The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1907-04-16
TOM PATTERSON
LOSES HIS $1,000
Majority of the Supreme Court
UphOIdS the Notorious Cab
bert of Colorado.
TWO DISSENTING OPINIONS
NEW YORK TRANSFER TAX
LAW VALID.

washington. April 15-The supreme
,.o1rt Of the United States today dismiss
ed the writ Of error in the case OF for
n7er United States Senator Thomas NJ.
patterson of Colorado, in which the SEN
tor was fined $1,000 by the Colorado
supreme court on the charge Of contempt.
Tbe action has the practical effect of
affirming the decision Of the Colorado
courts.
Justice Holmes. who said in effect thar
rFo court was without jurisdiction jus
lire Harlan delivered a dissenting opln-
ian Justice Brewer also disscnted from
the decision, holding that the court was
T0f without jurisdiction
The proceeding against Patterson grew
ont of the Colorado supreme courts de-
rision in election cases following the ac-
Timonious state campaign of 1874
Offered to Prove Charges.
The senator is the principal owner of
fine Denver Times and the Rocky Noun
taiu News, both Denver daily papers, and
tbc contempt proceedings were owing 10
strictures on these decisions published
fp the two papers, in which the charge
Was inferred TO have been made Ihat the
court was subservirnt TO the corporation
interests Of the state When called upon
a. answer. Mr. Patterson pleaded the
ruth of the allegations made by the pa
,.rs TIE court theTeupOn promptly 1n-
contempt with the alterns tive OF paying
or being imprisoned
instead of doing either. the senator
prey3iicd upon Justice Brewer to issue
viii of error bringing the case to the
federal supreme court with the result as
suuounced today. that he failed to Sc
cure release from the sentence
The Majority Opinion.
In the course of his opinion Justice
Holmes discussed at some length Mr.. Pat
t,rson's contention that the charges
made by him were true and that there
fore there could be no contempt in mis-
criticisms of the court. On this point,
Mr. Holmes said;
.Tbe defense on which the plaintiff in
error most relies is raised by the allega-
lion that the articles complained of are
true and the 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 latter ground
alone comes inc consideration here cor
reasons already stated. We leave I'M
decided the question whether there IS 10
be found in the fourteenth amendment,
a prohibition similar to that in the first,
But even if we were to assume that free
dom Of speech and freedom of the press
y.ere protected from abridgement 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
I'm error would have us to reach In the
first place, the main purpose of such con-
sututional privileges is to prevent all
such previous restraint on publications
as they had been praCticed by other gov
eruments, and they do not prevent the
subsequent punishment. as sucn, as may
be deemed contrary to the public welfare.
The preliminary freedom extends as well
as 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 statutes
in most cases, if no. in all
Applies to Contempt.
In the next place the rule applied To
criminal libels applies yet more particu-
larry 20 contempt a publication likely
10 reach the eyes of a jury declaring a
witness in "A pending cause a periUrer
would be none the less a contempt that
&c was true 1t would tend to ObStruct the
administration of justice because even a
corrupt conclusion is not to be reached
of helped in that way if our system of
rial is to be maintained. The theory of
our system IS that the conclusions TO
be reached in a case would be induced
only by evidence and 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
S also true with reference to a courr.
Cases like the present are very likely
10 arise no doubt, when there is a jury
and the publication may affect their judg-
nent Judges, generally, perhaps, are less
apprehensiVe that publications nnpugniug
lerfere with their administration of the
law. But II a court regards as it may a
publication concerning q matter of law
peLdiug before it as tending toward suCn
an Interference 1t may punish it as N
the instance put. When case is fin
isned courts are subject to the same criti-
Qsm as other people, hut the propriety
and necessity of preventing interference
with the courts Of justice by premature
statement. argument of intimidation.
hardly can be denied"
Justice Harlan Dissents.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Harlan
said:
The court leaves undecided tae specific
question whether there is to 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 vet
Proceeds to say that tie main purpose OF
such constitutional provisions was to pre-