The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-06-01
Editor Daniels is in Gus
-: tody.
Continued from First Page.)

their COmmOn-laW power 10 puiii'ii
criticism of judicial acts and pupiica-
ton which amount no more than lioelS
upon their officers, but it does not ue-
prive them of their power 10 puiileii
Summarily as for a contempt an aa
sault upon a court officer while yet III
office. Elk parte Mcleod, lZo feo'
Rep. 1913.
Now, may it please Your Honor, .ns
rule which Your Honor mas serVeu
upon us states that this language was
hbellous If SO, this exposition of
Section 1875 by Goui & Tucker ana
Your Honor knows the great weight
of authority of this book which hold
in my hhand-if that De true, thlS
Section. as construed by authorities,
saws Your Honor is deprived by Sec.
7e5 to punish under like circum-
stances. Your Honor is not at all
powerjess No man can lay his finger
upon an officer of Your Honor's Court.
no man can lay his hand upon any of
the instruments of government, but
upon the contrary the press is free
and it has the right TO speak its MIND,
and the power to punish in case OF
that kind is not inherent in the
United States Courts, as L shall now
proceed to show Your Honor. l read
from the jurisdiction of the United
States by Judge Curtis. 1t is so clear
that / shall ask Your Honor's permits
Curtis on Jurisdiction of the United
States Courts, PIP. 175 and 176:
Another subject of some import
ance, and which has occasionally eX-
cited good deal of interest, is the
power of the courts of the United
States to punish for contempt OF then
authority. This was originally pro-
vided for by the Judiciary Act, para
graph It: All said courts of the
United States shall have power to
grant new trials. and to punisi
by fine or Imprisonment. at the DIS
erection of said courts, all contempts
,of authority in any cause, or nearing
before the same. A case occurreu III
which the District Judge of the State
of Missouri punished a lawyer for
contempt and he was ,impeached for
his conduct on that occaSion-not sue
cessfully, because the constltutlonallty
majority of the Senate failed to agree
that he had committed an lmpeach-
able offence; but in consequence OF
what then occurred an act was passed
which is found in four Statutes at
Large. 4S7 1t is the act of March z,
1891. entitled, An Act decharatory or
the law concerning contemptS OF
court; and it provides that the power
of the several courts of the united
States to issue attachments and lnflct
summary puniShmentS for cOntemplS
NO-ADS-
tend to any cases except the mlsDe-
havior of any person or persons in the
presence of the said courts, or SO near
thereto as to obstruct the adminlStra-
ton of justice, the misbehav1or OF any
of the officers of said courts IN their
official transactions, and the d1SoDe-
dience or resistance by any ofhcer OF
the said courts, party, juror, witness,
or any other person or persons, to any
lawful writ, process, order, rule, de-
cress orvavT C hreel:fim in etaom I
cree or command of the said courts
MAY it please Your Honor, it cannot
he said in any sense of the word that
an editor in writing newspaper Is
guilty of misbehavior. The Language
used here is 'misbehavior." Your
Honor knows that when We were rails
ing our little children in the nursery
and they misbehaved, they were
spanked The misbehavior in this
sense was not intended by the Con
gress OF the United States to refei
torthe New York Herald, ETC., etc., OF
TO the Charlotte Observer, The News
and Observer, or Wilmington Mes.
seneer. etc. The word misbehaviol
there has no application to cases o.
this kind. But this is not my author1-
ty alone.
YOU have no inherent power to punisi
except the power that is given yOt
nv section 725 of the Revised Statutes
and ask Your HOnOP's particular at
tention to the fact that before tina
act Your Honor could punish. Iht
learned author here says that prevlOu!
tn that time you could have done ii
There is not reported in the books
neither in the Federal Reporter. MOI
i'm the United States Supreme COuf
RenOrts. since the Act of 1881, there
is not, may it please this Honorable
Court, reported solitary instance ii
which n United States Court has adj
Judged Il newspaper or an editor
thereof guilty o contempt in publish
inc his paper. Not a one, because
liberty lives when men are free, WheI
Your Honor is free, and the great
press is free. Then liberty is secure
and not until then. and not after then
And yet sir, for the past seventy ode
wears no case is reported i'll Whlcnt
The grcath fourth estate has ever beer
called to the bar of justice in con.
tempt proceedings on account OF the
publication of matters with respect IL
flIe trial OF cases by the courts Of
justice.
I beg Your Honor's further indul
gence. Now read from 4 very learn
ed opinion, may it please Your Honor
by one of the Circuit Judges recent!
appointed, that some of us know, ina
some of us admire, admire for MS IN
dependence, admire for his nrmneSs
that he does not float down the stream
with the tide. l refer to Judge Jones
of Alabama. How does he constru'
the act which we are now considering
Sec 725 of the Revised Statutes?
will read:
Fed. Rep. 100, PIP. 1877, 1873, in e
Parte Mcleod, Jone, District Judge
Alabama.
whether or not section 725 of thu
Revised States of the United States
~ S. Comp. st. 1901, p. 1881 de
Drives Federal courts of the power Il
punish, as for contempt, imprope
publications made to influence thu
trial of a pending case, and coerce o.
control the Judgment cf those intrust
cd with the duty, is not at all involved
in the question before the court.
congress intended by this statute t,
mt an end to the power of any Fed
eral court to prevent by punishment
as for contempt, criticism of judicia
acts or decisions, or ever mere libel
on individuals concerned in admistra
ton of justice.
as the power to punish this mis-
behavior as a contempt taken ava