The Birmingham age-herald., 1908-12-25
Counsel for Defendant BsIieVes Case NH Be Carried to
 Supreme Court
CONSTITUTION PROVIDES
 GENERAL FREE SPEECH
Judge Parker Declares That Citizens Have Right to Make Editorial Com. ment Upon Scope of
 Court Decree.

New York, December A.-Commenting on the sentence imposed yesterday by Justice Wright against the officers of the American Federation of Labor in the con tempt proceedings growing out of the Buck Stove and Range case. former Judge Al ton B. Paker of counsel for the fedora ton officers, today declared the decision of Justice Wright would be subjected to review by higher tribunal, and that he had a confident belief that the speaking and writing which Justice Wright holds constitutes contempt of court cannot be prevented either by statute or judicial de- cree"
 '"rhe constitution of every state," said Judge Parker, provides in effect that ev- 1 cry citizen may freely speak. write and l publish his sentiments on all subjects. being responsible for the abuse of that right and that no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.
 'ln number of instances attempts have been made to Invoke the aid of the courts to restrain the publication of car toons or written matter claimed to be libelous, but the courts have ever held that the constitution prohibits any cen sorship over the press. either by the exec utive, the legislative or the Judicial department of government"
 Analyzing the scope of the courts in- junction against the publishing of the name of the Bucks Stove and Range com pany in the we don't patronfze.e or unfair" list of the American Federation ist, MT. Parker ayers that If the order can be so construed as to prevent respect ful editorial comment upon the scope of the decree or to prevent free discussion of it, and the expression of opinion that if it does seek to prevent such discussion in event it offends against the constitu- ton, then so much of it as attempts 10 do is void.
 Tt has been argued that even is the court, in violation of the constitution J5as make an order prohibiting a man from making a speech on a certain subject. or prohibiting a newspaper rom punnsning editorial on the same subject the partv enjoined must nevertheless obey the de- cree; if he does not the court may pun ish him, although 1t has no power to make the order.
 But certainly that which the constitu- tion prohibits, the court may not do, any more than. the legislature. The unconsti- tutional statute need not be obeyed: and so the courts have held time and again He who elects to disobey the statute takes the risk but If the statute De unconsti- tutional no harm can come to him for ignoring it. And this is SO gay the courts. because the statute is absolutely void. If would seem to follow that a decree of court offending against the constitution need not be obeyed because it Is wholly and completely void. It seems to me that the judicial department O. the government will not be guilty of the absurd;-y of hold, ing that an unconstitutional enactment by the lawmaking departmar. of the gov ernment may be dehed by the humblest citizen with impunity becausa absolutely void. but that on the other hand de- cree of the judicial department, equally offending against the constitution. has such force and vitality as 10 support im- prisonment of him, who, standing on his constitutional rights, dares 60 violate it."