The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1913-07-19
MUZZLING THE PRESS.
The Tyrannical Imprisonment of
Editor Rainc, OF Memphis.

Editor Gilbert d. Raine, of the
Memphis News-Scimitar, has been
sentenced by Judge A. ID. Pittman, of
Memphis, to serve ten days in Jail
and pay fine of $50 for merely
publishing an order issued in open
Court, Editor hcine has appealed
his case to a higher court
Editor Raine was not fined and
imprisoned for critioising Court.
he was sentenced tor publishing
testimony which the Court had in
structed newspapers not % print.
But Editor Raine was charged with
printing the fact that Judge Pittman
had forbidden the publication OF
certain aftidavits.
The Editor of the News-Sci:nltar
took the position that it was a public
Court and any taxpayer could de-
mand and be entitled to receive a
certified copy of any order or decree
therein. and his newspaper had a
perfect right to print such an
order.
Following the sentence Of fine and
| Imprisonment the News-Scimitar said
editorially:
"A Judge who announces to the
public that he has great respect and
| believes in the necessity of the free
dom Of the press and free speech. and
gives the limit to the editor of a
newspaper for publishing an order OF
his, gives some evidence of being a
dangerous man, and in possession Of
what might be dangerous power. A..
| b. Pittman. for the present, one OF
the local Judges of Shelby County.
gave the limit for contempt yesterday
to the editor of the News-Scimitar
not for publishing an affidavit which
he. the Judge. wished suppressed, but
for publishing the order that the
affidavit should not be published. He
essayed to shut the mouth of the
press, and also essayed to say that
the press should not publish the fact
of his attempt
This was tyrannical order, and
hit straight at the principle that the
press of this country shall be free.
1t was, not only tyrannical, but the
Judge who held the editor in con-
tempt was not consistent in his act
for Editor Raine recalls that seven
years ago Judge Pittman made a
decision in case in which Mr.
Raine was personally interested.
Certain testimony was offered to
which Mr.. Raines attorney took ex-
ceptions. The jury was sent from the
room until the Judge could decide
whether the testimony was admissi-
bic. After hearing the testimony
Judge Pittman ruled 1t out. but in
the mantime it had been taken down
by stenographer. Mr.. Raines at
torney asked the court to instruct
the newspapers not to print this re-
port, which would allow the jury t.
see the testimony which had been
ruled out, but this Judge Pittman had
refused to do. in the following Ian
guage:
1.-The Court has not authority tc
prohibit the publication in news
paper Of anything which occurs in
Court. If the Court did issue such
an order it would be void, because
public"
And behold. how sweeping is the
deadly parallel! Editor Raine was
not personally interested in the case
now under discussion occasioned by
a decision, the language of which is
as follows:
inherent power to forbid, but not for
ever, the publishing of anything that
in the opinion Of the Judge would
impress the jury and interfere with
the trial."
jury locked up and forbidden them to
read the newspapers during the pro-
gress of the trial, but he seems to
have preferred the wrong way.
The people cannot bolster their
respect for the judiciary upon analyz-
| ing such cases as this. 1t arouses
their derision, their ridicule and con-
| tempt. The Courts belong to the
public and derive their powers from
the public. and that day will be a
dark one for the Republic when the
| Courts follow generally the precedent
laid down by the Memphis Judge.
The Advertiser recognizes the fact
that there are certain things which
newspapers should not print when
the Court issues it's instructions, but
the case OF the Memphis editor does