The Grangeville globe. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho) 1907-1922, 1913-01-09
JUSTICE ALL
SHE DISSENTS
Continued from page y
There is a Difference.

light of our constitution, (Sec-
tons, article l, there can be no
contempt of court in the critic
ism Of the court or its judges for
any action taken officially or
otherwise. No liability or penal
ty attaches for freely speaking,
writing and publishing ON all sub
jects so long as the privilege is
not abused, but the constitution
says all persons shall be held re
sponsible for the abuse of that
liberty. (Section 8, article ~
This grants liberty and not a
license; it must be exercised like
all other constitutional rights,
with due regard to the rights of
every other individual and of So
ciety at large. The right to ac-
quire and hold property is also
a constitutional right, but no one
would seriously contend that such
guaranty confers any right on the
citizen to go out and take the
property of anOther-it must be
lawfully acquired. There is a
wide difference between critic
ism, discussion and arraignment
of the acts and conduct of an in
dividual or official on the one
hand, and straight out charges of
corruption and crime ON the other
the one falls within the bounds
of discussion and debate which is
lawful and legitimate; the other
comes within the domain accus-
alton and vituperation, and is I'M
lawful The one sheds light and
intelligence on the subject; the
other turns off the light of dis
cussion and reason and descends
to epithets and generates preju-
dice alone
Defendants Not Liable.
In the case before US, it is
clear to me that the defendants
are not liable for any criticism
they may have INDUCED in with
reference to the court or judges
or the courts decision; neither
do l think they could be held for
contempt in simply publishing
press dispatches of the comments
of any one on the decision of this
court. In my judgment, in order
for a publisher to become liable
as for contempt in publishing a
press dispatch or news item, the
article must first be lbelous and
contemptuous, and, in the second
place, the. paper must have in
some way used and published il
as expressing the publishers OWL
sentiments or repeated or reiter'
ated it after it ceased to be mere
news. In other words, there must
be something about such publ
cation to indicate wrongful OF
malicious purpose in the publica
ton.
News Agencies.
GA news gathering agency
such as "a great daily press, may
at times publish news items will
no thought or intention of preju
dicing, obstructing or embarrass
ing the administration of justice
although it does have that effect
and still | think the mere publ
cation would be no contempt
After all, so far as | can see il
this ease, it must get back to tn
one proposition, namely, that tn
defendants here passed beyon'
the mere publication of news item
and press dispatches and beyon'
mere criticism of the court an,
its judges and beyond arraign
ment of the court or its action i
a case pending, and have, in III
mistakable language, charged tn
court with such corruption an
venality as, if true. should be sui
ficient to impeach every judge o
the bench. This falls within tn
law of contempt as everywher
recognized and observed, and n
authority to the contrary has bee
cited by counsel for the defer
dants.
Reviews Curzen's Testimony.
"This brings me TO the que
ton as to who is responsible fc
these publications. Defendan
Sheridan and Broxon admit II
authorship and responsibility. III
defendant Cruzen however, d