The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-01-11
The Press and the Bench.


decision of interest bearing upon
the relative rights of the courts and
the press has been given by the Cali
f0rnia supreme court in q case OF more
than local interest. The facts under
lying this decision were these: In it's
issue of May 2S 1895, the Sacramento
Bee in it's court news printed an alb
stract of certain testimony offered the
day before in the trial of a case be-
fore Judge Catlin Of the Sacramento
bench. This publication on May %
vas denounced by Judge Catlin from
the bench as "a gross fabrication" ="
On the same day the editor of the Bee
wrote an editorial defending the truth
fulnesS Of the report at issue and
charging Judge Catlin with being pre-
JUDGED and vindictive. On June the
editor was cited for contempt of court
and on June ,, having been denied the
chance to prove the correctness of his
assertions, was fined $500. Thereupon
he appealed to the supreme court.
The matter was reached by the lat
ter tribunal last month and the Bee
of Dec, % prints the full opinion of the
appellate body This vacates the con-
tempt order of the lower court on the
broad ground that the editor had been
denied his constitutional right to be
heard IN his own defense; but one of
the justices goes further and affirms
that the judge who is criticized III print
must seek his redress through The or
dinary channels of action for libel, and
mas no right t. take summary revenge
by use of the contempt Drerosative
which is meant simply to preserve or
der and decOrum in open court. Fol-
lowing are some salient points from
the opinion of the supreme court pre-
pared bN Justice Van Fleet:
The publicatio of the truth as to
legal proceedings is not contempt of
court and the criticism of the action of
the judge, II made only in proper re-
sponse to an unjust charge against petit
toner's veracity, and without intent to
improperly influence the proceedings of
the court, would not be contemptuouS.
4 judge on the bench, no more than any
other can cast aspersions upon the char
acter OF a person not party or partici-
pant in case on trial, without "a right
in the latter to defend himself
with the view that the action (of Judge
Catlim involved no more than mere er-
rpr we cannot coincide. 1t was error,
certainly, but il was more than that. 1t
was a transgression of IA fundamental
right guaranteed to every citizen charged
with an offense, or whose property is
sought to be taken, of being heard be-
fore he is condemned to suffer injury.
Any departure from those recognized and
a hi iGha Of 10 hnx
close the apparent adherence TO mere
form i'm method of procedure, which has
the effect to deprive one of a constilu-
tional right, is as much AN excess of jur-
isdiction as where there exists an incep-
tive lack OF power.
The chief Justice of California. Mr.
Beatty. went even further He said:
A true report of the proceedings OF a
court Is not contempt. A false report
may or may not be "a contempt according
10 the circumstances. If false report
is published under such circumstances as
to constitute "a contempt there is but
one way to deal with the matter judlc-
tally. and that is by regular citation
or attachment and a hearing. II the
court or Judge undertakes to act upon
the matter in any other way his action
Is extra judicial and not in his officia
character. Such II seems to me was very
clearly the case here. The attention oi
the judge being drawn TO this publica-
tion, IL was natural and no doubt com.
mendabe that he, believing II TO be gross
perversion of the facts. should so char.
aoteFize it,, but in 80 doing he was moi
acting as a court or Judge. What he said
was in no sense a part of any judicial
proceeding, and the fact that he was
seated on the bench at the time makes