The Bamberg herald. [volume] (Bamberg, S.C.) 1891-1972, 1904-07-07
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
Down by Federal Judge Pritchard
at Raleigh, N. c.

dt ndielSl, ~. -.
At Asheyille, n c., Wednesday
Judge J. C. Pritchard. of the United
States circuit court, filed his opinion
in the celebrated case Of Josephus
Daniels, before him On writ Of ha-
beas corpus, charged with contempt
of court. Mr.. Daniels, who is editor
Of The Raleigh News and Observer,
had been fined $4,000 for contempt by
District Judge Purnell. j:
Judge Pritchard's opinion will be
recognized as an important legal rec
ord, and is careful and comprehen-
sive review Of the law as applied to
newspaper utterances that might
be construed as contempt of court.
The text of the decision in part is as
follows:
I'm order to determine whether the
petitioner is entitled to the relief
prayed for in the petition upon which
the writ of habeas corpus was issued,
It is necessary to determine two ques-
lions: -. -.
81. Did the court which imposed
the sentence in this case have juris-
diction?
"2. Does this court have. jurisdic-
ton to hear and determine this case
on writ of habeas corpus? 81,
l. Public Opinion for Freedom. 3
q "The force Of public opinion in this
country in favor Of the freedom of the
press has restrained the free exer-
else of the power to punish this class
of 'contempts, and in many jurisdic-
tions statutes have been enacted de-
priving the court ofgthe power to pun
ish them.s It was taken from the fed
eral courts by the act of congress OF
1881, which act depriyes those courts
of the common law power to protect
by this process, their suitors, wit
nesses, officers and themselves against
the libel Of the press, though publish
ed and circulated pending the trial OF
a cause therein. 49,
{ THAT newspapers sometimes en-.
gage in unwarranted criticism OF the
courts cannot, be denied. In some IN
stances they construe the liberty OF
the press as a license to authorize
them to engage In. wholesale abuse o.
the court, but these instances are rare
and do not warrant a departure from
the well settled principles OF the law
as declared by congress and CON
strued by the courts. If judges
charged with the administration OF
the law are not to be criticised on
account of their official conduct the
liberty of the press is abridged and
the rights of individuals imperiied.
There may be instances where the
publication of editorials or other mat
ter in newspapers would bring the au,
thor within the limitations of the stat
ute. For instance, if newspaper
should publish an article concerning
q trial which was being considered by
Jury and should send a copy OF the
paper containing such article to the
Jury or a member thereof, during the
progress of the trial, for the purpose
of influencing them in their decision,
it would present question whether
such conduct would not be misbeha'
gior in the presence of the court, or
so near thereto as to obstruct the ad'
ministration of justice.
1T appears that the distinguished
Judge who adjudged the petitioner to
be in contempt of court exceeded the
authority granted in the act OF 1891
and that the court was without jurls'
diction. Such being the case the
Judgment of the court is void and
therefore 1ullity.
I'm view of the foregoing, the court
finds that the petitioner is unlawfnl!y
restrained Of his liberty, and it Is
therefore considered and ordered by
the court that the said Josephus Dan
iels be discharged from the custody
of the marshal Of the United States
and that he go hence without delay.