The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1903-01-29

court But the constitution Itself, in our
| bill of rights, guarantees free speech aud
/ the liberty Of the press. NJ course, " was
never Intended under the guse n these
constitutional guarantees that the power OF
| the court should be intrenched upon. IN.
| deed, under our system NJ government Il
was wisely intended that the authority cf
the court should be safeguarded and pre-.
| served, IN order that All constitutional guar
nntees might he upheld for the safety aud
protection NJ the liberty Of the citizens
We have examined number ~ tc1t
books, and In some we find II stated, ia
general terms that tho court may prohibit
the publication ~ Testimony in certain
cases. bur that the publication must have
. tendency to emharrass. impede or OBJ
struct the administration Of Justice. and
the case must be pending at the time Of q be
Publication. Rnpaije ON Coutenpts, section
81 American and English EnCy clopedia OF
b.aw' second edition vol Z. y 20. sub Z,
support Of this proposition rcnny's case
l2S New Hgmp.. 1877, Sturocs case rs
Now lamp. 42s, ~ Amer Dec 63m.
United states vs. Holmes y Wallace. Jr.
~. State VS. Galloway 10 Cold, Tenn. 1928.
bunhHln vs., State 81 clark Iowa. 241i.
shortridee case 80 Cal '2b. 81 81. Rep
7Si Stete VS. Morrell nc Arh., 3s4i. Res
vs Clement "a Barn and AID. 2lsi We
have NOT had access to the common Inv
case last referred TO- but q would have
little. " any bearing upon tho question. rs
II is an old English case 'Tennys case
is not accessible 10 ne However. We have
examined tho ether New Hampshire ease,
reported IN ~ Amer pec isnprsl, as well
az tho other cases uamed and not one 81
mem support the proposition thaf The
QUITS IN thls country nave inc power 20
,..11L.nln ~ ,l'uNll,I'lH. Ut ItN' iugu9 ~
voloped IN the trial Of 2 case. Sturoc
case supra vas publication. not ~ eyi
uenoe' On. lHhenase tn9s,Ne ana u'lsWh.
,b,[,t IL our aHu lne pl"eSS+Ii'n w
,rot, =. 1870 w. ''.s,l w. ,u. ia
.tI..vh ~ JNHl,N, HuN WIS plcP-tH uNiu
matter for contempt The Arkansas cnse
o., G gSalnI,rvlaI 'ral u'E ~ w. ~ 49,
go. r,.It. , e. ~ -lIn
ma nart az conrts ~ cortr6I M rubiicstiop
- ,ht .l,tN Eul 4 ~, w, ..a ~
q, -r - ~ -, o,t..t
NJ, 70 ~ ~ ,it.t,H' w., 49, n,,,it,
tion hpt br ,t,n cyc,,Iei,n S,cn, u,e ltcDrt ~
NATE M % th -, t ti r,,,,,so ~
ieportirr Tho gestip,nn,- nj, uroceodtngs ~
~ ro,St w Fuau, ptt4,YDi,--,o'esH' l,g,
,srnr., h,,, c,.or NE Us va rorogs"r,.
~ tbat dorisior tnr,,ec tt, co,,rt baia
mar The mater ,nr,niatned ~ ,,,e rct
rortotY,pt uu5or the stgt.trs ~ +hs et,.e
BnwevSt In maj caso I'm connection win
the alleged testimony the article vas de-
1uuristarv ma ahogira ~ mo 9orrt Sor
was tho question pronerly before The court
In Dunbnn'a case SVhat was said Inv tho
court I'm that rsea vas mareIr Jictn II
was held I'm thar case mat the publication
NJ the prccoedipca was NOT csutoupt Of
court
Nyo also End In SbortrIdge's case supra
(which was a divorce casei, some general
expressions TO the effect that tho courts
possess tho power 10 prohibit the publica-
lion of Testimony pepdlnc tho frInt' where
.sucn publication would tand 10 or Instruct
the administration of ustlce But the
court hold I'm that caso that tho publica-
ton of divorce proceedings. notVitbstnnd
nag a stntutc OF california authorizing sucb
procccdiups Ia be pri-nte dld NOT si,bipct
The party 10 coprcmpt though he made tho
publiggtion iu vtoIatiop Of tbo order ~ tho
court that tho pubiirotion itsoif was moi
calculated TO mpode or obytrucf Justice
Tho general trend Of thar decision We
taxi II favors Tho nr,pneIti,n tbat ,rbera
tho proceedings arc not Of nm obscene
character ,spG We arc not discussing tbnt
power 10 prohlnl' tbe puhhcatlon OF teFii-
NM go ,bot az 49,, ,.~ 10 food