The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-06-30

punish for contempt is based upon the
theory that it is essential that the
court should possess ample authority
to secure the free and unohstructed
exercise of it's functions in the en-
forcement of the law. Therefore, it
is only such acts as tend to inter-
fere with the orderly proceedings of
the court, or with the due administra-
tiOn of justice that can be properly
punlsnen as contempt of court.
Words written or spoken at a place
other than where the court is held
and not so near thereto as to inter
fere with the proceedings of the court
do not render the author liable Any
loud noise or other disturbance in the
presence of the court or in the street
or other place so near thereto as to
interfere with the orderly proceedings
of the court would undoubtedly tend
to obstruct the administration of JUS
tice, and under such circumstances
the court is empowered to summary
punish for contempt.
That newspapers sometimes engage
in unWarranted criticism of the courts
cannot be denied. In some instances
they conStrue the liberty of the press
as license to authorize them to en-
gage in a wholesale abuse of the court,
but these instances are rare and do
not 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 criticised on account Of their
official conduct. the liberty of the
press is abridged and the rights of in
diViduals imperiled.
While all citizens should entertain
due respect for the courts of the land,
it does not follow that editors and
public speakers are to refrain from
legitimate criticism of the acts of any
tribunal. Such criticism should be in
Vited by public officials i'll order that
the people may fully understand what
is being done by those who are acting
as their agents in the administration
OF the law.
Public questions are generally set
tied i'm the right way, and the fact that
such is the case, is due in large
measure to their free and Untram-
melIed discussion by the press OF the
country. The courts are constituted
for the purpose of protecting the
VI2htS and liberties of the individual
and the enactment OF any law which
gives a judge the power to prevent the
free and unreStraincd discussion OF
questions which may come before the
court for adjudication would in many
instances defeat the very object Tor
which the courts were established.
There may be instances where the
publication of editorials or other mat
ter III newspapers would bring the
author within the limitations of the
statute. For instance, if Il newspaper
editor should. publish an article con-
corning a trial, which was being con-
sidered by a jury, and should send a
copy of the paper containing such ar
ticle to the jury, or member there
of, during the progress of the trial,
for the purpose of influencing them in
their deliberations. it would present
a question whether such conduct
would not be misbehaVior in the pres
ence of the court or so near thereto
as to obstruct the administration of
Justice.
We now come to the question
whether this court has jurisdiction to
hear and determine the matter in
controversy on a writ of habeas cor
pus.
In order to determine whether this
court has Jurisdiction to hear this
cause in the proceeding now iustitu-
ted, it is necessary to ascertain Wheth-
er the court whose action is complain
ed of, had authority to impose the
judgment.
1t appears that the distinguished
judge who adjudged the petitioner
to be in contempt of court exceeded
the authority granted in the act of
1881, and that Tie court was with
out jurisdiction. Such being the case
the judgment of the court is void and
therefore a nullity.
In FIX Parte Buskirk, ~ Fed. Rep,
page 81, the court in considering the
question of whether one committed
for contempt might be discharged on
a writ of habeas corpus. says:
"In the light of the recent decisions
of the Supreme Court of the United
states it is no longer an open CUES
ton that if the court whose action is
complained of had no authority to
pass the sentence imposed the same
is therefore void for the reason that
the court acted without jurisdiction,
and. further that in such cases the
party seeking relief may be discharged
on habeas corpus.
lex Parte Terry, 1913 u. S., 2S9.
In re Coy, 127 L. S., ISL.
Eek Parte Harding. 120 u. s., 1872.
In re Ayers 1913 L. S., 443.
In re Swan, $50 U. S., 637.
The proceedings of a court which
has acted in excess of it's jurisdiction
are void, as much SO as are the pro-
ceedings of a court which has acted
without jurisdiction. In either it's or
der of commitment is a nudity. and
the party prejudiced may be dis
charged on a writ of habeas corpus.
Eek Parte Reed, 100 u. s., 10.
tx Parte, Clarke, ID, 500.
Elk Parte Rowland 104 L. S., 604.
Eek Parte, Curtis, 106 u. s., 81.
Eek Parte Fisk, 1I3 U. s., 713.
Eek Parte Wilson. la Z. s.. All.
In 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 Joseohus Daniels
be discharged rom the custody Of the
Marshal of the United States, and
that he 30 hence without LAY