The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1904-06-05

The case Of Editor Daniels of The
Raleigh News and Observer. has start
ed anew the question of contempt of
court 1t will be remembered that
Daniels severely criticised the course OF
Federal Judge Purnell of North Caro-
lima, for his action in connection with
certain railroad matters. For this
criticism he was brought before Judge
Purnell and fined $4,000 for contempt
of court. He refused to pay the fine
and brought his case before District
Judge Pritchard, who set aside the
fine, released the editor and dismissed
the case. saying that he found no au-
thority for the action of Judge Purnell.
These are the brief facts, and the
case has attracted wide attention and
has been the cause of much discussion.
especially in Virginia and the Caro-
linas. Just what constitutes contempt
of court, and just how far a newspaper
may go in criticising the acts of q ju-
dicial oficer are the questions of most
interest. In order to see what ground
Judge Purneli had for his apparently
arbitrary proceeding we quote Section
TBS Of the Revised Statutes of the Uni
ted States. under which the Judge
sought to punish the editor:
That the said court shall have power
to impose and administer pun
ishment at the discretion of
the court contempts of their
authority; provided that such power to
punish contempt shall not be construed
to extend to any cases except the mis-
behavior OF any person In their pres
ence. or so near thereto as to obstruct
the administration of justice; the mis-
behavior of any of the offcers of said
court in their Official transactions: and
the disobedience or resistance by any
such oifies s or by any party ,gfors wit
process, order, rule, decree or command
of the said court
This is the law which Judge Purnell
claimed had been violated. but which
the proceedings in consequence. To
the ordinary mind 1t is difficult to see
where any part of this section was vio-
lated by Mr.. Daniels. He is not a
member or Official of the court; there
was no charge that he misbehaved in
presence of the court or near it, or
that he was guilty of any act or omis-
sion which brought him under any of
the provisions of the statute. In fact,
as we see 1t, he had in no way rem
dered himself liable under the law.
It may be that the criticism or Ian
guage of Mr. Daniels was unduly Sc
we're. We have not read all that he
said and cannot judge as to that. II
may be that his language was libel
lous, but for the life of us we cannot
see where the contempt of court was
shown The right of free speech and
the freedom of the press are guaran-
teed by the Constitution, and a citizen
is responsible for the abuse of that
privilege. If a newspaper should pub
| lish matter calculated to defeat the
ends of justice, or to interfere with
the proceedings of the court, or tc
lessen the respect due the Judge and
his court, we can see where the editor
would be liable, but there was nothing
of the kind here, and those who are
best informed hold that Judge Purnelr'
act was not justihable, and that Ed
tor Daniels had not violated his right!
and privileges.
There is wide difference be
tween fair. free criticism and profii
gacy of speech or writing. The coun
try will be in bad way If the news
papers are to be punished for CRITICS
ing public men and officials, and it ii
likewise unfortunate when newspaper
violate the requirements of decenc!
and fairness. Free speech and a FREE
press should be coupled with due anc
proper respect for the law, the courts
and the officers of the law.