The Manchester journal. [volume] (Manchester, Vt.) 1861-current, 1915-02-04
SUPREME COURTS DECISION
AS TO FREE PUBLICITY

Our consideration of the influence
tending to infringe upon free discus
sion in free press has been interpre
ted as referring wholly to measure
pending in the Vermont Legislature
We have been looking far beyond tn
General Assembly Of our own Stat
and beyond the confines of Vermont +
that larger freedom of the pres
which helped make it possible for tn
American colonists to achieve indie
pendence, and for their descendant
to establish human freedom regardless
of color. That principle endures to
day though it applies in novel forms
and new directions.
Nobody knows better than the news
paper man the varied influence!
brought to bear directly to block pub
licity having to do with the public wei.
fare. The general public may have ar
impression that printing or the mere
exercise of the principle of publicity
is the only factor involved. Right
here the recipe for hare pie applies
First catch your hare.
A newspaper cannot attack public
abuse until it secures knowledge of
that abuse. 1t cannot present infor-
nation regarding defects in the pub
lie service until it secures that in
formation from some source itself. 1t
follows as matter of course that a
newspaper cannot arraign public
servant for lack of fealty to the COM
monwealth or for inefficiency or for
dishonesty until is has secured abso-
lutely sure information.
Manifestly therefore it is almost as
important that the newspaper shall be
able to get such information as it is
that it shall be free to discuss all mat
ters involving the government and
public welfare, as guaranteed by the
constitutional provision for free
press.
If the newspapers, for example, had
been unable to secure the facts and
figures regarding Vermont's enormous
detective expenditures they could new
er have given publicity to that abuse,
and the profigate waste of the peo-
Piles money might have gone on. Be-
fore they made hare pie it was
necessary first to catch a hare.
Newspaper men throughout the
United States have been anxiously
awaiting the outcome of a case in
volving this freedom to secure infor-
nation which has been pending in the
Supreme Court of the United States.
The Rutland News has summed up the
whole case in a nutshell as follows:
"The newspapers of America have
cause to be grateful to the New York
Tribune for its valiant battle in be-
half Of freedom of the press, which
has eliminated in a victory in the
United States Supreme Court. By
decision of that tribunal, newspapers
are now legally protected in right
which has always been assumed and
religiously adhered to by every honest
and conscientious newspaper - the
right to keep confidence with those
who furnish information as basis for
articles in the public's interest.
mo newspaper would wish to con-
ceal the name Of a person who will
fully or maliciously furnished it with
transformation. On the contrary, in
such case, newspaper would be JUS
tifiably anxious to see the offender
punished. On the other hand, every
obtains from time to time
of an important public
upon condition that its
source be not disclosed. II the infor-
nation be genuine, or honestly given,
a newspaper would regard 1t as
sacred duty to protect the source.
"In the case in question, the city
editor and a reporter Of The Tribune
were brought before the grand jury
to ascertain the source Of two exclu-
sive stores regarding important snug
Cling cases in the port of New York.
The refused to testify on the ground
that il might incriminate themselves.
To remove this safeguard, an attempt
was made to force upon them par
don from President Wilson, which, it
was contended, would free them from
any possibility of discriminating them
selves, and would thereby force them
TO testify. They held out and were
fined $500 each for contempt Of court,
with the conditional finding that If
they would disclose the source Of their |
they would be purged Of
contempt.