The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1904-06-30
CONTEMPT
DECISION.
Judge Pritchard Rules on ia
NOUS Case Against Jose
pl1us Daniels.
EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY
Declares Purncll Was Without
Jurisdiction and Distnisses
Casc-Carefiil Review.
EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY
INV Associated Press0

AsHEv1LLE. N. c.. June 2o.-Judge
j. G. Irltchnrd. OF the United States
d Circuit Court, at noon to-day filed his
opinion IN the celebrated case OF Joscphus
Daniels, before him on writ Of habeas
corpus, charged wlta contempt OF court.
Mr.. Daniels. who Is editor OF the Raleigh
News and Observer. had been fined 5000
for contempt Of District Judge Purnel.
Judge Prtchard's opinion Will be recog-
nlzcd as an important legal record. and
is careful and comprehensive review Of
the law as applied TO newspaper utter
anccs that might be construed as con-
tempt OF court.
.1I THE DECISION.
The text OF the decision In part Is as
follows;
I'm order to determine whether the Pc
tItioner is entitled to the relief prayed
for In the petition upon which the writ of
habeas corpus was issiied. 1t is necessary
to determine two questions: "a Did the
court which imposed the sentence IN this
case have Jurisdiction? (2) Does this
court have jurisdiction to hear and de-
termne this case on a writ OF habeas
gcorpus2
.'1'he force OF public opinion in this
country In favor Of the freedom OF the
press has restrained the free exercise OF
the power 20 punish this class OF con-
tcmpts. and In many jurisdictions stat
utes have been enacted depril.ng the
court OF the power to punish them. It
was taken from the Federal courts by the
act OF Congress of 1891 which act de-
prives these courts Of the common law
power TO protect by this process, their
suitors, witnesses. officers and themselves
against the libel of the press. though pub
l,shed and circulated pending the trial OF
Gauss therein. &
UNWARRANTED CRITICISM.
"That newspapers sometimes engage in
.unwarranted criticism OF the courts can
not BIO denied LII some instances they
construe tho liberty of the press as a
license to authorize them TO engage In
wholesale abuse OF the court, but In
stances are rare and do not warrant a de-
parture from the wen settled principles
of the law ms declared BY Congress and
construed by the courts. If judges
charged 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 indi-
yiduals imperiled.
'tThere may be Instances when the
publication of editorials or other matter
I'm newspapers would bring the author
within the limitations OF the statute.
For instance. II a newspaper should pub
lish an article concerning n trial which
was beng considered by n jury, and should
send copy OF the paper containing such
article to the Jury or a member thereof
during the progress OF the trial, for the
purpose OF influencing them in their de-
cision, 1t would present question
whether such conduct would not BIO mis-
behavior in The presence OF the court, or
30 near thereto as to obstruct the admin
istratjon OF justice.
WITHOUT AUTHORITY.
ut appears that the distinguished Judge
who adiudged the petitioner to be In con-
tempt OF court exceeded the authority
granted In the act of 1881, and the court
was without Jurisdiction. Such being the
case. the Judgment of the court is void,
and therefore nullity.
TN view of the foregoing. the court
finds that the petitioner Is unlawfully
restrained of his liberty. and It is there
fore considered and ordered by the court
that the said Jusephus Daniels be dis
charged from the custody OF the marshal
OF the United States, and that he go
hence without day.