Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1901-11-28

Y0pt Judge COuiu Uo""'"y P>'" "
honest and vigilant newspaper man for
e ;poeing his corruption, and the judicial
b .nch might become putiid, while newt.
y ,pers were silent under fears Of judicial
vengence, Though it is important that
courts should he treatsd with respect, it
/, more important that the avenues OF in.
{ rmation about courts be kept open, go
that the people may know whether the
Judges deserve the respect which faith
full administration OF their sacred office
ought to command.
Whether Judge Hanecy's decision Is
supported by judicial authority, makes
no difference to the vital question, which
is the American doctrine Of free press.
If courts are trying to acquire autocratic
power over the press, it would be st. ange
If judicial p,ecedents we're lacking. But
courts must not be allowed to make their
own law for exercising arbitrary authori
ty in degrogation OF constitutional rights.
While it is true, as Judge Hepscy says in
his opinion, that unwarranted attacks
upon the judiciary cannot safely be al
lowed to 60 unpublished, it is also true,
as Gov. Altgeld said in his argument for
the American employees that
"whenever you have institutions under
which the press is muzzed, under which
the writer has the Jail before him con
stantly, where the iron hand OF the law
is constantly at his throat. republican in.
stitutions are impossible, they cannot
exist. Free government cannot exist
under these circumstances. We must
have free press, all unmuzz'ed press,
holding them responsible Tor what they
do, and whenever we wish to bring them
to justice they must bc tried by due pro-
cess of law. They must be tried by the
machinery which the law has created for
trying offenders. They cannot be tried
by the very men whom they are accused
Of having maigned."
Gov. Altgeld forcibly and truly added: :
"If We are to choose between a licen.
tious press, II you will, using it's power
recklessly and viciously, and a muzzled
press, subject to censorship and with
writer's subject to the orders OF govern
mental agents, there il not u man who
understands the theory Of American in.
stitutions but who would unhesitatingly
choose the foimer. The one can be pun
isl,ed if it invades private rights. the
other would mean the destructi. II Of free
institutions; the difference between tie
two ia that Of America and Russia, Of free
and despotic institutions
1t does not follow that judges should be
OPEN to malicious or reckless newspaper
assaults. What does follow is that such
crimes must he inquired into like other
crimes, by the regular processes Of the
criminal law. While case is on trial, it
is the duty Of newspapers, beyond pub
fishing an unvsrnisted story Of the pro-
ceedings and commenting argumentative.
~ and fairly upon such questions Of
public policy as may be involved, to be
silent. That duty is seldom adhered to,
and judges are almost crmnally negligent
in not noticing the breach. Men upon
trial for their lives have been bounded by
newspapers. before the Trial and at the
trial, the writers making their notes in
the actual presence Of the court. This is
common thing. But what judge has
ever noticed it? Constructive contempt
cases against newspapers are almost If
not quite invariably based upon libels
upon the Judge who institutes them.
They are seldom or never based upon re-
ports and comments which, while not
personally prejudicial to the judge are
prejudicial to ltigants or prisoners on
trial. This was 80 in the case under COZ 2
sideration. 1t was evidently less the
administration Of justice than himself,
that Judge Hanecy was sensitive about.
| No Judge should exercise the power Of
punishment for contemrt in cases which
concern only his own probity, even if he
has the power. No judge worthy the
title will do SO. Ii newspapers are to be
prosecuted at all for constructive con.
tempt, it should be for articles which
concern the rights OF the parties to the
lawsuit commented upon rather than the
self-esteen of the judge who presldes.
He should be quicker to punish as con-
temptuous, newspaper stories and com.
ments published pending trial and
designed to sway public opinion and
through that the verdict Of the Jury, than
to act in his own case. But II the hest
interests Of good government judges
should not have the power % institute
summary proceedings for contempt for
acts committed outside the court, such as
newspaper comment. What they should
do is to bring the offense to tie attention
Of the grand jury. by pushing that
course they could maintain thu dignity Of
the court and protect the administration
Of justice, while properly pu'ishing the
offender. without themselves acting as
complainant, prosecutor, judge and jury,
all in one.
Though prosecutions tor conempt con-
structively in the presence the court
are not usually associated with govern
ment by Injunction" they bel'ng in that
category. The Objectionable thing about
government by injunction" j that it is
a method OF giving autocrati. power to