Omaha daily bee., 1896-02-02
THE Nixon AND THE PRESS.

Within the last two years there has
been moro clashing between the bench
and the press In Nebraska over THEFT
respective rights and relations to Que
another than there was in all the forty.
two years since the territory of Ne
braska was organized. 1t was quite
natural, therefore, that one of the chief
topics discussed at the recent meeting
of the State Editorial association should
be the relations of the bench and the
press. The focal point Of the debate
was whether the bench is exempt from
that publicity and criticism of its con-
duct In the discharge of its functions to
which all other branches of popular gov
eminent are subject. Divcsted of side
issues the question presented was
whether the miscarriage of justice
brought about through judicial usurpa-
ton or lawless misuse of court process
and ~prerogative is not included in the
catalogue of official offcnscs which every
honest and fearless newspaper is not
only privileged, but in duty bound to
expose and d%enounce.
The machinery placed at the disposal
Of the bench for maintaining its dignity
is ample. But no judge exercising power
conferred upon him by the people is on
that account covered with a legal pan
oply. 'The king can do no wrong" is
not applicable to the American bench.
A judge who violates the law is as much
Il lawbreaker as the criminal who is
arraigned before him. A man charged
with crime cannot justify his act by
pleading ignorance of the law. A judge
cannot plead ignorance of the law ever
as al c%ytenuation of his law-defiance.
a judge who v%iciously administers the
law contrary to its letter and spirit is
us dangerous to the public safety and
the man who %corruptly hampers with
lawmakers and seeks to pollutc the
sources of law.
These are truisms which will not be
disputed ever by the most pronounced
defender of judicial ~prerogative. The
duty of the press to denounce iniquity
on the bench and to criticise judicial
Partially or oppression will be conceded
by all upright men and must be upheld
at all hazards. In the discharge of this
duty the press is properly subject to
restraints and limitations imposed by
law for the unhampered administration
of justice. In this respect the press is
no more privileged than the individual
citizen, who is prohibited under penal
ties from impeding justice.
There are, however, broad lines of
between an attempt to in
tluence the verdicts of juries or the de-
cisions of judges and giving publicity
to the facts with such comment as re-
CARDS the action of judge or jury as
occasion may warrant. While or
dinarily any comment rejecting upon
the integrity of a jury or the impartiality
of the judge should be withheld during
the tendency of the case, there are oc-
when an honest press would be
derelict in it's duty If It did not speak
out. Suppose, for example, that a man
charged with the commission of felony |
pleads guilty and the judge arbitrarily
to pronounce sentence as re-
quired by law, and Furthermore usurps |
the p%ardoning power of the executive
by setting such a confessed felon free,
must the press forever maintain silence
because. according to the records of the
court, the case is still pending? Such
law defiance has been exhibited on the
bench Of this district and the powers
If the court have been eXerted to punish
reporters II editors who dared to give
publicity to this lawless conduct.
1t is not the disposition of the press
to dominate the courts, to overawe
judges or to intimidate juries in the
honest performance of duty. On the
contrary the press is often reluctant to
or offend judicial officers be-
.ause Of n desire to preserve the dignity
Of the courts and to maintain public re-
spect for them. With very rare eXcep-
lions judges have had no occasion to
resort to the machinery of their courts
TO uphold their own prerogatives or to
undue interference with the ad-
ninistration of justice. The tendency
- WYNN ~ VI iuSt L
sort Is to give the most liberal inter-
)retation to the freedom of the press in
is discussion of judicial action and to
,lace judicial officers upon the same
as executive and Legislative Off
,ers whose acts are public property.
AUSTRALIAN MEAT COMPETITION.
Tho ,utfln rrnxrnrc Of t1n TTnita1