Omaha daily bee., 1914-09-27
Freedom Of Press Again.

The outcome Of the futile effort OF a candi-
date for governor to restrain The Bee from pub
fishing a letter he himself wrote before he
changed his mind, announcing positively that he
would not run, merely illustrates the pitiful
plight into which Judge on the bench falls
when he undertakes arbitrarily to set himself
up as a newspaper censor That the restraining
order in this instance was admittedly null and
void because signed by the learned Judge with
out calling for a bond specifically required by
law, or that the occasion for seeking the injunc-
ton had completely passed. does not alter the
fact that a great principle is involved whose
subversion would menace the freedom OF the
press.
The most pointed comment we can make is
TO reproduce these excerpts from the recent
opinion Of the supreme court of Montana turn
ing on a constitutional guaranty of free speech
in substantially the same phraseology as con-
tanned in the constitution of Nebraska:
The language here employed seems too clear 10
admit OF doubt argument. The fundamental
idea conveyed IN this section is penalty for viola
ton of the privilege, not prevention of it's abuse.
II cannot be said that citizen of Montana is free
to publish whatever he will any subject when
injunction prohibiting him from publishing a par
ticular item upon particular subject hangs
his head like a sword of Damoces ready to fall
with all the power which be invoked in con-
section of the constitution says he may do 1t is
impossible TO conceive the idea that the individual
has absolute right to publish what he pfeases
subject to the restriction mentioned and at the
time TO entertain the idea that a may prevent
him from doing 80 The two ideas cannot possibly
coexist The language Of the section Is suscep-
tible of any other meaning than this: That the In
dividual citizen of Montana cannot be prevented
from speaking, writing publishing whatever he
will any subject. IT, however. what he writes
or publishes constitutes criminal libel he may be
held responsible for the abuse OF the liberty in a
criminal prosecution II what he speaks writes
publishes wrongfully infringes the rights
ers, he may be held responsible for the abuse in a
civil action for damages II this is not the mean
ing OF the section, It is because the trainers
pioyed language which is impotent as a vehicle for
conveying their idea.
The guaranty OF this section extends as fully to
the poorest to the wealhest citizen of the state
and though the abuse of the liberty so guaranteed
may result in loss for which there cannot be any
adequate compensation, the trainers of our constitu-
ton In preparing it, and the people in adopting It,
doubtless concluded that 1t was better that such
results be reached in isolated cases than that the
liberty OF speech be subject to the supervision OF a
censor To declare that a court may say that an
individual shall not publish a particular item is to
say that the court may determine in advance Just
what the citizen may may not speak write upon
given subject Is, In fact, say that such court
s censor of speech as well as of the press TN
der similar constitutional provisions the supreme
courts Of California and Missouri have reached the
conclusion.
In view of the decisions and the utter ina
bility of the champions of judicial press censor
ship to cite single case to the contrary, It is
amazing that any judge or court, even under in
element OF political contest or the lure of po-
litical preferment, should override sacred con-
stitutional guarantees which courts are insti-
tuted to uphold and defend.