Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1912-12-23
ATTACKS FREE SPEECH.
THERE is a case before the SUI
preme court of Idaho that Is

THEhb is case DelOfe Jne Bu'
preme court Of Idaho that II
Of more than usual interest, moi
only to the people Of Idaho, but the
country at large, for it is a direct at
tack by that court upon the freedom
of speech and of the press, both Of
which are guaranteed by the constitu-
tion, and If the contention of the Ida
no supreme court is correct, then the
constitution Is wrong,
The editor Of Boise paper pub,
lished Roosevelts' speech criticising
the Idaho supreme court for its deci-
sion which cut off the names Of Roose,
welt electors at the recent election
At the same time these editors, com
menting on the action Of the court
made some rather caustic remarks up
on the decision, For this the editors
were hailed before it to answer for con
tempt Of court.
The question is, whether the courts
are so high as to be above the reach
Of the average citizen, and so sacred
that 1t is n crime to criticize them D.?
Must every citizen and every news
paper accept the ruling Of judge or
number of judges as a divine truth,
and refrain from any mention Of 1t m-
less 1t is in praise?
The law has wisely given the courts
the power 10 punish for contempt, in
order that they may maintain the ma
iesty Of the law, and enforce their rul-
ings But does this power extend
further than to acts committed in the
presence Of the court, or Interference
with the execution of It's processes?
According TO the idea Of the Idaho
court it extends much further, so
much further that any criticism of
the court Is n contempt
If this is true, what course will the
court take in case where one or more
Of its members writes caustic dis
scntng opinion? viii the majority of
the bench punish the minority for
contempt of court? Can q supreme
court Judge be guilty as a Judge, of
contempt for himself as a part of the
court?
If he cannot we have the condition
of the majority Of the judges being
above the general law because they
as Il court, cannot be criticised, and
the minority above the general law
which, under the condition, permits
punishment for contempt Of court for
Criticisng the courts action, because
that minority is also a iudge-and can
therefore do what the common citizen
cannot.
II the contention of the Idaho su-
premo court is true, then no man, nc
newspaper dare comment upon or crit
ic2c the action Of any court The
blessed privilege Uhe only one some.
times left HIM of the losing party tC
express his feelings, (outside of the
court ROOM Of course) and call the
Judge a id fool, or words to that
effect will no longer exist.
Where would this lead us?
Would not the legislature, II Il at
tempted to define and make more Ger.
tain the law on this point be guilty Of
contempt Of court?
The Capital Journal few days age
oditorially commented upon dcci.
sion Of Hon Henry McGun, aud in
sisted that the Judge was decidedly
wrong, which he was II this Idaho
idea Of ccntempt is correct, The
Journal was guilty Of contempt OF
court then, and is guilty again for
using the words (which he was" In
this paragraph II may be that the
Idaho editors will be found guilty of
contempt of court, but, whether they
are or not, Il the Idaho judges can
punish all the uewspapermen OF the
coats, let alone OF the east who Just
now have the most supreme contempt
for them they will have the Idaho
iails filled to oycrrlowmg.