The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1904-07-01
OPINION DEALS WITH
FREEDOM OF PRESS

'fRut mere Hbels on the Judge, as
man and an officer. printed in a news
paper, are not contempts. Thus news
paper article, published during the sit
ting of court, pending the trial be-
fore that court of the prisoner indicted
for murder, charging the presiding
judge Of being an abettor of the MUIR
derer is not contempt of the court,
but a mere libel upon the functionary.
80
The force of public opinion in this
country in favor of the freedom of
the press, has restrained the free ex-
ercise of the power to punish this class
of contempts, and in many turisdic-
tions statutes have been enacted de-
priving the court of the power to pm
ish them. 1t was taken from the Fed
eral courts by the act of Congress of
1881, which act deprives those courts
Of the common law power to protect
by this process, their suitors, witnesses,
officers, and themselves, against the
libel of the press. though published and
circulated pending the trial of cause
therein -
Under the judiciary act of Sept. "a,
1889, Chap. 20, Sec. IL, courts of the
United States were given power to
punish by fine or Imprisonment at the
discretion of the said court, all con-
CGmDtS or III cause QT
hearing before the same"
The act Of 1889 did not define or limit
the power or authority of the court Of
the United States to infiict summary
punishment in any cause or hearing
before them. 1t was also silent as
to any rules OF procedure for determin-
ing what constituted contempt. AS
to what particular acts constituted con-
tempt, as we'll as the mode of proceed
ure against the offender was to be
determined in accordance with the es-
tablished rules and principles of the
common law with reference to exist
ing conditions. Under this act it was
contended that the authority which the
courts had to punish for contempt at
their discretion had been greatly
abused, and in order that the citizen
might not be subjected to annoyance
on account of the commission of acts
not contemplated by the law, and that
the freedom Of the press, as well as
the liberty Of the individual might be
preserved in the spirit guaranteed by
the constitution; Congress defined
the limit to which the courts could go
in such cases. Section 725 of the Re-
vised Statutes is in the nature of a
limitation of the power of the court
to punish for contempt.
An examination of the record disclcses
the fact that the petitioner is the editor
of a daily newspaper published in the
city of Raleigh, North Carolina, where
the court was held 1t also appears
that on the 29th day of May, receiver
was appointed for the Atlantic and
North Carolina Railroad COMPANY. III
a proceeding pending before the court
for that purpose. That on Sunday af
ter the receiver was appointed, the Pc
titioner published an editorial in his
paper in which the court was severely
criticised for its conduct in appointing
such receiver. 1t is alleged in the rule
against the petitioner that divers other
editorials rejecting on the official in
tegrlty of the court had been published
in said paper.
The record does not show that the
alleged misbehavicr of the petitioner
was in the presence Of the court, or
so near thereto as to obstruct the ad-
ministration of justice; nor is there
anything TO show that the alleged mis-
behavior OF petitioner interferred with
the court or that it tended in the Slight
est degree to disturb the orderly pro-
ceedings of the court.
The inherent power of the court to
punish for contempt is based upon the
theory that il is essential that the
court should possess ample authority
to secure the free and unobstructed
exercise of it's functions in the enforce
ment Of the law. Therefore, it is only
such acts as tend to interfere with the
orderly proceedings of the court. Or
with the due administration OF justice
that can be properly punished as a
contempt of court
Words written or spoken at a p:ace
other than where the court is held and
not so near thereto as to interfere with
the proceedings of the court do no,
render the author liable. Any loud noise
or other disturbance in the presence OF
the court or in the street or other
place SO near thereto as. to interfere
with the orderly proceedings of the
court would undoubtedly tend to OBJ
struct the admins tration of Justice
AID under such circumstances the court
is empowered to Summarily punish fol
contempt.
That newspapers sometimes -, -a.r9
in unwarranted criticism of the courts
cannot be denied. In some instances
they construe the liberty of the press
as a license to authorize them to en-
gage in a wholesale abuse of the court
but these instances are rare and do not
warrant a departure from the well set
tied principles of the law as declared
by Congress and construed by the
courts. If judges charged with the
administration of the law are not te
be criticised on account of their Off
cial conduct, the liberty of the press is
abridged and the rights Of individuals
; imperilled.
While all citizens should entertain
due respect for the courts of the land
it does not follow that editors and pub
/ tic speakers are to refrain from legiti-
mate criticism of the acts of any
tribunal. Such criticism should be in
vited by public officials in order thai
the people may fully understand what
is being done by those who are acting
as their agents in the administration o.
the law.
| Public questions are generally settled
/, In the right way, and the fact tina!
:, such is the case. is due in a large meas
ure to their free ard untrammeleG
discussion by the press of the country
The courts are constituted for the rur-
pose OF protecting the rights and lib,