The Salt Lake herald-Republican. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1909-1918, 1910-07-09
FOUND GUILTY
OF CONTEMPT


(ContInued From Page One.)
be made for George r.. Hale. but on
motion Of Hiram r. Booth. Mr.. Hale
was allowed 20 assent to an amendment
OF tho original citation including Mr..
Hale a. one OF the defendants. and TO
the court Mr.. Hale. az general manager
Of the paper. assumed full response
bility for the publication OF the
After submitting the answer signed
by the defendants. Mr.. Booth addressed
the court add then Judge Lewis Sd-
judged that the corporation was guilty
- charged and that each OF the in
divldual defendants was also guilty
imposing fines as before given
AR. Booths outline OF the case as
presented to the court was as follows.
Colonel booths Argument.
May 60 please the Court:
In the commencement OF the arEu-
fncnt I wish 10 state to the court that
The crld-Kepublican Publishing COM
pany and the other persons brought
before the court. as well as myself per-
sonally. have the highest regard for
this court and all due respect for its
honor and dignity. that the publication
OF these articles ia question was not
Tor the purpose Of showing disrespect
FOR this court or interfering with the
PROCEEDINGS Of the court.
I'VE claim for the paper the consti-
tutional riEht 20 do what has been
done. and therefore we stand entirely
upon principle and right We believe
that 20 submit TO being ccnsured by
the court or 20 appear before the court
and apologize for the publications. or
20 submit TO being punished for con-
tempt OF court without taking all ie-
gal steps possible 20 be taken 20 pro-
toct our rights. would be 70 establish
a dangerous precedent against news
papers In general. and the right OF free
speech and the right Of the press to
publish freely such matters.
II the court has the power 20 cite
a newspaper before 90 and punish 90 FOR
contempt for publishing such articles.
which we contend 10 has not n Is nee
essarily an arbitrary power and should
never be exercised except a means
60 attain tho ends Of Justice. We be-
liovc that the court fully realizes the
dolicacy OF this power. and viii not
pass judgment In this matter without
The most careful consideration Of the
law pertaining thereto.
Contempt of Co-rt.
"Our state statute clearly defines
what constitutes contempt Of court
subdivision Of section 335S IS the
only provision I'm our laws which could
I'm any way be said 90 apply to the facts
in this case. IL reads: Any other un-
lawful interference with the process or
proceedings OF n court
Can it be said that the publication
or these articles In The Herald Repuh-
ltoan amounted TO an unlawful inter
ference with any proceeding OF this
cou~t7 We contend not. First. the
publications must be unlawful, and.
second. they must interfere with the
N..H'-NNAaAAH- "a NN| fNNA
"Our statute was copied verbatim
from the statutes Of California. and the
supreme court Of that state IN the case
OF In re Shortridgc. 20 Cal 526. ~ Am.
81. Rep. IS. has construed this pro-
vision Of the law
In this case the supreme court OF
California has defined the meaning Of
this statute as well as "a publishers
constitutional right. and has laid down
the following strong propositions OF
law:
may lawfully write and publish.
2. The constitution Of every state IN
the union guarantees 20 every citizen
the right TO freely speak. write and
publish sentiments on all subjects. and
prohibits tho passage Of any law to
restrain or abridge the liberty OF
speech or OF the press
%. The rights thus preserved BY the
constitution are dear TO the hearts Of
every Amer.-an. and their exercise can
be complained Of by the courts IN a
summary proceeding only when the
publication or the speech interferes
with the performance Of judicial duty.
g. II there has been no such inter-
ference there has been no contempt.
q Frmou- California Case.
1T was argued In that case with
some plausibiiity that the publication
Of the testimony. the publication OF
which had been expressly prohibited
rs an order on the court. Of which the
san Jose Mercury had due notice. might
deter timid AID highly sensitive wit
ncescs from making disclosures which
they would make II assured that their
utteranccs would not be given pub
lclty. To this argument the supreme
court. In deciding the case. makes this
reply. But tins ia an argument which
would apply TO all cases. and rests up
on the erroneous assumption that a
witness viii violate his oath 70 tell the
truln. the whole truth. to save himself
from tho modification incident TO the
relation and publicity Of certain dis
agreeable facts within his knowledge.
THAT court further says. We arc
aware Of the fact that there are Eng
1ish presidents FOR holding that the
courts possess and exercise the power
60 prohibit in all cases. the publication
OF their proceedings. but we know OF
no dc~isiCn IN this country upholdine
nihition. except where the publication
tended 20 Interfere with the proceed
inEa before the court
''rhc court then elites Blackstone,
Commemorate, whore several English
cases are cited. and makes this WIS.,
observation:
But precedent PROMULGATED at :
time when the minister's OF the crown
claimed and exercised the right &,
seize newspaper and stifle tho voic'
OF its editor when books were de
atroyed and speeches suppressed {,
subserve political purposes, are Of 1T
tie value IN this age. and especially n
~Tt vas TO forever stamp out suci
n claim and prevent such occurrence
that the trainers Of our constitution in
corporatcd therein the guarantee o.
liberty Of speech and OF the press. Thh
constitutional liberty. as Judge Cooler
says. Implies the right TO freely ute
and publish whatever the citizens MAJ
please. and be protected against AM
responsibility for 80 doing. except "a
FAR as such publications from thei
blasphcmy. obsccnity or scandalou
character may be n public 0ffense, o.
as By their fnigchood and malice thel
may fnfurioualy affect the atandini
reputation or pecuniary interests OF IN