The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-02-04

in the courts of the mother country.
 When the colonists came to our shores
 they brought with them the heritage or
 the magma charta, the writ of habeas corpus and the right of trial by jury.
 They also brought with them the prin- ciple of administering justice by courts armed with ample power summarily 10 suppress all manner of evils which threat ened their independence, or asaaiied the freedom and impartiaity of their officers in the administration of justice. These
 attributes followed the courts set up here,
 and inhered in their very constitution.
 At the common law 1t was contempt
 to publish criticisms of the acts or the
 the court, and still more so. to assail
 their officers by physical force, because Of
 the past performance of official duties.
 When, upon the separation from the
 mother country, the colonists set up
 freer institutions, based on the inalien-
 able right of the people to govern them
 selves, and the conviction that the peo-
 pie could be safely trusted with all their
 own powers-when it was declared that
 treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them,
 or in adhering to their enemies and in giving them aid and comfort, and when Congress was prohi oited from making any law abridsing the freedom of speech or the liberty of the press. or the rfght or the people to peaceably assemble and pe- tition for the redress of grievances,-it followed inevitably. though not readily acknowledged at first, that Government could not suppress or regulate these rights to the extent practiced in less en- frightened ages in the mother country, ana In the earlier periods of the Government here, and that all power of Government. k-l L.yk kho lnOi Ia cial or executive department, 10 suppress criticism or even libels upon the Gov ernment, or denunciation of the acts or
 policies of the Government was hostile to the spirit of our free institutions. Pro- found distrust of the ability of the peo- pie to govern themselves, alone. made it
 possible to enact the alien and sedition
 laws. which expired by their own limit
 ations. and were ever afterwards con-
 demned by the aggressive power or q
 dominant public opinion, which proclaim
 ed, as a maxim of Government. that
 greater danger to liberty and free insti-
 ations iurked in any power to curb the
 right of free speech and liberty of the
 press. than from any abuses which might
 result from leaving them untrammeiled
 This public opinion which has been ac-
 qulesced in by all departments of the
 Government, ami gone unchallenged, for
 a century past. has pronounced con-
 struction of the constitution, In this re-
 spect, which has silently incorporated It.
 self into that instrument The purpose
 of the constitutional com nand as to "a
 speedy and public trial by an impartial
 jury" would fail of fruition unless what Is done in the courts is made known to the people and when improperly done Is held up for their condemnation. The power of a court to punish, as for con- tempt, criticism cf its acts. or even hbeis upon it's officers, when not going to the extent of influencing by improper publi-
 cations to pending trial and attempting to usurp direction and control of the is- sue, would not only be dangerous to the rights of the people. but its exercise would
 drag down the dignity and moral infiu- ence of these tribunals. Such criticism Is the right of the citizen. and essential not | only to the proper administration of jus 1 tice, but to the public tranquility and contentment Withdrawing power from | the courts to summarily interfere with such exercise of the right of the press and freedom of speech, deprives them Of no useful power.
 Liberty of the press and freedom of speech are not more favored than the | right of the citizen to an impartial triai l in the courts of the land. These are cor l relative rights, and the freedom of the press cannot be perverted to frustrate | the right to a fair and impartial trial. According to the prevailing and better opinion in the State Courts, exercise of the liberty of the press when 1t goes | to the unlawful extent of injecting it's | Influence into the trial of particular case, so as to affect the issue, may still | be punished as a contempt, notwithstand-
 ing provisions found in the several State 1 Constitutions which are the equivalent, | in this respect, of the commands of the | Constitution of the United States regard ing the liberty of the press and freedom | of speech.
 The independence of the judiciary is a 1 cherished principle in our plan of Gov
 ernment Courts in this country strike down legislation and restrain executive
 acts, affecting the life liberty, or prop erty, of the citizen. to an extent unknown l in monarchica, countries. There Is more
 reason for uphoiding the independence of 1 the courts in republic like ours, than | in monarchicai countries where courts have less authority and play an number | part In protecting the citizen against the | ageressions of Government There Is not, | therefore, and cannot be, dny incompat- ibility between our institutions and the | possession by the courts of the fullest | mower to vindicate their authority and preserve their independence. against physical assaults directed against their | officers because of past discharge oi their duties. Liberty Jf the press and
 free dom of speech regarding Governmen,
 do not include the right to resort to vio- Ience against It's officers.
 | Whether or not Section 125 of the Re- y.sed Statutes of the United States de-
 prives Federal Courts of the power tc
 punish, as for contempt, improper pub'
 lications made to influence the trial of a
 pending case and cosrce or control tht | judgment of :hose entrusted with tho
 duty, is not at all involved In the ques
 ton before the court 1t is to be borne
 in mind that this section of the Revised
 Statutes was induced by the acquitta
 of District Judge Peck who was inn
 peached for imprisoning an attorney fol A criticism of one of his decisions aftel the case had ended n his court. The ac
 uuttal was largely due 10 the considera ton that the common law authorized { Judge to treat such criticisms as con ] tempt of court, and that there was no sufficient evidence. In other respects, tc show that the Judge had acted corruptlI l or maliciously. Public opinion which had not forgotten the passions aroused by the
 alien and sedition laws, and the part
 sanship of judges in their enforcement | looked upon the act of Judge Peck as ar
 attempt of the judiciary to revive the
 principles of these obnoxious laws, and | to assert common law powers which were
 inconsistent with our Constitution and in
 stitutions. Congress intended by thlf
 statute to put an end to the power Of