The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1904-06-07
THE PRESS AND THE BENCH.

The following editorial from The
News Leader of Richmond is the most
sensible and conservative comment we
nave yet seen on the contempt case now
pending before Judge Purnell. We
hope this case will be carried to the
federal supreme court and there the
powers Of judges in such matters and
the privileges of the press be settled
definitely and distinctly. This is an
important matter to the people and to
the press of the country. The News
Leader says:
The case Of Mr.. Daniels, the Raleigh,
N. c.. editor who was fined $4,000 yes
terday by Judge Purnell, of the United
States court, for contempt of court, may
have important results. If it goes be-
fore the supreme court it may bring us
clear definitions of the extent to which
a newspaper or a citizen may go In
criticising the and actions of
a court. This is a source frequently of
doubt and perplexity to newspaper men
who wish to do their duty to the public
but remember that one of the highest
public duties is to maintain public re-
spect for the judiciary n to defend
and uphold the dignity Of the bench.
It cannot be contended that a judge
is above criticism. He is a man and
subject to the mistakes n weaknesses
Of humanity and a public officer whose
conduct and actions are legitimate SUBJ
jects for public discussion. Usually it is
possible to express the opinions of a
newspaper or Of the public concerning
the official acts of a judge without
stepping beyond the line of the respect
due to the judicial Office, but occasion
ally circumstances arise in which the
line between the two duties and be-
tween courage and decorum Is very
faint and intricate.
In Virginia it has been held that a
newspaper which by implication accus-
ed a judge of being c~orruptly under the
control of liquor dealers was not guilty
of contempt of court. In our view, this
newspaper was guilty and should have
been punished. Unless there is album
dant proof Of the guilt of a judge, no.
body should ever insinuate it; and If
there is abundant proof, proceedings
should be taken against him in the reg
ular and orderly way provided by the
constitution. UnQueStionably the office
has and should lave a certain sanctity
and elevation exempting 1t from the
treatment and methods to which other
Offices properly are subject. In this
North Carolina case there is reason to
suspect that the attacks on Judge Pur-
nell were melted by violent partisan
ship rather thai by sense of duty to
the public. His action was subject to
appeal and to review by the higher
courts and should have been left for
them to deal with; but that is a mat
ter which probably will be developed by
the evidence in the proceedings taken
on appeal, if, indeed an appeal is allow
ed. AS a rule, judges are very cautious
in interfering with contempt proceed
ings in the courts % other judges. We
sincerely hope, however, that the Unit
ed States supreme our will use this
opportunity and define clearly and un-
mistakably the limits of the liberty of
the press in dealing with the judiciary.
Such a decision is needed. 1t would
be equally disastrous to muzzle the
press and make it timid in performing
its duty as etwee the public and
judges on the bench or to allow the
press license to assail the Judiciary in
solently and wantonly n to degrade
it in the public estimation.