New-York tribune., 1907-04-16
PATTERSON MUST PAY.
Supreme Court Has No Jurisdiction
an Gree Press" Case.

Washington, April 15.-The Supreme Court dis
missed to-day the writ OF error in the case OF eX-
Senator Patterson. of Colorado in which the Seha-
tor was fined $1,000 by the Colorado Supreme Court
on the charge of contempt. The action has the
practical effect of affirming the decision OF the
Colorado court The opinion in the case was oe-
Iivered by Justice Holmes who said In effect that
the court was without jurisdiction. Justice Harlan
delivered dissenting opinion. Justice Brewer also
dssented from the decision. holding that the court
was not without jurisdiction.
The proceeding against ex-senator Patterson grew
out Of the Colorado Supreme Courts decisions IN
election cases following the acrimonious state cam
paign OF 1904 The ex-senator Is the prncipaI
owner of THE Denver Times and The ROCKY
Mountain News" both Denver daily papers. and the
contep,pt proceeding was on account of structures
on those decisions published in the two papers. IN
which the charge was inferred to have been made
that the court subservient 10 the corporation
interests of the state. When called upon 10 an
sver Mr. Patterson pleaded the truth Of the allega-
tions made by the papers The court thereupon
nron,ntlv imposed fine OF 81 O00 on the charge OF
contempt with the alternatives of paying or being
Imprisoned Instead Of doing either the senator
prevailed upon Justice Brewer 10 issue writ or
arror bringing the case 70 the federal Supreme
Court. with the result. as announced to-day. that
ho failed 10 secure release from the sentence
IN his opinion Justice Holmes discussed at some
length the contention by Mr.. Patterson that the
charges made by him were true. and that therefore
could be contempt IN MS cTltClSiHs ot INC
court on that point Mr. Holmes SAID;
The defence upon which the plaintiff in error
most relies is raised by the aleEation that the
articles companed Of are tFe M asmad @nq te this rgS
under the constitutions both OF the state ana l OI
coes into consideration here for reasons already
stated We leave undecided the question ~IF1sle I,
a nrohIbition similar 10 that in the First But
even we were 70 ~. @sSe nrees % Were protected from
ahridgmont on the part not only % the I1Hso n 81
far from the conclusion that the painsH I'm IN ai
would have us reach IN me ,'S1 ro,,s,ons Is Ito
prevent aII such previous restraint upon puouca,,
ions as had been practsed by other governments
Ia H.. a. NOT nrevpnt tho subsequent punish
mont or such may he deemed CONTRARY contrary 10 oas I1s
as well 10 tho false to the true the suhsegu@eht @
punishment extends as well to tne true; , S 20 o,srt
from statutes in most cases II rot IN all ,,.,
1tbels nnpi,es vet moro purely to contempt 4 pub
llcaton likely 10 reach the eyes or IurN uevlai5
he he none the less a contempt that il was true IT
would tend obstruct the ADMINISTRATION OF 1us'Ss
reached or helped that way II our system ~ riai
- 70 he maIn,ashFo. 20 he reached in case VIII
be induced only by evidence and arsument IN 0pFi
p,dte court ana ak no' or Py pnblic mfy PRINT
What is true with reference TO Jury Is @ true
@ are very likely to arise doubt when there
is Jury and the publication may aeo' , tns' annrs
ment Judges generally perhaps ar IT,, IeSS - pee
hensive that publication impngning tnt b, pW admn
motives Will interfere Witu lncli obiiiIi
isl alton Of the law. But II a court reedIus' -
may a publication concerning a matter or law
,,a,5irp before II tending toward sucI an inter
foronre II may punish il as In the instance put
II-lr case Is finished courts are subject 70 tne
serna criticism as other people, but the ptoPrlstS
and necessity of preventing interference WIN vi
nn,r+s ~ Justice by premature statement drku-
nent or intimidation hardly can be Henleo'
In his dissenting opinion Justice Harlan SAID:
,rbe court leaves undecided the specific questoh
,,batber there is to he found in the Fourteenth
snaecG and free press similar to that in the Flrst
II ret Droceeds to say that the main purpose OF W
such constitutional provisions was to prevent an
s,,h .'nrevious restraint upon publications as had
beeT nractised by other governments. nut not 10
nrevent the subsequent punishment OF such as ma.
assent 10 that view II IL be meant that the Legs
iot,,re may impair or abridge the right OF free
Dress and of free speech whenever in Its Judgment
Inc Duhlic welfare requires that II be done. Ihe
nubIic welfare override constitutional prVi-
eges and II the rights OF free speech and OF FREQ
nress are in their essence attributes of national
citizenship. then neither Congress any state
since the adoption OF the Fourteenth Amendment
can bv legislation by judicial action. impair or
abrdgc them. In my judgment the action of the
speech and free press guaranteed by the Con-
I go further and hold that the privileges OF free
speech and OF free press belonging to every cit
izen the United States constitute essential parts
of every mans liberty. and protest against viola
forbdding state to deprive any person Of his
liberty without due process Of law. II is I think,
imposSble to conceive of liberty secured by the
Constitution against hostile action whether by the
right TO enjoy free speech and the right to have