The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1895-07-31
EDITOR ROBINSON'S SENTENCE
FOR CONTEMPT.

| fencing the editor of the Asheville Citi-
zen to pay a fine of $3.50 and go to jail
80 days for contempt of court, naturally
creates much interest, because it is the
first instance of the kind in the State of
which we have any knowledge. Not a
great while ago man was killed IN
Buncombe, under exceptionally tragic
| circumstances, and Jesse Sumner was
charged with the crime and arrested.
His counsel argued that because the
Asheville Citizen had published inadver-
tently, an incorrect statement, which it
afterwards corrected, that Sumner had
confessed the crime, and for other rea-
sons, Sumner could not get justice in
Buncombe county. Upon this showing,
Judge Ewart moved the case to Hender-
son county. The Citizen criticised the
removal as unnecessary, expensive and
a reflection on the intelligence Of the
people of Buncombe county" and said;
1.-THE pretense that Jesse Sumner cannot
get fair trial in this county is not well
founded" &C., &c. The Judge ordered
the editor to show cause why he should
not be punished for contempt, and held
that the "report was grossly inaccurate, ="
and twas made with intent to misrep
resent the court, and to bring it into
contempt and ridicule." Editor Frank
E. Robinson appeared in court, swore
that the report published was "believed
to be true" that the article was written
sin the exercise of the Constitutional
right of the press to fairly. justly and in
good faith inform the public of the acts
and doings of public officers" and to
criticise the same; and that the publica-
ton twas not made with intent to mis-
represent" or to bring the court into
contempt and ridicule."
Lawyers Jos. S. Adams, Chas. A.
Moore, Locke Craige and J. D.
Murphy represented Editor Robin
son, and based their argument upon
the decision of the late Chief Justice
Pearson, in exparte Biggs, GA N. @, Re
ports, in which it is held that Mr.. Biggs
having filed disavowal, he cannot be
convicted, for "his INTENTION is locked
in his own breast is known to himself
alone, and he is permitted to purge him
self by his own disavowal." Judge
Ewart did not feel himself bound by this
decision, even though rendered by the
great Pearson, but in mis- sentence said
Counsel for respondent insists that
the accused must be the judge of the in
tent; if he, the respondent, makes an
swer that he had no such intent, that
the whole must be discharged. If this
be true, an editor of newspaper may
publish indecent, scurrilous and out
rageous accounts of the proceedings of
a court, and when attached for contempt
has only to reply that he didn't mean
what he said and forthwith is dis |
charged. Such a position appears to the |
court as illogical and absurd. / shall |
certainly let our Supreme Court have an |
to pass upon this publica-
ton
1t must have been very gratifying to |
Editor Robinson when fourteen of the |
leading citizens came into court to sign
his 5000 appeal bond, for he will carry
the case to the Supreme Court. Mon
days Citizen contains temperate re-
view of the whole transaction which
gives the case to the great public jury.
1t is in excellent taste, which tends to
show that the Citizen was simply
exercising its Constitutional right to
criticize public officials. It's closing
is statement that will COM
mend itself to every reader:
"But conceding for one moment that
the proceedings of the court were mac
curately reported by the Citizen, shall
an editor go to jail for one error, for
two, for three, after evil intent has been
and, if not for the errors,
then for the opinion e2pressed2 There
is the issue. How does it sound, and
how will it sound as it goes out among
the people, and from now until this
generation is passed away, that Judge
Ewart attempted to imprison an editor
for one or more alleged errors, commit
ted, if at all, after fair investigation,
and for expressing honestly conceived
opinions"
The public will await the decision of
our highest court with deep interest.
The question of how far an editor may
go in criticizing public official is an
important one, both for the press and
the public. There are those who would
have a censor of the press and punish
every editor who dares criticize
public officials. There are others
still who believe that the widest
latitude should be given the press, in
the confidence that, whatever may be
said, the people will ultimately repudiate