The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1898-01-27
ssNo Gag Law for the Press'' n No
Fair Play for Anyone.

The headIne, NO Gag Law ~ the
Press indicates sufficiently the spirit
in which the Tribune this morning
omment upon the motion made before
Judge Lippincott to restrain the Even
ing Journal of this city from intimidat-
ing jurors in such a manner as to de-
prive Joseph NJ. Noonan and Alexander
Simpson of a fair trial. In the article
which comes under the headline, the
ssTribune' makes the deliberately false
the motion. The truth, as the Tribune
very we'll knows, is that the matter was
laid over for a day to enable the Jour
mar to appear by counsel, Judge Lippin-
colt incidentally ruling that the proceed
ing would not hold good against the
Evening Journal Association, but must
be directed against individuals.
The Tribune" in an adjoining column,
has this by way of editorial criticism
Thomas F. Noonan, counsel for Alex
ander Simpson and Joseph NJ. Noonan,
wants The Jersey City Journal" editors
and publisher committed for contempt on
the ground that that paper has published
articles tending to prejudice the pubic
against the distinguished men named.
Maybe the next thing in that line viii
be an application to have ex-Judge Gar
retson committed for contempt on ac-
count of the speech that he will make
to the jury when the Noonan-Simpson
case is called for trial.
Remarks of this sort might be passed
by as childish, were it not for the malig-
nifty which inspires them and for the
harm which they do among people who
do not think. The comparison between
the Journals a~nticipatory bounding
and Judge Garretson's speech in the
course of the trial is as absurd as it is
vicious and as vicious as it is absurd.
The position of Noonan and Simpson is
plain enough. The Journal has made
certain charges against them and they
have been indicted. They have, at best,
an uphill fight to establish their inno-
cence. They therefore protest against a
constant series of articles in the "Jour-
mar calculated to stir up public opinion
to hysterical virulence against them and
to so intimidate and overawe the jurors
that they will not dare vote in opposition
to the Journal for fear of continuous
persecution in its columns.
The position of the Journal" also, ap-
suficiency of its case, and not feeling
secure of a conviction upon the evidence
which it has to present, it is e~ndeavoring
to render one certain by bullying and
bulldozing.
The motion of Judge Noonan to punish
its editors and publisher for contempt of
some uneasiness. Yesterday it FASTENED
to say that it believed in fair play. 1t
said
In all its (the ~"Journal's') comments on
the case of the unfortunate men against
whom its duty has compelled it to make
charges of a heinous crime. it has scrupu-
lousy avoided saying anything that in its
opinion could injure their case or give rise
10 any prejudice against them.
This simply adds cowardice and false
hood to its previous offences. Such a dis
avowal is of no force or effect in presence
OF the facts lrrayed by Mr.. Noonan
against it. In his appeal to Judge Lip
pincott, Mr.. Noonan recited the facts of
the case up to date, the attack made by
the journal" on the defendants, their
subsequent indictment by the Grand Jury
and the selection of the Grand Jury. He
called attention to the fact that after the
Indictment the Journal published an ar
tic1e declaring that the Grand Jury, after
hearing the testimony submitted by the
Journal had found the defendants
guilty. This publication was purposely
intended to injure the defendants by
creating the impression that both sides
had been heard, when the fact is the in
aictment had been found on ex-parte tes-
tfmony and the defendants had not been
heard at all.
on December II the Journal printed
IN editorial declaring that the Journal