The Billings gazette. [volume] (Billings, Mont.) 1896-1919, 1907-04-16
FEDERAL sUPREME COURT RULES
,N NOTED CASE. s
HAS NO JURISDICTION
Writ Of Error Dismissed, Practically
Affirming Decision Of Colorado Trib-
unai Imposing Heavy Fine on FOR.
ner Senator for Contempt.

! " SAAt cOuTl VI IHe united STATES tC
day dismissed the writ OF error Il
qhe case OF former United States Sen
ator L. M. Patterson of Colorado, il
which the senator was fined $1,000 b,
the Colorado supreme court on tn
charge Of contempt. The action ha
the practical effect of affirming th
decision OF the Colorado court.
The opinion in the case was deliver
ed by Justice Holmes, who said in ed
feet that the court was without 1llrds
diction. Justice Harlan delivered :
dissenting opinion. Justice Brewer
also dissented from the decision
holding that the court was not with
out jurisdiction.
The proceeding against Patterson
grew out of the Colorado supreme
courts decision in election cases fol
lowing the acrimonious state cam
paign 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
were owing to structures on these de
cisions published in the two papers
In which the charge was inferred to
subservient to the corporations in the
state.
In the course of his opinion Justice
Holmes discussed at some length Pat
| terson's contention that the charges
| made by him were true and that there.
fore these could be no contempt in
his criticisms of the court. On this
point Mr.. Holmes said:
The Majority Opinion.
1.-THE defense on which the plain
tiff in error most relies is raised by
the allegation that the articles COM
planned of are true and claim Of the
right to prove the truth He claimed
this right under THE constitutions,
both of the state and of the United
States, but the later ground alone
comes into consideration here for
reasons already stated. We leave un-
decided the question whether there is
be found in the fourteenth amendment
a prohibition similar to that in the
first But even if we were to as
sumo that freedom of speech and free
dom Of the press were protected
from abridgement ON the part not only
the United States, but also OF the
states, still we should be far from
the conclusion that the plaintiff in er-
Tor would have US to reach. In the
first place, the main purpose of such
constitutional privilege is a reason for
not preventing the subsequent pun
ishment, as may be deemed contrary
to the public welfare. The prelimin-
AIRY freedom extends as Wen to the
false as to the true; the subsequent
punishment may extend as well as the
true as to the false. This was the
law of criminal libel, apart from stat
utes in most cases, if not i'm all states:
'sIn the next place the rule applied
to criminal libel applies more to con
tempt. A publication likely to reach
the eyes of jury declaring a witness
in a pending case a perjurer would
be none the less a contempt that it
was true. 1t would tend to obstruct
the administration of justice because
even a correct conclusion is not to be
reached or helped in that way if our
system of trial is to be maintained.
The theory of our system is that the
conclusion to be reached in a case
should be deduced only by argument
in open court, and not by any outside
influence, whether Of private talk or
public print.
.What is true with reference to a
jury is also true with reference to a
court Cases like the present are very
likely to arise no doubt wnen there
is jury, and the publication may
affect their Judgment. Judges gener-
ally, perhaps, are less apprehensiye
that publications impugnfng their
own reasoning or motives will inter-
fere with their administration of the
law. But if a court regards, as it
may, a publication concerning mat
ter Of law pending before it as tend
ing toward such an interference, 1t
may punish it as in the instance put"
Justice Harlan Dissents.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice
Harlan said:
'sThe court leaves undecided the
specific question whether there is to
be found in the fourteenth amendment
prohibition as to the rights of free
speech and free press similar to that
in the first. 1t yet proceeds to say
that the main purpose of such consti-
tutional provisions was to prevent all
such previous restraint upon pubh-
cation as had been practiced by other
governm ents, but not to prevent the
said punishment of such as may be
contrary to the public welfare. can
not assent to that view, if it be meant
that the legislature may impair or
abridge the right of a free press when
ever in its Judgment the public vel
fare requires THAT it be done.
"The public welfare cannot override
constitutional privileges, and il the
right of free speech and of free
press are in their essence attributes
of national citizenship, then neither
congress nor any state since the
adoption Of the fourteenth amendment
can, by legislation or by judicial ac-
tion, impair or abridge it. In my
Judgment, the action of the court be-
low was in violation Of the right of
free speech and free press as guar
anteed by the constitution.
II go further, and hold that the
privilege of free speech and of a free
press belonging to every citizen OF
the United States constitute essentdal
parh9 OF every man's liberty, and