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

LIE k1DILINII VI I1E ft1ESS
The Statesville Landmark OF last
Friday, published before the release by
Judge Pritchard of Mr.: ~Josephus Dan
iels from custody under the contempt
rule. contains a long editorial on this
matter. Following are its closing par
lagraphs:
Following it's usual custom of GO
ing to extremes, The News and Obser-
yer had criticised Judge Purnell severe
lly and had made covert insinuations
against his integrity. Frankly, we do
mot blame his honor for being indig-
He had some cause for that.
But II he thought he was being Unjust
lly criticised, was being maligned, he
had the same remedy hat plain, every
lday citizens have-in a stick, a cowhide,
a pistol or a libel suit. That's the only
1remedy other people have when they
Iare assailed, n we do not believe in
giving judges a special divinity to
hedge them about when the criticism
lapplies to their personal or judicial
Iconduct.
"Of course there are editors who
Iabuse their privileges. The case in
Question may be one. But this does
mot justify giving judges authority
NOANOAS " oIlu
the circumstances named, for once
that principle is established no editor
VIII be safe. Because a man is on the
lhench does not mean that he is a fit
land proper man for his job; nor is
every man who edits a fit
to discharge n duties and responsible
titles imposed. But we insist that if an
Ieditor abuses his power the people will
soon recognize the fact and discredit
him. while the party who suffers from
Isuch abuse has his remedy in some one
Iof h things named, ..--
aside from the question of right,
which we do not believe he had, Judge
pPurnell was foolish as a matter of
tpolicy to attach The News and Cbser-
yer editor for contempt. In the first
place his honor was haSty, showed per-
lsonal feeling and was disposed to be sc
lperemptorily as to raise the question
whether he was entirely just. In the
Isecond place, the proceeding was just
Ito the. editors hand. Playing to the
Igrand. stand is his strong point n he
wouldn't take $40, 900 in cas- today for
the, free advertising he has had in this
opportunity to play h martyr. And
whether he goes to Jail or not-he
would prefer to go there to complete
the martyrdom-he will come out OF
the affair ahead and Judge Purnell will
Ion1y have succeeded in arraying more
people against him and in intensifying
the feeling against and the lack of con-
Ifdence in the federal courts, which al
tready exists. Unfortunately the on
duct and character of some men on the
federal court bench in the south mas
lin a Measure justified this prejudice
land lack of confidence.
I'VE repeat that we are perfectly
laware that all editors have their Short
icomings; all of us are unjust at times
without Knowing it. and unfair n
take advantage of their privileges to
destroy mems characters and the re-
ispect and confidence they enjoy. Such
iediters ought to be punished in some
tway. But what we are striving to
make clear in this case is that if it IS
Ionce recognized that any editor who
tcriticiSes a judge or "a judicial decision
may be hailed to court n peremptor-
lily punished, then none of us Will be
Isafe, the liberty of the press would be
lgone and the peoples rights and liber-
tiles would go with it. 1t is a power too
to be given any man to deal per-
with such cases, especially
when the judge is the party offended.
IThe remedy is worse than the disease"
The Messenger said before Judge
|Pritchard had passed upon this ques-
ton that it would not say that Mr..
Daniels had coInnatteds contempt OF
court; that this was a question for
tine courts on their construction of the
statutes of the federal government. The
decision of Judge Prtiohard settles the
Question. No criticism by a newspaper
tof the action of a judge of the federal
courts is contempt OF that judge.
This decision should not relieve edi-
tors from the obligation which always
Irests upon them to treat with respect
tine judges of our courts and to be
lgentlemanly and dignified in their crit
of the official acts of such men.
Editors should recognize and observe
1.-THE difference between legitimate criti-
|eism of a mans official acts and per-
|sonal abuse and ~viliicatton. Because
lit has been decided that a newspaper
no matter how severe or par