The gold leaf. [volume] (Henderson, N.C.) 1881-1911, 1904-06-09
Legitimate CRITICISM vs.. Wifi
CATION,

1ne wilmington messenger says
some things in connection with the
Purnell-Daniels contempt case that
the GOLD LEAF endorses most heart
lily. The decision OF Judge Pritchard
settles the question that no criticism
by a newspaper of the action OF a
Judge OF the Federal courts is con-
tempt of that Judge. And yet this
fact makes it no less incumbent upon
the editor to be fair and just and
dignifed in his criticisms. AS the
Messenger we'll says:
This decision should not relieve
editors from the obligation which al
ways rests upon them to treat with
respect the judges of our courts and
to be gentlemanly and dignified in
their criticisms of the official acts OF
such men. Editors should recognize
and observe the difference between
legitimate criticism of a mans official
acts and personal abuse and vilifica-
ton. Because it has been decided
that a newspaper article, no matter
how severe or personal, regarding
the conduct OF a Judge is not con-
tempt is no reason why editors should
indulge in such style of criticism. We
do think that certain newspapers in
this State have in the past gone too
far in their criticism OF public officers.
They sometimes fail to recognize the
difference between criticism of the
official acts of q man in office and de-
| nunciation and abuse of the man
personally. We hope this case which
has been given such prominence and
| has attracted so much attention to
the question of contempt by editors
will have Il salutary effect and that
it will result in a more dignified and
| conservative treatment by some OF
our editors of public officials. Ii it
| does this Mr.. Daniels experience will
have done greater good in this way
than in the so-called successful cham
pionship of the liberties of the press.
| This is we'll said and the sentiments
therein expressed should find Il gen
erOus response in the heart and ac-
ton of every editor whose sincere
desire is to follow the legitimate path
of duty, uphold the right and accom-
plish the highest good. Our contem-
porary says further:
| Before this decision was made the
press had all the liberty it needed for
protecting the rights of the people
and inveighing against the encroach-
ments of the Judges upon those
rights. The liberty of the press was
in no danger before this decision and
has not been made any greater by it,
for it had all the liberty it was en-
titled to before the decision was
made.
The press had all the liberty it
needed but this fact did not seem to
be established in the minds OF some
persons. Was not the liberty OF the
press endangered by Judge Purnell's
ruling? Suppose Editor Daniels had
paid the $4,000 fine instead of re-
| sisting it as he did, would not the
liberty OF the press have been guaged
only by the ability of an editor to
| pay the fines imposed upon him when
ever he criticised a Federal Judge in a
manner not exactly to his liking?
We insist therefore that while Judge
Pritchard's decision did not make
the liberty of the press any greater
as matter of existing law, it did
make it securer by the finding OF fact
and reversing Judge Purnell's rule
| Again we quote our contemporary
approvingly when it says:
| Neither now nor then should any
editor fear punishment for Legitimate
and proper condemnation OF the acts
of a judge or any other State or Fed
eral official
And again the GOLD LEAF says
that only legitimate and proper con.
demnation and criticism should be
made against any person, whether it
be private individual or public Off
cial-abuse, utilization and a spirit
of intolerance and persecution never