The San Francisco call., 1896-03-25
II Should Not Have Been Nipped
in the Bud by the
Court.
THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.
A Mans Right TO Speak, Write or
Publish Must Not Be Abridged
in Any Way.

Judge Murphy went far beyond his
jurisdiction when he stopped the produc-
ton OF siThe Crime OF the Century" during
the Durrant trial He was too previous.
He should have walted until the piece was
actually staged and the curtain up before
he exerted the power which the law gives
him. This is the substance of the opinion
Of the Supreme Court in the case Of Viii
liam r. Daily, who sued for a writ of
certiorari TO have Judge Murphy's wrong
ful ruling set aside.
Every one remembers the Durrant case
and the scheme Of Daily and others 10
make il the theme OF a play to be pro-
duced while the case was pending. Dur
rants counsel strenuously objected. and
the result was an order from Judge Murphy
forbidding the production of the play.
This order was appealed from, and prepa-
rations for the play were continued. Be-
fore the Durrant trial commenced the
opening night came, and the AIcazar
Theater was crowded to the doors. The
audience was thickly dotted with Deputy
Sheriffs, however, and when the curtain
rose and the play was well under way the
Deputy Sheriffs went on the sage and
arrested the whole company on warrants
for contempt of court. They were all re-
leased on bail and the appeal TO the
Supreme Court prevented further pro-
ceedings against them on the contempt
charge. Under the decision of yesterday,
however, the contempt charge need not
worry the actors much.
The text OF the opinion, which was writ
ten by Justice Garoutte, deals with the
right Of free speech. He holds that no
man shall be restrained from speaking,
he must be responsible for his utterances
afterBard. in the opinion the court says:
The production of 8 tragedy or comedy upon
the theatrical stage Is e publication to the
world By word of mouth OF the text Of the au-
thor. and as 10 the question here presented for
our consideration il is imm sterisl whether the
words be publicly spoken from the stage or
upon the hustings, or 90 20 the world through
the channels OF the printing press. By the
constitutional provision are about to in
woke citizen may speak, wrlte or publish his
sentiments with equal freedom, and this case
now stands before US exactly as though one OF
the daily journals was threatening 10 publish
its sentiments pertaining 70 the conduct Of
criminal trial then pending, and the court
where such trial was pending and in progress
believing SUCH publication would interfere
with the due administration OF justice, had
issued an order restraining and prohibiting
the threatened action Of the paper.
We are entirely clear that the court has no
jurisdiction 10 make the order which forms the
attempted Infringement upon rights guar
anteed 70 every citizen by section OF article
OF the constitution Of the State. That sec
ton provides: Every citizen may freely
speak, write and publish his sentiment on all
subjects, being responsible for the abuse Of
that right, and no Law shall be passed to re-
strain or abridge the liberty of speech or of
the press" The wording of this section is
terse and vigorous. and its meaning so plain
that construction is not needed. The right of
the citizen 10 freely speak, write and publish
his sentiments Is mil mfref hut o fg
BILE to the law for an abuse of that right. He
shall have no censor over him 10 whom he
must apply for permission TO speak, write or
publish, but he shall be held accountable 20
the law for what he speaks, what he writes or
what he publishes. II is patent that this right
to speak, write end publish cannot be abused
until II IS exercised, ana before il is exercised
there can be no res possibility The purpose of
this provision Of the constitution was the
abolishment OF censorship, and for courts TO
act as censors IL directly Fioatiye of that pfIr-
pose. This provision OF the constitution as 10
freedom of speech varies somewhat from that
OF the constitution OF the United States and
also more or less from the provisions Of many
State constitutions treating OF this ouesti on,
but If there is a material difference in the
various provisions IL works no harm TO this
pet1tloner, for the provision here considered is
the broader and gives him greater liberty in
the exercise Of the right granted.
The court then quotes Blackstone as
saying ''the liberty of the press consists in
laying no previous restraints upon publi-
cations, and not in freedom from censure
for criminal matters when published.
Every freeman has an uudouhted right to
lay what sentiments he pleases before the
public: to forbid this is TO destroy the free
dom OF the press. But If he publishes
what is improper. mischieyous or illegal be
must take the consequences of his own
temerity. To subject the press to the
restrictive power of licensor, as was
formerly done, before and since the revolu-
ltion OF 1888, Is to subject all freedom of