cided in favor of Florence Blythe, the
claimant.
This species of Journalism is SO Will
ainous as to deserve the reprobation of
honest men. and even further than this
to deserve its suppression by law. We
say this advisedly. and we call the atten-
tion of the honest journals of the State to
the issue which is hereby raised.
80 .,,c,,s~o s.,sa &Io II. =
undertaking on the part of the newspaper
making a contract of this character, we
will find that the duties to be performed
are of the most yillainous description,
and that no publisher or editor not de-
based seoundrel would make contract
of this character.
paper agreeing to use its influence to
produce verdict in favor of claimant,
whether the claim set up be just or unjust,
intends to bring the pressure of public
opinion to bear upon the court not TO do
justice as between the parties, but to find
verdict in favor of the party employing
it. If the court makes a ruling relating
TO evidence it becomes the duty of the
paper employed to denounce it as partial,
unfair, prejudiced and bought Thus the
court is to be vilifed into finding YER
dict in favor of the employer of the jour-
nal. This is 8 menace to judicial impair
tiality. 1t is thrust at the independence
of the judicial tribunals of the country.
If persisted in, it will undermine popu-
ular respect for judicial tribunals, and
greatly weaken the respect for the author
ity of the Government among the masses.
The last thing this country can afford to
do ia to permit the courts to be dra-
gooned, bulldozed, vilifed into finding
verdicts. When both sides employ two
SETS of newspapers, then the position of
the court is not bed of roses. In the
Blythe case, we are informed, and be-
lieve, that large number of contracts of
the kind herein mentioned were written.
How were these papers to earn the con-
tingent fee agreed to be paid them2 They
were not to appear in court. They were
not to marshal testimony. They were
not to argue the case before bis honor,
the Judge. or plead with the Jury i'm
paneled TO try the case. There Is but
one conclusion left. They were en-
ployed to lie about the case; to bully the
court; to produce public opinion in favor
of claimant which they hoped and be-
lieyed would crystslIizs into Judicial de-
termination-not from the standpoint of
what was right; not in obedience to the
conclusions Of natural justice. but in con-
formity with menacing public opinion
created from raw material.
lis obvious that the courts Of the
country must be protected from this
species of journalistic villainy. The
courts have the power to protect them
selves by calling up those men who have
made contracts of this kind and dealing
with them for contempt Of court. II
there is not, however. at present law neo-
essary for the accomplishment of this re-
salt. legislation should speedily be di-
rectsd to the abuse. A statute making it
felony fer any newspaper to undertake
to deliver Judgment of court would
be no infraction Of the right Of free
press, and the journalist who would rise
In defense Of such right proves himself
10 be moral idiot incapable of distin-
gushing between right and wrong.