The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1895-03-16
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Los ANGELES Exrnrss

The action of the Legislature in passing
such large majorities in both the Senate
and Assembly is an incident OF more
than ordinary significance. 1t will be
remembered that Attorney Philbrook crit
icised the actions of a member OF the Su-
preme Court while the Justice was still
private citizen. For this he was debarred
for three years for contempt. The Bar
Association OF San Francisco took up the
matter and used their influence to have
him debarred, and have fought his free
dom of speech bill at every turn. as the
dispatches show. but without avail. 1t is
a remarkable fact that it is the attorneys
themselves who have made the most
strenuous battle, as members of the SEN
ate and Assembly,, in favor OF the bill;
and the speech of Assemblyman Spencer
of Lassen, who has been Superior Judge
himself was particularly remarkable Tor
the clearness with which he showed the
injustice and danger to the legal fratern-
ity itself from the arbitrary power exer-
cised by the bench.
The bill in it entirety is as follows:
SECTION l. No person shall be deprived OF
the right to practice as attordey or counselor
in any court OF this state because OF words as
spoken or written by him in the argument OF
any cause pending in any court, unless I
such words he shall have been tried by jury
and convicted OF criminal libel. pursuant to
the provisions of the Penal Code of the state OF
California. ,s .f
SEC. =. Any person who has been heretofore
admitted to practice as an attorney and conn.,
selor in the courts OF this state, and who has
been disDarred or suspended from such prac-
tice by the judgment or order OF any court OF
spoken written by him in the argument OF
any cause pending in such court. shall be en-
titled 20 practice as attorney and counselor in
all the courts of this ate.
1t will be seen that these few lines vir-
tually say to the Supreme Court, thus
far shalt thou go, and no farther. 1t is
Il great PROOF of the respect and veneration
felt by the Americans for the judiciary
that they have allowed their judges such
arbitrary power as many of them have
been in the habit of exercising. To say
that Judge or a dozen judges should not
be criticized as freely as any other public
citizen is dangerous theory Certainly
Judge is not higher than the President,
and is just as human. and just as moved
by passion and prejudices as the chief
magistrate. The judicial ermine no more
carries with it of necessity prudence and
wisdom than does the senatorial toga; and
some of the worst men England has ever
produced were judges of her highest courts.
The right to practice his profession is as
valuable to the lawyer or doctor as is the
right of the mechanic to labor at his trade.
The law protects the mechanic by ex-
emptng his tools from execution. 1t al
lOWS IlIl pue TlSub 10 W Dt USdTu dUu
Judged by a jury in all controversies; but
the lawyer is absolutely at the mercy OF
the Judge, who can without trial or jury,
deprive him of his means OF making liv-
ing.
The proposition that private citizen
becomes in some way a sacred person
when he is elected or appointed to the
back and covers all his deeds before he
became a Judge, is position that even
if it were held by the Supreme Bench of
the United States would be- open to very
serious criticism; and certainly possesses
elements of danger to the freedom Of
speech which is guaranteed by the Con-
sttution.
The judiciary, as the expounders OF the
law and the guardians of the Constitution
and statutes, deserve all respect. But to
say they are infallible. nay, that they are
impeccable even, is to say that there is
one class in the community above all
other classes, position that is not tena-
BILE in republic $3.50.
There is growing feeling all over the
country, even among the legal fraternity.
that the bench has grown too arbitrary. 1t
was shown in the case of Judge jenkins
of the United States District Court in the
strike cases; it was shown in Omaha in
the contempt case of Editor Rosewater of
the Bee; it has been shown in numerous
other cases. In all these instances public
sentiment has made itself clearly manifest
and the judiciary has wisely taken warn
ing. What the feeling is in this state; the
! debates over the Philbrook bill in both
branches of the Legislature; the vote oil
that measure and the views of the Gov
ernor, as quoted by our Sacramento cor
respondent. all show that decided change
IN the practice of allowing the courts arbi-
trary power in contempt cases is demand
ed by the public, before whose will even
the judiciary must bow.