The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1904-06-30
PRITCHARD'S OPINION
DECISION IN CONTEMPT CASE OF
EDITOR DANIELS.
Judge of the Unitcd states Court Over
rules the Action of District
Judge PurneIl OF North
Carolina.

Asheville. N. c., June 2s.--Judge J. G.
Pritchard of the United States Circuit
Court at noon today filed his opinion IN
the celebrated case of Josephus DAN
fels. before him on n writ Of haoeas
corpus, charged with contempt OF
court Mr.. Daniels. who Is editor OF
The Raleigh News and Observer. has
been fined $4,000 for contempt OF Dis
trict Judge Purnell
Judge Pritchard's opinion will be req
ognized as an important legal record,
and is a careful and comprehensive re-
view Of the law as applied to newspa-
per utterances that might be construed
as contempt OF court. The text of the
decision in part is as follows:
In re Josephus Daniels for contempt,
Pritchard,, Circuit Judge:
In order to determine whether til :
petitioner is entitled to the relief pray
ed for In the petition upon which the
writ Of habeas corpus was issued, 1t IS
necessary to determine two questions:
1. Did the court which imposed the
sentence in this case have judisriction?
Q. Does this court have Jurisdiction
to hear and determine this case on a
write of habeas corpus?
The force OF public opinion in this
country in favor of the freedom of the
press has restrained the free exercise Of
the power to punish the class of con-
tempts 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 those courts of the COM
mon law power to protect by this pro-
cess their suitors. witnesses. officers
| and themselves against the libel of the
press, though published and circulated
pending the trial of a cause therein.
That newspapers sometimes engage
| in unwarranted criticism Of the courts
| cannot be denied. In some instances
| they construe the liberty of the press
as a license to authorize them to en-
gage in wholesale abuse of the court
but these instances are rare and do mt
| warrant a departure from the we'll
settled principles of the law as de-
clared by Congress and construed by
the COURTS. If judges charged with the
administration of the law are not to be
criticized on account of their official
conduct. the liberty of the press is
abridged and the rights of individuals
imperiled.
There may be instances where the
publication of editorials or other mat
ter in newspapers would bring the au-
InOT Wltn1n Lne llnltdtlOn Oh the SLdutc.
For instances, If a newspaper should
publish an article concerning a trial
which was being considered by a jury
and should send a copy of the paper
containing such article to the jury OF
member thereof, during the progress
of the trial for the purpose of influence
ing them in their decision, 1t would
present a question whether such con-
| duct would not be misbehavior in the
| presence of the court, or so near there
| to as to obstruct the administration OF
| justice.
1t app ars that the distinguished
Judge who adjudged the petitioner tc
| be in contempt of court exceeded the
| authority granted in the Act of 1881
and that the court was without turis'
| dictinn Such being the case, tn;
Judgment of the court Is. void and
| therefore. a nullity.
In view of the foregoing. the cour
finds that the petitioner is unlawful'H
restrained of his liberty. and 1t is
therefore, considered and ordered b!
i the court that the said Josephus Dan
| lels be discharged from the custody o
the marshal of the United States ant
that he go henoe without day.