The Birmingham age-herald., 1908-12-24

mlttee
 ton Is deemed fit to be embraced; no claim of unmeant contumacy is heard persisting in contemptuous violation of the order, as defense is offered save these: That the injunction CD infringed the constitutional guaranty of freedom of the press CD infringed upon the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech
 These defenses do not fill the meas ure of the case; the injunction was designed to stay the general issuance of the publication on the unfair list and the we don't patronize lists These were but incidents. The injunction ln- terriers with no legitimate right of crit icism or comment that the law has ever sanctioned. and the respondents intima- tion that 1t does so, Is a mockery and pretense."
 In reference to the freedom of the press the court declared that the con- stitution nowhere conferred the right to speak, to print, or to publish. Tt guarantees" said he, "only that inso- far as the federal government is con- cerned it's congress shall not abridge 1t, and leaves the subject to the regu- lation of the several states, where it belongs.
 Malicious Libels.
 Who can be persuaded" asked the court, continuing, that the penalz- ing of false and malicious libels upon the integrity of honorable men, or islanders upon the virtue of chaste women, is an outrage upon the con stitutional rights of the villifier?"
 The court inquired if those of though tful and sincere reflection es- cape the unharmony between claims for right of utter license in speech and press and the punishment by law of libels and the mulcting of islanders. No right to publish either the libel or the islander can be sustained, cept upon the theory of right to do wrong"
 The court, after citing arguments bear ing on free speech and press declared that an elaboration of these arguments with respect to the freedom of the press would usually be quite agreeable to my desire" yet, he said, these suggestions sound the hollowness of the defense and to essay more might savor of an inquiry into the correctness of the injunction or dered by MT. Justice Gould, duty al- ready taken up and discharged by abler hands than mine."
 Right of Free Speech. In dismissing from further considera- ton the contention that the injunction in- vaded the right of free speech and of the press, the court had this to say: "The position of the respondents in- wolves questions vital to the preservation 1 of the social order, questions which smite the foundations of civil government, and upon which the supremacy of the law over anarchy and riot verify depend" In the opinion of the court, even where a tribunal had fallen into error in the determination of a cause which 1t was invested with jurisdiction to hear and | determine" the duty and necessity of | obedience remain nevertheless the same. And" said the court, "I place the de- 1 cision of the matter at bar distinctly on the proposition that were the order con fessedy erroneous yet it must have been obeyed CWorden vs. Seals, 121. U. S. 14. It is between the supremacy of law over the rabble, or it's prostration under the feet of the disordered throngs." In the case of the defendants the court declared the laws command had been to stand hands off, until justice for this matter can be ascertained.
 Law Wide Enough. "Is not law wide enough and it's shield i big enough" added the court, ito avert from annihilation that which its tribu- nals have taken in hand for the very sake of decreeing whether it shall not be saved? Yet, everywhere, all over, within the court and without. utter ram pant. insolent defiance is heralded and proclaimed unrefined assault, coarse af- litigants conception of the tribunals duty wherein his cause still pends."
 In conclusion the court said:
 Before the injunction was granted these men announced that neither they