The Washington herald., 1907-04-16
SENATOR HELD IN CONTEMPT
Supreme Court Defines Free Press in
Patterson Case.
Justice Holmes Delivers Majority
Opinion in Colorado Case-JuStices
Brewer and Harlan Dissent.

That there is a difference between the
liberty Of the press as guaranteed by the
! Federal Constitution and mere license
was the principle laid down by the su-
preme Court yesterday, when, in effect. IL
/ affirmed the action Of the Colorado Su-
! preme Court in imposing fine of 81 900
/ on former Senator Thomas II. Patterson
/ for contempt Of that court in publishing
| in his paper at Denver certain articles
/ and "a cartoon rejecting on the motives
/ of its judges in connection with the city
/ election cases.
! Seven of the justices united I'm a ma
joHty opinion dismissing the writ Of
error and Justices Harlan and Brewer
dlsseuted. although upon different
grounds.
The basis Of the charge was that the
articles and cartoon referred TO cases still
pending. and were intended TO embarrass
the court In its administration of Justice
IN his answer, Patterson averred that the
/ cases were not pending; intimated that
the conduct of the court was unconstitu-
tional and usWping. and alleged that Il
was in aid OF scheme 20 seat the Repub-
lican candidates, and that two members
of the court got their seats as part OF
the scheme.
He also asserted that he published the
articles I'm pursuance OF what he re-
garded as his public duty, ayerred their
truth, and claimed the right to prove the
truth under the Federal Constitution.
Justice Holmes, in delivering the ma
jority opinion. said that most of the
claims made We're questions Of local law
not subject 70 review. The requirement
.of the fourteenth amendment OF due pro-
cess Of law. he said. did not take up the
special provisions of the State constitution
and laws into the fourteenth amendment
for the purposes of the case, and in that
way subject d state decision that they
have been complied with TO a revision by
the Federal Supreme Court. This was
true as 90 the contention that the case
was not pending as FAR as fixing the limits
of possible contempt. and the plaintiff in
error eonfounded the argument as 20 the
common law or as 10 what 1t might be
wise and humane to hold, with that con-
cerning the States constitutional power
IF State should see fit. he continued,
"to provide in it's constitution that con
duct otherwise amounting 10 contempt
should be punishable as such If occurring
al any time while the court retained au-
thority to modify its judgment. the four
teenth amendment would not forbid
Taking up Senator Patterson's claim
that the articles were true and his right
to prove their truth, which was the de-
fense upon which he most relied. the
court said:
''The preliminary freedom extends as
well TO the false as to the true; the sub
sequent punishment may extend as well
to the true as to the false. This was the
law of criminal libel apart from statute
IN most cases. if not in all In the next
place. the rule applied to criminal lbels
applies yet more clearly to contempts. A
publication likely to reach the eyes of a
jury declaring a witness in a pending
cause a perjurer would be none the less
a contempt that it was true"
Justice Harlans dissent was because
the courts opinion was a distinct impair
ment Of the freedom of speech and of the
press guaranteed by the Constitution
Those were attributes Of national eitl-
zeRship before the fourteenth amendment
was added, and that amendment. which
forbade the States abridging the privi
legcs or immunities of citizens. in his
opinion only strengthened those rights
by extending to the States the prohibition
against impairing the rights OF free
speech or free press, He could not as
sent to the view that the legislature could
abridge those rights whenever in its judg-
rnent required by the public welfare
The public welfare" he declared, can
not override constitutional privileges. In
my Judgment, the action of the c0ur!
below was in violation Of the rights Of
free speech and a free press as guaran-
teed by the Constitution
Justice Brewer dissented on the ground
that a question of rights under the Con-
stitUtion had been raised by Patterson,
which gave the court jurisdiction of the
case, and these rights should not have
been taken away by dismissing the writ
OF error for lack of jurisdiction.