Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1904-06-30
NOT eUILrY OF CONTEMPT.

Judge j. u. Hfltcnaru, Ol Inc Ouit0u
States Circuit Court at Asheville, n. o.,
yesterday filed his opinion in the case OF
Mr.. Joseph Daniels, editor of the
Raleigh News and Observer, who had
been fined 81, 900 for contempt of court
by District Judge Purnell. The case
came up on writ of habeas corpus
sued out by Mr.. Daniels, who refused to
pay the fine and was ordered committed.
The action of the lower court is re-
yersed.
Judge Pritchard's opinion is care
full and comprehensive review of the
law as applied to newspaper utterances
that might be construed as contempt OF
court. The opinion says that, in order
to determine whether the petitioner is
entitled to the relief prayed for in his
writ, it is necessary 10 determine two
questions O) Did the court which inn
posed the sentence in this case have
jurisdiction? (2) Does this court have
jurisdiction to bear and determine this
case on a writ of habeas corpus?
"The force of public opinion 10 this
country in favor of the freedom of the
press has restrained the free exercise Of
the power to punish this class of con-
tempt, and in many jurisdictions statutes
have been enacted depriving the court of
the power to punish them. 1t was taken
from the federal courts by the act of
Congress of 1881, which act deprives
these courts of the common-iaw power to
protect by this process their suitors, wit
ness, officers and themselves against the
libel of the press, though published and
circulated during the trial of a case
therein. n
'That newspapers sometimes engage
in unwarranted criticism of the courts
cannot be denied. In some instances
they construe the liberty of the press as
license to authorize them to engage in
wholesale abuse of 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
construed by the courts. Ifjudges charg-
ed with the administration of the law
are not 10 be criticised on account of
their own conduct the liberty of the press
is abridged and the rights of individuals
imperiled.
..pL D. is..ss...oSee -~ftc9o tfic
publication of editorials or other matter
in newspapers would bring the author
within the limitations Of the statute.
For instance, if newspaper should
publish an article concerning trial
which was being considered by a jury
and should send copy of the paper
containing such article to the jury or
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 misbehavicr in the presence Of
the court or 50 near thereto as to obstruct
the administration of justice. n X
at appears that the distinguished
Judge who adjudged the petitioner TO be
in contempt of court exceeded the au-
thority granted in the act of 1881, and
that the court was without jurisdiction.
Such being the case, the judgment of
the court is void, and therefore nullity.
ain view of the foregoing the court
finds that the petitioner is unlawfully
restrained of his liberty, and it is there
fore considered and ordered by the court
that the said Josephus Daniels be dis
charged from the custody of the mar
shal of the United States and that he 60
hence without day."