Semi-weekly herald., 1908-03-05

should be 7, sry: Is It
any greater crt,- SF< -er TO
say certain party Is cIesKo than
1t is for another paper ~ ~ he is
and proceed every day to try and CON
Wet him, when the court instructs a
jury that every person. in the eyes of
the law. is presumed to be innocent
until proven guilty. Under such In
structions it seems that a paper could
take the position that any indicted
man is innocent until proven guilty
in court of justice. and for u paper
to say he is guilty is contempt OF
court because the court, according to
its Instructions to the jury, must hold
a man innocent until proven guilty
II jury is SO instructed does not the
| law contemplate that all judges must
take the same position until the evi-
| dence is presented? Therefore, II a
paper is in contempt OF court for re-
ferring to an indicted man. it is the
one stating he is guilty before the evil
| dence is presented to the court and a
| jury. and it seems very queer to The
| Herald why the parties complaining
of the policy OF The Herald over
| looked the policy of the Democrat.
Why was The Herald singled out?
Again, II The Herald indirectly has
prejudiced the people in favor OF the
bank officials. how about the Demo.
crat, Which has daily told the people
that the bankers were guilty, In ad-
vance of trial? These are matters the
public would like to be informed
about.
The Herald is not seeking notoriety
has no desire to have its editor hauled
into court on criminal contempt pro-
ceedlngs which the district attorney
is contemplating. We dislike very
much to take hard earned money and
give it to the lawyers trust to defend
our rights, as we view them. We are
laboring under the opinion that the
lawyers are getting and are going to
get altogether too much money that
Notwithstanding such dislike to con.
tribute to the lawyers we do feel that
the parties complaining should not
single ont The Herald. and this belief
ls shared by hundreds, yes thousands,
OF others--in fact ninetenths of the
people The Herald has not criticised
the court or the receiver. simply re-
ported facts that are discussed daily
on the strets. The Democrat in its
Sunday issue gloats over the action |
Of Judge Pike and asserts 1t has fol- |
lowed a decent course. Why did not
the parties complaining call Judge
Pixies attention to the Democrats |
criticism of the court in appointing |
Mr.. Boyle receiver? The Democrat
grossly insulted and reflected on the |
court by saying II appointed man
"who was equally guilty" No court
ever received a nastier reprimand, and |
why was not its attention called to !
this criticism? Again, the Democrat
has on divers occasions insulted the
court by saying the appointment OF
Rowe Pingrey was an error, mis- |
take, and bad in every way. Why was
not the attention of the court called |
to this belittling of its discretionary /
powers? Again, why did not the par
ties complaining call the attention OF
the court to the daily statements |
made by d. +. Day that the court
would do so-and-so? The Democrat
has on many occasions given 1t out
straight Just what Judge Pike would |
do-has decided in advance for him.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce
ior the gander. and The Herald is en-
titled to fair play and a great many |
depositors of the Colorado State bank
have already called to express their |
regrets that we should encounter |
trouble OF this nature when trying to
secure them dollar for dollar.
In conclusion. The Herald is not
taking exceptions to the action of the
court in its instructions to the dis
trlct attorney, but to those who made
the complaint and 1t would be inter
esting to know who the informing par
ties are. The court simply took cog
nizance OF matters presented to 1t.