Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1919-01-02
FREE SPEECH AND PRESS
ESSENTIAL TO PUBLIC
GOOD, SAYS HIGH COURT

Scontinged From Page onsl
the grounds for defense and fined
Judge Edward II. Wright, one Of
Mr.. Johnson's attorneys for con
tempt for having filed such an an
swer. At the contempt hearing the
court denied the defendants the priv
| ilege of submitting evidence but
after having announced his decision
permitted Mr. Johnson to make
statement explaining his position and
granted an appeal
Contention of the Defense.
! In submitting the case Sthe SUI
preme court, the defense argued that
under the decision of Judge Mechem
the filing of a libel suit during
political campaign automatically
would stop all further criticism of
the plaintiff under penalty for con-
tempt and would thus abrogate the
constitutional guarantees of the free
| dom of the press
Attorney General Harry l.. Patton,
who appeared before the supreme
court for the state, held that the
publication Of the article complained
/ of held Judge Mechem up to con-
/ tempt and ridicule and was plainly
| contempt of court.
Herbert D. Mason, formerly of
New York City, who appeared as
| special counsel for Mr.. johnson be-
! fore the supreme court, issued the
| following statement reviewing the
courts decision:
| Mason Ecviews BCci ion.
! "The decision in the New Mexican
contempt case ought to do much 70
clear up many points concerning the
! freedom Of the press and the law OF
/ contempt Of court. Its clear recognl-
/ ton of the freedom Of the press guar
| antees of state and federal constltu-
! lions as contraste1 with the contempt
power of courts, It's holding that every
! construction and presumption must ne
made IN favor Of the good faith ana
innocent intent of one who crltlclses
the court and it's holding that judge
cannot use co empt powers to redress
priyate grievances, furnish some
! much needed definition of the street
! Limitations upon the exercise of the
contempt powers by courts as well as
some equally needed definition of the
rights of citizens to express their OPP
inions concerning the judiciary under
their free press and free speech guar
| antees There has been altogether 100
! much confusion as to the limitations
of contempt jurisdiction. The present
! decision goes far in clearing TINS up
! While adhering to the rule that crit
! iciym calculated to obstruct the course
Of Justice may be punished as Tor a
! contempt of court, the court holds
/ that cases of constructive contempt
are criminal proceedings and that
therefore. tho information, the au-
thority of the court, the weight or Inc
evidence Gncuding all conflic in
! presumption and proof and the r.
regularity of the proceedings are gov
erned by the rules Of criminal LAY"
) The information must be strictly con-
strued as well as the article alleged
to I've contemptuous and the court
further saws the defendant is pre-
sumed 10 be innocent until proved
= guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the
same as a defendant in q criminal
case. There are no. presumption taken
, against him, but the Prescriptions are
all in his favor.
) Court Attitudes at Variance.
This is wide departure from the
attitude of those courts which seen
to have presumed that their critics
were guilty apd to have thrown upon
them the burden of proving the limo
cence of their intent. Certainly in con
tempt proceedings, where the offend
= ed Judge sits substantially as accuser
: Judge and executioner, the rule an
l nounced in Judge Holloman's oplnlol
is much more consonant with free
press and free speech guarantees
The court holds in addition, tina
where a publication is not contemptu
Gus on its face the defendants sworl
denial of contemptuous purpose viii
al, nd ha def
= ant discharged, in the absence of tn
! definite pleading and proof by thu
!, state that the publication tended to oh
= struct justice This is. in effect,
. disavowal of the theory of some court
, that judges may convict on their in
: tuitive knowledge in such cases, ant
;, without pleading and proof of tn
!, facts and circumstances relied upon.
"In line with these holdings th
court also holds that a defendan
charged with contemptuous criticisr
n is entitled to very construction consist
ent with innocence of wrongful intent
: saving in cons dering the probable eff
: feet of the publication every fair an
o reasonable inference consistent wit
the theory of the defendants limo
@ cence should he indulged.' This rule
emphasized by the, court in its state
10 ment that 1t is merely declafatory o
V primary principle of criminal LAY
and necessarily applicable to the cas-
IS at bar.
n Quit mes Recourse of Judges.
d "The court also holds that judge
y may not redress their private grieN
l. anccs ~ contempt proceedings, bu
II may resort only to the kinds of relic
e opcn to the private citizen. AS to thi
h the court says that contempt power
l. are not TO be used as means of per
n sonal protection not accorded to othe
$ officials and further says if in hi
1t individual capacity a Judge is crit
cised or libeled his recourse is tn
lie same as that afforded any private cit
+ zen, unless it is shown that the lib
g tended to obstruct the orderly cours
a of justice in some pending case or the
t. il tended. to embarrass the Judge in tn