The Richfield recorder. (Richfield, Idaho) 1909-1931, 1913-01-23
CRISICISM OF.
OFFICIAL ACTS
Continued from page ID

wise, Inelr opinions were DldSeu by
their affiliations, till there was no
longer justice in their court. The court
fined him heavily for contempt; his
neighbors paid the fine, made him a
statewide hero = and whether his
charge vas or was not proven, the new
court that the people elected did not
continue to go the same road! Most
courts are built on high ideals; most
judges are men of probity and integ-
rity; few judges stand on their own
infallibility and deny to others the
legal right to doubt their judgment or
or even their motives; most judges
would grant to critics the same right
that the law takes in every case against
every one a~ccused-of alleging a wrong
motive instead of a mistake for what
ever does not come out right. Most
judges would take any criticism to a
fair trial of some form-an open dis
c~ussion, a record of honorable deeds
that would not be compatible with the
charge, a demonstration that the
charge was false, or a trial by jury on
a charge of libel. That we now have a
different Interpretation from the state
supreme court, an Interpretation which
we understand to be that there is no
law 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 a court, and
that neither trial on evidence nor pun
ishment under the provisions of the
written law is to be the rule of the
covrt, must leave criticism in the plight
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 the court should set up the
statement that a trial at law for libel,
for any other crime or o~ffense, is a
doubtful remedy" is to cast upon all
precisely the imputation that
the worst muckraker or yellow journal
ist could possibly cast-that the courts
are unfair, or weak, or biased, and
hence as fallible as any other human
institution; therefore demanding criti-
cism for their human frailties. To fol-
low this remarkable argument of the
supreme court to its logical conclusion,
it is a right-nay, a duty---to criticise
- z..+. - 111ck 90 fo- ~, orO xrrNt,1I
c~riticise any other line of public SER
vice, for the good of the service itself.
[ should add that, along with this i'm
Dlication of weakness or wrong or
incompetence in the courts themselves,
goes the recent decision that the court,
weak or otherwise frail it
nay declare or prove itself to be, still
claims the one attribute of infallibility,
which is to punish at its own discretion,
without redress or appeal. Whether
me cares to criticise the court with
iuch a condition before him, lies with
he individual. Such a power brings
he intending critic up to the question
# discretion, not of inherent right.
An interesting address was recently
-iven in this city, in which a lawyer,
Who is sworn in as a member of the
curt, took to task the reckless news
apers that criticise the courts on the
pparent excuse that the newspapers
re privileged characters, and may
lacken and Willy without regarding
he rules that govern the speech or be-
avior of other people. 1t is doubtful ,
all the newspapers of the state, col :,
publish as much infamous /
nd libelous and insolent criticism of |
persons and institutions together, as /
ne or two vicious or unprincipled or Y
owardly lawyers perpetrate upon wit '
esses or opposing compliments in any I
verage term of any district court in =
lie state. The divinity that hedges :
oout the lawyer who defames a wit r
-ss or an opposing principal for a few a
altry dollars in fees, is not invoked by O
ewspapers as privileged classes. v
6WSpdpeTS mdht IuelI CIiJlClSluS do ~
.dividuals; it is not more libelous to n
" a thing in print than to say it in i
'ivate conversation on the street. =
ccording to the law, it is as criminal \
steal a~loaf of bread as to loot a r
INK or wreck a railroad and get away d
it'll millions; it is as criminal to kill b
unnamed hobo as to kill the presi- 0
of theUnited States. There are
newspapers pleading immunity for
nat they have said, as the speaker
ferred to has said. The doctrine of !,
ee speech is all that any newspaper =,
aims; it is the right that the man in s,
e street claims for himself, and exer- IL
les; it is the right that the petty &c
wyer who defames a witness or an Ell
principal Celebrates to the V
int of infamy, even in the presence 81
the court itself, when such words ~
,uld mean a blow or a shot outside of =
urt-and it is a right that the Jews W
per should demand and exercise. OF