The Idaho Republican. [volume] (Blackfoot, Idaho) 1904-1932, 1913-01-24

ions were biased by their a11lllatlon'
till there was no longer justice il
their court. The court fined hin
heavily for contempt; his neighbors
paid the fine made him a statewide
hero and, whether his charge wa!
or was not proven, the new cour1
that the people elected did not con
tinue to go the same road! Mos
courts are built ON high ideals; most
Judges are men of probity and int
gritty, few judges stand on their own
infallibility and deny to others the
legal right to doubt their judgment
or even their motives most judges
would grant to critics the same right
that the law takes in every case
against everyone accused--of alleg'
ing a wrong motive instead of mis-
take for whatever does not come out
right. Most judges would take any
criticism to a fair trial of some form
an open discussion, or record OF
honorable deeds that would not be
compatible with the charge, or a
demonstration that the charge was
false, or trial by jury on a charge
of libel That we now have a differ
ent Interpretation from the state sup
rene court, an Interpretation which
we understand to be that there is no
save the rule of personal caprice on
the part of the court that will de-
fine what is legitimate and what is
contemptuous criticism of court
and that neither trial on evidence nor
punishment under the provisions OF
the written law is to be the rule OF
the court, must leave criticism in
the light of the man whose legs were
not long enough to reach the ground!
What the individual critic chooses to
do must rest entirely with himself.
That 'DOubtful Remedy.
That the court should set up
the statement that trial at law
for libel, or for any other crime
or offense, is doubtful rene
dy," Is to cast up on all courts
precisely the imputation that
the worst muckraker or yellow
journalist could possibly cast
that the courts are unfair or
weak, or biased; and hence as
fallible as any other human in
stitution; therefore demanding
criticism for their human frail-
ties. To follow this remarkable
y. argument of the supreme court
to it's logical conclusion, 1t is
right-nay, duty-to critic1se
the courts at least as far as one
would criticise any other line of
public service, for the good of
the service itself.
| / should add that along with thi:
implication of weakness, or wrong
or incompetence in the courts them
selves. goes the recent decision that
the court however weak or other
wise frail it may declare or prove tc
be, still claims the one attribute OF
linfallibility, which is to punish at its
own discretion, without redress OF
appeal. Whether one cares to criti-
else the court with such condition
before him, dies with the individual.
Such a power brings the intending
critic up to the question of discre-
ton, not of inherent right.
An interesting address was re-
Gently given in this city, in which
lawyer, who is sworn in as a
| member of the court, took to-
task the reckless newspapers
that criticise the courts on the
apparent excuse that the news
papers are privileged characters
and may blacken and vilify
without regarding the rules that
govern the speech Or behavior of
other people. It is. doubtful if
all the newspapers of the state
collectively, publish as much in
famous and libelous, and insol-
ent criticism of all, persons and -.
institutions together, as one or /.
two. vicious or ,unprincipled or
cowardly lawyers perpetrate up
on witnesses and opposing COM
plants in any, average year of
any district court in the, state.
The divinity that hedges about the
lawyer who defames witness or an
opposing principals for a few Daltry
dollars in fees, Is notrT invoked by
newspapers aser privileged classes
Newspapers make their; criticisms as
individuals; : it is not more libelous
to say asthing in print thar to say
it in private conversation on the
street. According to the law, 1t il
as criminal to steala loaf OF bread