The county record. [volume] (Kingstree, S.C.) 1885-1975, 1904-06-09
up FOR CONTEMPT
Editor Daniels Sentenced to Pay Fine
of Two Thousand Dollars
SAYS HE WILL Be ! IMPRISONED
Judge PurnelI Uses Plain Language In
Imposing Standardization Of De.
fendant's Counsel to Appeal is in
Vain and Bond is Refused.

Raleigh, N. c., Special.-The ques-
ton has prevailed here since Monday
when Judge Purnell ordered that pro-
cess be served on Josephus Daniels,
editor Of the News and Observer, for
contempt Of court, alleging that such
ground for contempt order was con-
tanned in editorial utterances in Sun
days issue of the paper. The trial was
set for hearing on Tuesday, when the
editor was fined $4,000. An effort will
be made to have the case up before the
Supreme Court of the United States.
Editor Daniels declares he will not
pay the fine.
Promptly at noon the case was taken
up in regular shape, and the answer
Of the respondent to the rule of the
Judge to show cause why he should not
he punished for contempt was read by
Attorney Winston. 1t was quite long
and well-drafted, and says in brief that
the judge has no jurisdiction to make
or issue such rule; that what was
done by the editor was not in any way
contempt Of court; that Daniels was
editor, but not proprietor Of the paper,
which was owned by the publishing
company; that the publication was not
intended in any way to impair the au-
tbority Of the court; that, as editor, he
considers it his duty to criticise mat
tiers Of public nature; that ne wrote
the article in Sundays paper to express
his disapprobation Of Judge PurnelPS
original appointment Of McBee as re-
ceiver at time when the judge was
outside Of the State; also his second
order after arrival here, again appoint
ing McBee receiver, and likewise of any
appointment as receiver Of this road
denies any intention of any contempt
or impairment Of respect for the court:
denies that the act is done in the pres
ence of the court or intended to destroy
the usefulness of the latter; denies that
there was any obstruction Of the court,
or intention to obstruct; that the ar
ticle published was not published du-
ring the sitting of the court, but after 1t
had ended, and that the comments re-
lated to matter already passed on by
the court; that under article l of the
constitution the freedom of the press
cannot be abridged; that this rule de-
prives Daniels Of his liberty; that this
court has not jurisdiction, because Sec
ton 705 OF the Revised Statutes OF the
United States regulates with great care
the power to punish for contempt;
therefore Daniels prays that the rule
be discharged and that he go without
bail.
Winston began his argument. in
which he cited many legal authorities,
and went on to say that the answer
made was not without precedent, as 1t
was substantially the same as that filed
by B. F. Moore and others, in a very
notable case quoted in the sixty-third
North Carolina Supreme Court Reports.
That the North Carolina Supreme
Court, upon hearing the answer to the
rule for contempt served upon Moore
and others, discharged the rule. Wiz
ston said he trusted that Judge Purnell
would take the same course. He re-
ferred to the act Of Congress Of March
2. 1881, saying that prior to that
Judge could punish a newspaper Tor
contempt Of court, but that a case
which had come up not long before had
led to the enactment of this very law,
the purpose of which was to abridge
the power Of a Judge in this particular,
which had been very grossly abused.
Judge Purnell, in imposing sentence
upon Editor Daniels, said: Under
section 1725 OF the Revised Statutes, a
Federal judge has jurisdiction to pun
ish for contempt would not attempt
to muzzle a free press. We believe in |
q free press, that it is the guardian OF
liberty, but it must be conducted In |
a respectful manner. A free press
does not mean licensed press. the /
history Of this case Is known by all
people of North Carolina. The answer |
of respondent is not sufficient and he
does not purge himself. For thirty |
days this court has permitted a free
discussion or the Atlantlc & Norln
Carolina Railway matter and the court
hopes the discussion will continue. the
court does not desire nor intend 10
p;uzzle the press nor prohibit free dis
cussion Of the acts OF the cour.
cont mean that the court shall pass
upon the right of it. In the respond,
ent's paper today it says six hundred
Sampson county men are ready to pro-
tect the respondent. The articles IN
Sundays News and Observer are an
attempt on the part of the editor To
obstruct the progress Of the court and
hiring It into contempt and cause re-
tellion. The court personally has no
towards the respondent. but
personal feeling Is subordinated to
sense of justice, The assertion that
the matter did not occur in the pres
ence of the court is too little TO De
The court being in session
when the attack was made, that 6elns
the ending and beginning OF the spe-
cial and regular terms, 1T is held SO
near as to obstruct the administrator
o! Justice. 1t is drawing very me
sight when a newspaper in two nun
dred wards of court making an at
tack, is not so near as to oostruct IL:
This is simply absurd. Inc
defendant is adjudged guilty OF con-
tempt. is fined $4,000 and will be con-
fined by a marshal until he pays the
lpa"