The Farmington times and herald. (Farmington, St. Francois Co., Mo.) 1902-1905, 1904-03-04
THE SUPREME COURT AND THE PRESS
From The Cole County Democrat.

! W llllalHS, mas JUST pnDllSueu, Ill
the Columbia Herald and the State
Tribune, an essay upon the Su-
preme Court. The purpose of Mr..
Williams seems to be to defend
and justify the right of a private
citizen to critcise the judgments
of courts.
II is, upon the whole, Il good ar
ticle-such rs Mr.. Williams usually
writcs-but the sad, singular and
striking feature of the whole mat.
ter, and to our mind the mos! i'm.
pressivc phase Of the subject, is
that man of Walter Williams
mind and character should have
found it necessary, in this era of
civilization, freedom and rnlight.
eminent, here in the Guited States
aud in the State of Missouri, to
, launch into Il defense of the right
of n private citizen to crltlclsc the
Judiciary of the State
That right should he taken for
granted 1t should be conceded as
Il matter of course. But it is not.
\ few years ago the case was diff
ierent. Men in this State then as
sailed the National Supreme Court
for what they denounced uS m un-
just Judgment. They did so in
language which, if used in this
State to day with respect to our
own Supreme Court would place
them behind the bars of Missouri
Iails II they ever attempt the
! like again the Federal Court may
silence the debate at II single blow,
aud usr for lis prcrrdent--H judg.
mrnl Of the Supreme Court of Mis-.
sour,
We do not need to impugn the
motives nor question the mental
puwrr Of those who rendered that
/ judgment. Hume aud IiibhOn
were atheists and mOnarchistS. 1t
does not follow that, for that rca.
son, they were dishonest or were
mental wcakllngS. Marcus Aurel-
lus was pure man, IL noble char.
actcr, n great statesman and a
great philosopher. But We should
not for that reason assent to his
attempt at justifyiug the persrcu
tlon of the Christians.
However great and however good
the members OF our Supreme Court
may he, " are liable to mistakes,
both aS to law and to facts, or as
10 any other matter whatsoever
1t is altogether possible that these
men may render an unjust and n
dcSpotir judgment. The thing has
often happened before, and will |
happen again But whenever it
does happen it is the duty of all
patriotic men to protest against It.
We know, 10 be sure, that the
newspapers of this State, to great
extent, are afraid to speak upon
this subject There is now no law
on our books defining contempt or
fixing its punishment There was
but the Supreme Court nnlliiicd it
aud now the Court is the only pow
er on earth which can say what is
contempt or what shall he the pun
ishment The offence as defined
in the last decision is the law only
until the Court sees fit to change
it. The Court is absolute. 1t
may broaden or limit the scope of
the offence to morrow. 1t may
likewise alter the punishment. II
recognizes no power under God
but its own will alone.
So long as the law is in this con.
dition freedom of the press cannot
be said to exist in Missouri, for it
exists only at the pleasure of the
| Court.
Shall we not complaln--yea,
shall We not criticise' While this
knife is constantly at his throat no
newspaper man in Missouri ought
to be silent. We are but lay
men, we know; we brethren OF
the press; but we have certain
rights which should not be yielded
WITHOUT Il SlfURRit.
The press should be courteous to
the Court-but firm. In this con-
nection it occurs to us that the Sc
verist and strongest criticism which
has been uttered against the Mis-.
souri, Supreme Court, is by the
greatest law journal in the world
the American Law Review, vol. 81,
pp. 77l-775. That great jurnal,
guided by the mighty intellect of
Judge Seymour ID. Thompson of
New York City, declares that the
Missouri Supreme Courts judg.
ment in the contempt case, is 'ab-
solutely illegal" "