The San Francisco call., 1897-02-06
An Interesting Measure Is
introduced in the
Legislature.
Places STATE and Federal Courts
on the Same Plane as to
Criticism.
Judge Catlin's Ruling Causes Action
by the Free Press Defense
League.

SACRAMENTO, CAL, Feb. 5.-There
was introduced to-day IN both houses of
the Legislature the following constitu-
tional amendment:
Section o. Every citizen may freely speak,
write and publish his sentiments on all su D.
lects. being responsible for the abuse of that
right; and no law shall be passed to restrain
or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.
no sneech or publication rejecting upon or
concerning any court or any officer thereof
shall be treated or punished as a con tempt of
court, unless made in the immediate
presence of such court while in ses-
sion and in such manner as to
actually interfere with its proceedings ]
the truth may be given in evidence to the
jury: and If 1t shall appear to the Jury that
the matter charged as libelous is true and was
published with good motives and for justif-
able ends, the party snail be acquitted, an d
the jury shall have the right to determine the
law and the fact. Indictments found or infor-
nation laid for publications in newspapers
shall be tried in the county where such news
papers have their publication Office, or in the
county where the party alleged 10 be libeled
resided at the time of the alleged publication,
unless the place OF trial shall be changed for
good cause.
The amendment consists OF the follow
ing inserted in the present law:
No speech or publication rejecting upon or
concerning any court or any officer thereof
shall be treated or punished as a contempt of
court unless made in the immediate presence
of such court while in session, and in such a
manner as to actually interfere with its pro-
ceedings.
This language is the gist of the Barry
contempt law OF 1891, and is an exact copy
of the Federal statute now governing all
the Federal courts OF the United States.
1t would seem, therefore, that no reason
able objection could be offered to it as a
Jaw for the government of the courts OF
the State of California.
The measure was formulated bv the
Free Press Defense League of San Fran
cisco. of which Hon. James G. Mcguire is
president and James H. Barry, editor of
the Star, secretary. The necessity for the
introduction OF this constitutional amend
ment at this time is indicated by the fol-
! lowing statement of facts:
Judge A. 2. Catlin of the Superior
Court of Sacramento County, in recent
decision tining the editor of the Sacra-
! mento Bee $500 for a criticism of the
court made in the newspaper, declares
| that the Barry contempt law of 1891 is un-
constitutional.
An appeal in the matter was taken to
| the Supreme Court of this State and de-
| cision, under the ninety-day rule, is due
this month. 1t is highly proba Bile, how
! ever, that such decision Will not be given
| until after the adjournment of the Legis-
| lature, and that, if it upholds the view OF
| the law taken by Judge Catlin, there can
| be no protection for newspaper pIblish-
ers or the public generally in this matter
of contempt until the convening of the
! next Legislature.
! The action of Judge CatIin, as above
! referred to. drew forth al almost unani-
| nous expression from the press and the
public OF this State, which resulted in
! the reorganization of the Free Press
Defense League of San Francisco (Which
obtained the passage of the original
Barry acD and the formulation by it OF
the present measure. 1t covers fully the
ground, insuring ample protection 10
every citizen who criticizes the acts of a
| Judge, whether he does it by speech or
through the newspaper, and it should,
therefore, meet the hearty support OF
! those who have already expressed them
selves on this subject.