The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-01-13
VICTORY FOR A NEWSPAPER.

An interesting contempt case has re-
Gently been decided by the Supreme Court
OF California. involving the rights Of the
press. In divorce suit in the Superior
Court Of Sacramento. c. " Talmadge gave
testimony which was reported in the
Sacramento Bee. The following day one
of the attorneys in the case denounced
the Bees report as false. and Judge Cat
lin said from the bench that it was a
base fabrication
The Bee then retorted editorially as
follows.
The Bee will not keep in its employ
reporter who garbcs or who misstates,
but when "a news-g atherer does his duty
and tells the truth. it VIII not stand ST.
lently by while an aggregation OF at
tOrneys try TO make him out liar, ana
while a preiudiced and vindictive Gar
upon the bench aids and abets them in
such a purpose. The Bee re-asserts that in
all MARTIAL detail the statement of Tai
madge as given in the Bee of yesterday,
was the statement that he made upon
the stand at Monday afternoons session.
The Bee will 20 farther than that. II
will declare that both the attorney before
the bar and the judge on the bench knew
tho statement maze III the bf' Wd' az
essentially correct epitome Of the test-
mony given by Mr. Tamadge. at the
very moment when they unhesitatingly,
shamelessly and hrazenly declared II to
be gross fabrication. There is no
paper anywhere that has higher re-
gard for fair and impartial courts than
has the Bee. but there is no paper any
where that has a supremer contempt
than has the Bee for a judge who will
approve the unmitigated falsehood Of an
attorney. as Judge Catlin to-day ap-
proved the braZen misstatement OF Judge
J. 3. Devine."
Judge Catlin had the editor Of the
Bee ararigned for contempt Of court.
The Bee secured statement from the
witness. Talnadge. that his evidence had
been correctly reported in its columns
but Judge Catlin refused to hear EVIL
dence in behalf of the newspaper man.
and arbitrarily fined him $500 for con-
tempt. An appeal was taken to the Su-
preme Court. resulting in a complete
victory FOR the Bee. Chief Justice Beat
ty held that the editorial complained OF
was not contempt Of court a all: that,
in denouncing the original publication
as "a gross fabrication" Judge a. j.
Catlin was not acting as court or
nudge. and what he said was in no sense
a part of any judicial proceeding ana
the fact that he was seated on the bench
at the time makes the case no different
i'm point OF law from what it would
have been If his remarks had been deliv-
cred on the street or communicated in
writing to the same or another newsps-
per"
Justice Beatty, therefore, concluded that
the publication was not an assault upon
the Judge. but an attack on the man, and
tina, Judge a. 7. Cat.in had the same
means Of redress as, and no other than.
anv other citizen-a suit for libel.
Justice Van Fleet, in his opinion laid
down this proposition Of law:
a Judge on the bench, no more than
any other. can cast ASPIRATIONS upon the
character Of a person not a party or
participant in a case on trial, without
a right in the latter to defend himself.
The decent newspapers of the land
have the highest respect for the courts
and will not wantonly put themselves
IN CONTEMPT. But when judge so far
forgets himself as TO offer from the
benc ha gross insult to a self-respecting
editor. he must expect TO be treated as
a man and not as a judge The worst
mart of Judge Catlin's offence was that
after insulting the editor OF the bee
and provoking a just retort' he shoniu
have used his judicial powers to avenge
himself