The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1907-04-16

sumo that freedom OF speech and freedom
Of the press were protected from abrdge-
ment on the part not only OF the United
States, but also of the States, still we
should be far from the conclusion that
the plaintiff in error would have us 10
reach. In the first place, the main pur-
pose OF such constitutional privlleses is
Ito prevent all such previous restraint
on publications as they had been prac-
ticed by other governments. and they
40 not prevent the subsequent punish
mcnt of such may be deemed con-
trary 10 the public welfare, The preIim-
mary freedom extends as well to the false
as 10 the true, the subsequent punish
ment may extend as well 10 the true as
Ia the false. This was the law of Grim
inal libel apart from statutes in most
cases, II not In ALL
How the Rule Is Applied,
In the next place the rule applied TO
criminal hbes applies yet more particu-
larly to contempt. A publication likely
To reach the eyes OF a jury declaring q
witness in pending cause perjuror
It was true. 1t would tend TO obslruct
the administration OF Justice. because
even corrupt conclusion is not 10 be
reached or helped in that way If our sys-
tenn OF trial is TO be maintained. The
theory Of our system Is that the conclu-
sions 10 be reached in a case would be
induced only by evidence and argument in
open court and not by any outside innu-
print.
What is true with reference 10 jury
Is also true with reference TO a court.
Cases like the present are very likely To
arise, no doubt, when there Is a Jury
and the publication may affect their iudg-
ment. Judges. generally. perhaps. are less
appTehensiye that publications impugning
their own reasoning or motives Will in
terfere with their administration of the
law. But II court regards, as it may
a pnoIlcatiou concerning matter OF law
pending before IL as tending toward such
an interference, II may punish IL as in
the instance put. When q case is finished
courts are subject to the same criticism
as other people. but the propriety and
necessity OF preventing interference with
the courts Of justice by premature state
ment. argument or intimidation hardly
can be denied.
In his dissenting opinion, Justic Har-
Ian said:
The Dissenting Opinion.
The court leaves undecided the specific
question whether there Is 70 be found In
the fourteenth amendment a prohibition
as to the rights of free speech and free
press similar 10 that in the FIRST. 1t yet
proceeds 10 say thai the main purpose
of such constitutional provision was 20
prevent all such previous leStraint' upon
publication us had been praCtiCcd by other
governments. but not "a prevent the said
punishment OF such as may be deemed
contrary TO the public welfare. I cannot
assent 10 that Wow il IL be meant that
the Legislature may impair or ahrldgo thc
ilgHi oi Tree prcsS and Of free speech
whenever in It's judgment The public vel
iarc requires that Il be done. The public
welfare cannot override constitutional
privileges, and 81 tie right oi free speech
and OF free press are. in their essence.
attributes ot national cltizcnshlp then
neither Congress nor any State since tho
adoption ot the fourteenth amendment
can, by legislation or by judicial action
Impair or lbridse them. In my judgment,
tho action OF the court below was IN v!o-
latlon Of Ia" right OF free speech and a
iree press as guaranteed by tho cousti-
tuition.
l so further. and hold that the privl-
l"Scs OF free speech and of free press
belonging TO every citizen Of the rnltol
states constitute essential parts Of every
iHaus liberty. and | protest against rio-
lation of that clause OF the fourteenth
amendment forbidding q state dcpriving
any person OF his liberty without due
process OF law. II IS. ] think. impossible
70 conceive Of liberty as secured by tile
Constitution against hostile action
whether by the Nation or by the State,
which docs not embrace The right To
enjoy free speech and The right ~ have
a free pIcs4.