The San Francisco call., 1896-06-09
CONTEMPT OF COURT.

The circumstances under which O.. K.
McClatchy, managing editor of the Sacra-
mento Bee, was sentenced by Judge Catlln
to a fine of $500 for contempt of court are
such as to justly excite comment through
out the State. From the facts as reported
it seems clear the Judge has carried too far
the power of the courts to punish for con-
tempt, and has trespassed not only upon
the lawful liberty of the press, but upon
the constitutional rights of citizens.
The facts of the case as published are
these. In the suit of Talmadge VS.. Tai
madge, divorce case being heard in the
Superior Court of Sacramento with open
doors before Judge Catlin, one of the
parties to the suit, G. V. Talmadge. under
cross-examination made charges rejecting
upon an attorney for the other side, who
was cross-examining him. The Bee pub
lished what it claims to have been a fair
and true report of that portion of the
testimony. The next day the attention OF
the court was called to the pnblicat ton,
and the Judge, speaking from the bench,
declared it to be "a grossly false state
ment--a gross fabrication" He added,
moreover: "There was not the slig test
ground IN the testimony of Mr.. Talmadge
upon which such statement could be
based"
To this declaration of the Judge the Bee
retorted by affirming the essential truth
OF its report, and added: "There is no
paper anywhere that has higher regard
for fair and impartial courts than has the
Bee, but there is no paper anywhere that
has supremer contempt for Judge who
will approve the unmitigated falsehood oi
an attorney as Judge Catlin to-day ap-
proved the brazen misstatement of Judge
]. B. Devine."
For this "attack on the court" Editor
McClatchy was summoned 20 answer for
contempt. He claimed the right to prove
that his publication of the testimony was
an accurate and true report. His wit
nesses to prove the fact were the witness
Talmadge who had given the evidence in
dispute and other persons in the court
room who heard it, Judge Catlin, how.
ever, refused to accept the evidence. He
would not permit the truth to be proven
or even inquired into, but pronounced
Editor McClatchy guilty of, contempt
and subjected him to fine of $500.
1AtS dl b4LAoAy VI Ii4c dOI
only ignored or set aside as of no force
the Barry law restricting courts in
Furnishing for contempt to such acts as
are committed in the presence of the
court, but also deprived the accused of his
right to justify himself by proving the
truth and fairness OF his publication.
In pronouncing judgment in the case
the full text of which is published in the
Bee June 6-the Judge made the curious
remark; "The answer of the defendant in
this case does not present anything in the
way of diminishing or extenuating the
charges. 1t merely reiterates anu iustiies
them" Merely iustifies them! What
would Judge Catlin have IN his court
What is he paid for but to hear evidence
and do justice? When a man can justify
himself by proving the truth he certainly
has right to do so, and it is an extremely
arbitrary action on the part of Judge to
forbid it.
As the Judge ignored the Barry law, it
seems he regards it as unconstitutional.
II the Supreme Court should uphold him in
this it will then be in order to amend the
constitution. The principle of that law is
essential to the liberty of the press and the
rights of citizens, and Editor McClatchy is
fighting for the common good of all when
he opposes such arbitrary action on the
part OF the courts.