The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1904-07-06
JUDGE pRlTGHAR0
ON PRESS RIGHTS.
He Expounds Law of Deeissa
Ordering Release Of Editor
Daniels,
When Judge PuraeIl Had Declared in
Contempt Of Court.

AShegille, N. C., June S.-Judge
.Jster G. Pritchard Of the United Sta
tes circnit court at noon today fled
his opinion in the celebrated case. of
Josephus Daniels, before h5n on a
writ Of habeas corpus, charged with
contempt Of court. Mr. Daniels,
who is. editor of the Raleigh News
and Observer. had been fined 80, 200
for contempt OF District Judge Pur-
nell.
Judge Pritchard's opinion will be
recognized as an important legal re-
cord, and is careful and cemprehen
sive review of the law as applied to
newspaper utterances that night be
construed as contempt Of court. The
text Of the decision in part is ANS fol-
lows:
TN re Josephus Daniels for con-
Tempt, Pritchard, circuit Judge.
g In order to determine whether
the petitioner is entitled to the relief
prayed for in the petition upon which
The writ of habeas corpus was issued,
it is necessary to determineStwo ques-
lions:
aF. Did the court which imposed
the sentence in this case have iuris-
dictions
90. Does this coart have jurisdic-
sion to hear and determine this case
ON writ Of habeas corpus?
$50 * The force Of public opinion
in this country in favor of the free
dom Of the press has restrained the
free exercise Of the power to punish
this class Of ccntempbs, and in many
jurisdictions statutes have been enac-
ted depriving the court of the power
TO punish them It was taken from
the federal courts by the act of con-
gress Of 1881, which act deprives those
courts of the COMMON law power to
protect by this process their suitors,
witnesses, oEcerss nd Themselves
against the libel Of the press. though
published and circulated pending the
trail of cause there5a. < y =
That newspapers sometimes en-
gage in unwareanSed criticism of the
courts cannot be denied. In some in
stances they construed the liberty of
the press as a license to authorize
them to engage in wholesale abuse of
The court. bat these instances are
rare and do not warrant a departure
from the well settled principles of the
law as declared by congress and con-
strued by the courts. If judges char
ged with the administration of the
Law are not to be criticised on account
of their Official conduct the liberty Of
The press is abridged and the rights of
individuals imperiled.s
There may be instances where the
publication of editorials OF other mat
ter In newspaper would bring the au-
thor within the limitations of the
statute. For instance, If a 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 inf'nencing them in their decision,
it would present question whether
such conduct would not be misbe-
havior in the presence Of the court,
or so near thereto as to obstruct the
administration of justice. x y
.sIt appears that that the distin-
euished Judge who adudged the petit
TONER to be in contempt Of court ex-
ceeded the authorty granted in the
act of 1881. and that the court was
without jurisdiction. Such being the
case the judgment of the court is
avoid and therefore a nullity.
''In view Of the foregoing the court
finds that the petitioner is unlawfully
restrained Of his liberty and it is
therefore considered and ordered by
the court that the said Josephus
Daniels be discharged from the Gus.
tedy of the marshal Of the United
States and that be go hence without
delay