The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1915-07-14
TEST WELL ITEM To BE ADDED
TO APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE

ueut clssccung the kfilet opinion.
relied upon BY The Manufactures
LAght A Heat Co. and showing that
hnlei had mistated and misinterpre-
ted practically every decision upon
which his opinion bad been based
ne quoted from the supreme courts
decision IN case ex parte Robinson ~.
wallace. This opinion was rendered
by Justice Field and was agreed 10
by eight Of the nine supreme court
Judges in which the Law of contempt
governing federal courts was clearly
defined and limited. explicitly declar-
ING that the federal court might not
punish Tor contempt for publications
or acts not committed In its pres
ence or 50 near thereto as to impece
the operations u the court. THIS ne
claimed was the authoritive declara-
ton upon this subject by the nigh
est court OF the land and no other
rules had been or could be estab
hshed. He quoted also the opinion OF
Judge Pritchard in the Daniels case
In which Pritchard overruled an
order OF a federal court judge Inn
prisoning the editor of the Raleigh
Observer for severe structures upon
the action Of said Judge in appointing
a railroad receiver. Judge Pritch-
ards ruling clearly laid down the law
TO the effect that newspaper comment
could not b. punished as contempt
because II did not come within the
federal statutes provided for con
tempt cases.
Courts Have Remedy.
Judge Holt then took up the con.
tention OF the Manufacturers Light a
Of 10 Al
courts were empowered to punish
summarily for contempt they would
have no power TO protect themselves
from unjust attack. He showed clear
ly that the Federal statutes provided
a sufficient remedy for any act design
ed 70 interfere with the operations OF
the courts. Indictments under Grim
inal statutes were possible In any case
OF corrupt or unlawful interference
with or obstruction to any OF the op-
erations OF the court. These criminal
statutes fully protected the courts in
all their lawful operations. but viola.
ton OF these statutes could not be
punished as contempt unless they
came clearly within section 725 above
quoted. Judge Holt then took up the
publications referring specifically to
those which had been commented up
on by Mr.. Howard yesterday and
showed that each publication was
strictly truthful. was justified by the
record and contained no insulting or
unjust reflection upon the Master or
the Judge. He declared that the de-
Tense was prepared to go through the
entire mass OF publications and prove
the truth OF each and every one OF
them. TO prove that they were justi-
fed by the acts and to show that they
were published in the interest OF the
public good.
Weirs ESoneration %
Diverting for a moment Judge Holt
paid some attention to Mr. A. Leo
We'll. who in his argument in the
forenoon sought TO exonerate himself
from the charge OF bribery. Well
misquoted the publications claiming
that many times they had called him
a briber and a bride giver. Judge
! Holt took up the publications and
showed that in every case in which
reference had been made to Well he
had been referred to simply as one
under indictment for bribery. that no
where had the papers called We'll a
I briber or a bride giver. We'll also in
making the plea TO the court made
the assertion that the courts OF West
virginia had declared that he was
not guilty OF bribery and that such a
ruling was OF record. This had re-
Terence 10 the proceedings which Mr.
We'll started in the Kanawha county
court following his indictment. Judge
Holt took up the record and expIain.
ed TO the court the exact situation
/ He showed that Mr.. We'll had been
| indicted for bribery and that he was
stu under indictment that in fact
ne was now under heavy bond 70
answer an indictment. Following
the indictment in the intermediate
court OF kanawha county We'll had
/ instituted proceeding for a writ I'm
/ the circuit court 10 prevent the trial
I OF the indictment end one OF the
things he plead in his application for
I that writ was the technical pIea that
II he was guilty OF bribery be was
guilty only Of bribing witnesses In a
Federal case and that therefore the
state courts had no Jurisdiction. On
/ TINS plea the writ Of prohibition had
/ been granted. From this writ the
state had appealed 10 the supreme
court. that appeal was stiu pending
though the state had twice made or
iorts 10 forward the case and get
speedy action and that Mr.. Wells AZ.
torneys had resisted both times. This
I ne said Is the kind Of exoneration Mr.
Wen had from the courts OF West
virginia. u Is proper to refer 10 him
as man under Indictment for birth.
I cry. lie stands under indictment for
I bribery and will 20 stand until no
meets the issue and the case is ad
| Indicated
Eloquent Plea for Press.
/ Judge Holt concluded his argument
with an eloquent appeal for the lib.
! ery ~ the press and for the right Of
l free speech and free criticism Of pub.
| lic officials
Ho quoted from the opinion of
/ Judge Pritchard on this particulae
/ point 10 the effect that In demoe.
rac} decisions were reached by free
2 discussion Of public questions. that
3 Pubic servants Of every class must
Z submit their acts 10 the consideration
. Of their fellow men. that it was the
. nuiy Of the press to present to the
3 pubic Information concerning pro.
/ 'redinrs of the courts. and especially
7 when these prOceedIncs dealt with
/ issues Ol evil tpmupramonf t0 limit