The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-11-09
THAT CONTEMPT CASE.

THAT CONTEMPT CASE.
In its hot chase after certain kind of
advertising for itself, the Houston Chronicle
Is not content with the simple laudation
which some newspapers are giving it for
publishing the testimony in the Williams
murder case in contempt OF the order of
Judge Gillaspie, but in its zeal along that
peculiar line must go out of its way to re
fleet upon other newspapers which do not
crave or value such notorlety. 1t says:
In reproducing the comments of exchanges
upon the recent attempt of Judge Gillaspie to
prevent the publication OF the proceedings of
murder trial IN the criminal district court in this
city the Chronicle wishes it understood that it
does not do so with any idea OF self-laudation.
What the Chronicle did only what any other
paper that believes in unfolding the rights of
the press would have done. To have acceded to
the demands OF the judge in this instance would
have been an acknowledgement of his authority
and his right TO make such order, It would
have been Cowardly and would have been a sacri-
/ nee Of principles.
Which is to say that papers that did obey
the courts order were cowardly and sacri-
feed principles.
Now, what is the essence of cowardce?
Unwillingness TO do the right thing in the
right way And how did the Chronicle do
the brave" thing it boasts? It published
the testimony under the subterfuge OF hear
say from bystanders. The courts order did
not exclude the Chronicles reporter. On
the contrary Judge Gillaspie distinctly an.
nounoed to the reporters that they could
take the testimony in full, upon condition
that 1t be not printed until a verdict was
! rendered. The Chronicles reporter-either
in propria persona or incognito--took the
testimony he had a perfect right to do
but the Chronicle in publishing it set up
the fiction that the report was obtained from
| bystanders. In other words, it made the
silly attempt to shield it's reporter and itself
behind a downright Misrepresentation. 1t
did not have the discernment to see that
contempt consisted in printing the forbidden
news, not in the manner of obtaining It, and
sought to exploit cheap sort OF smartness
Nothing Is so admirable as courage Even
bravery without discretion excites applause.
But mock heroics have provoked ridicule
ever since the ass decked himself in the
lions skin.
The Chronicle betrays its purpose by pub.
fishing a lot of unthinking press comment,
and greedily snaps up from sorehead on
I
Election upon The Post. 1t is not worth
answering. except to remark upop the ab.
surdity of the statement that The Post was
/ afraid" What was there to he afraid of
/ The paltry fine of 500 assessed against the
! Chronicle and a few DAYS in iail? II Tbe
Post were so small.minded as the Chronicle
/ has shown itself to be, It would have en-
/ braced the opportunity to advertise itself.
/ But The Post does not advertise that wav
Now what is the principle" that has been
sacrificed? The Posts position was thus
announced several days ago:
! While The Post doubted the so,,rdns.s in
/ either law or public policy Of the judges posi-
mote in every way possi6ie III en}orccr,c,i %
law that i waived is own opinion in respect
pv i've co gI 1G i9c ord He Gase and cheer
! The soundest code Of ethics snnroyos
brave the act Of waving personaI rich,