The Paducah evening sun. [volume] (Paducah, Ky.) 1906-1929, 1907-04-17
Court May Fine For Contempt
Regardless of Facts
United States Supreme Court Uphold
Colorado Judges in Case of
Sen. Patterson.
rExr OF OPINION or couRr


United States Senator Thomas M
Patterson, of Colorado, in which the
senator was fined 81 300 by the Co.
Dorado supreme court ON the charge
of contempt. The action has the prac-
tical effect of affirming the decision
of the Colorado courts. The opinion
in the case was delivered by Justice
Homes, who said in effect that the
court was without jurisdiction. Jus
tice Harlan delivered a dissenting
opinion. Justice Brewer also dissent
ed from the decision. holding that the
court was not without jurisdiction.
The proceeding against Senator
Patterson grew out of the Colorado
supreme court decisions in election
cases Following the acrimonious state
campaign of 1904. The senator is the
principal owner of the Denver Times
and the Rocky Mountain News, both
Denver daily papers. and the contempt
proceeding was on account of strict
ures ON those decisions published in
the two papers. 1t is said the charge
was inferred to have been made that
the court was subservient to the cor
poration interests of the state. When
called upon ITO answer, Mr. Patterson
pleaded the truth of the allegations
made by the papers. The court there
upon imposed "a fine of $1,000 on the
charge of contempt, with the a,terna-
tive OF. paying the fine or being i'm
-prisoned Instead Of doing either the
senator prevailed upon Justice Brew
Ier to issue writ of error bringing
the case to the federal supreme court.
Majority Decision.
In the course of his opinion Justice
Homes discussed at some length the
contention by Mr.. Patterson that the
charges made by him were true and
that. therefore. there could be no
contempt in his criticism Of the court.
On that point MIR. Holmes said:
The defense upon which the plain
tin In error most relies is raised by
the allegation that the articles COM
p,ained of are true and the claim OF
the right to prove the truth. He
claimed this right under the constitu-
tions. both Of the state and of the
United States, but the latter ground
|alone comes into consideration here
for reasons already stated. We leave
undecided the question whether there
is to be found in the fourteenth
amendment prohibition similar 10
that in the first. But even If We were
Ito assume that freedom of speech and
freedom Of the press were protected
from abridgement on the part of 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 reach. In the
/ first place, the main purpose of such
constitutional provision is TO prevent
IAN such previous restraint upon pub
llcations as has been practiced by
other governments and they do not
Iprevent such subsequent punishment,
as such, as may be deemed contrary
to the public welfare. The pre.imin-
larry freedom extends as well to the
false as to the trues the subsequent
punishment may extend as well to
the true as to the false. This was
the law of criminal libel apart from
lstatutes in most cases, If not in all
Obstruction to Justice.
I'm the next place, the rule applied
to criminal libels applies yet more
purely Ito contempt. A publication
likely to reach the eyes of jury de-
claring witness in pending cause
a periurer would be none the less a
contempt that it was true. il would
tend to obsbruct the administration of
| justice because even a correct con-
elusion IS not to be reached or helped
in that way If our system Of triag is
to be maintained. The theory Of our
system is that the conclusions to be
reached in case will be induced only
by evidence and argument In open
lconrf and not nv any outside inan