The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1900-04-18

| Judge into contempt, or 10 lower his
authority, is a contempt OF court. This
is one class of contempt. Any act done
or writing published calculated TO OBJ
struct or interfere with the due course
OF justice. or Che lawful process of the
courts, is another class OF contempt OF
court. The former class belongs to the
category which Lord Chancellor Hard
wicke characterizes as scandalzing a
court or a Judge. That description OF
that class of contempt is to be taken,
subject 10 one and an important, quail
ification. Judges and courts are alike
open 10 criticism. If reasonable argu-
ment or expostulation is offered against
any judicial act as contrary TO law or
the public good. No court could or
would treat that as contempt OF court.
The law ought not to be astute in such
cases TO crlticise adversely what under
such circumstances and with such an
object is stated; but II is 10 be remem-
bered that in this matter the liberty OF
the press is no greater and no less than
the liberty of every subject or the
Queen. Now. as l have already men
toned, II is not suggested that this is
not a contempt of court, and rpbody
has suggested that il falls within the
right OF public criticism in the sense
that l have described. / repeat that IL
is personal. scurrilous abuse OF judge
as a Judge. and We have therefore 10
deal with IL as a case OF contempt This
is not a new-fangled Jurisdiction; IL is
a Jurisdiction as old as the common law
itself. OF which il forms part.
ut is a jurisdiction however. to be
exercised with scrupulous care; TO be
exercised only when the case is clear
and beyond reasonable doubt. because
IL II is not case beyond reasonable
doubt. the courts will. and ought TO.
leave the attorney general TO proceed
by criminal information. How. then,
are we TO deal with this matter? That
IL Is serious case no one can DOUBT.
and do not hesitate 10 say, speaking
for myself and my brothers, that TX IL
had not been for the conduct OF How
ard Alexander Gray. since the puoiica-
tion, and especially IL IL had not been
for the affidavit which he has put be-
fore the court for dts consideration, We
should all have thought IL our duty 10
send Howard Alexander Gray TO prison
for not inconsiderable period OF time.
But he has come forward and frankly
acknowledged his own individual and
sole responsibility in the matter And
ne has done more. He has i'm the AIM
davit 10 which have made reference
we hope and we believe, sincerely
expressed his regret for what he has
done. In that affidavit he makes ref
erence to the fact that other publica-
tions-other newspapers--in Birming-
ham have made comments upon the
conduct OF the learned judge in ques-
tion. l have to make this observation
In that regard: SO far as they have
been at all adverted to- they were OBJ
viously comments Of a very different
character; but they are not before us,
and we must assume that they are not
before US because the learned attorney
general, In his discretion. did not think
they were sufficiently serious to call to
the attention OF the court lin order that
its punitive jurisdiction might be exer-
cised with regard to those responsible
for the publication. After referring 10
this matter, Howard Alexander Gray.
In his affidavit, says that ne wrote the
article under strong feeling that suf-
ficient trust had not been placed In the
judgment. good taste and discretion of
the journalists and reporters for the
press. Howard Alexander Gray. the
Judgment OF the court Is that you pay
fine OF G10O, and a further sum Of
.e25 for costs. and that you be detained,
and If necessary lodged. in Holloway
Goal. until these sums be paid"
A clearer description of what Is fair
criticism by newspapers upon the ju-
dicial action, or opinion OF a Judge. and
what is sheer personal scurrility.we have
not en-. But that Is very much need
ed both in England and In the United
States. In England. by the existence
of the case itself. and in this country
by these extraordinary head lines
which we take from the Brooklyn, N.
Y. Times OF the 18th inst:
HERE Is FREEDOM OF
THE PRESS FOR YOU.
English Bench May Slur Newspapers
Ad Libitum Without Re-
turn Slap.
CASE OF THE QUEEN VS.. GRAY.
Editor Fined for Harsh Criticism of
Judge.
The Justice Had Plainly Insulted the
Press by Forbidding Publication
of Indecencies. and Was
DsIir,,laI