Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1921-11-03
is THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT?

journal was discussing the mine-ax law We pro-
nounced it as uncomfortable and the result Of
the connivance of group of its benefciaries fol
the purpose of escaping their just share of the
burdens of taxation. We named several gentlemen
as the nstigators of this unjust imposition on the
people.
Suppose for the purpose of shutting off all agi-
tation by the Journal at time when election
pending of these gentlemen had sued the
Journal for libel because of its charge that he was
a member of gang in New Mexico operating
to Cypress and rob the people through such an un-
considerable law.
Suppose. then that the Journal had continued
its agitation and discussion of the mne-tax law
and its unholy exemptions Suppose that the gen.
tlemen who had sued us should then have us cited
for contempt of court for prejudicng the public
against the mine-tax law and thereby prejudicins
his against If the court held to be in
contempt, he would be compelled to do If the
theory of the law which Mr.. j. NJ. Reynolds now
is seeking to establish in his contempt proceeding
against the established rule, all discussion
of the minetax law would have been sienced and
all agitation of that vital public question prevented
Last fall discussing the management
Of the land office and pronouncng the deposit by
the commissioner of the public funds without in
terest in banks, crime against the public and
an instrument for building up a political machine
to Cypress the people.
Suppose that, with the election pending, the
land commissioner had sued for libel for charg-
ing these things against him. Suppose then.
had continued our criticisms of the management
of this great trust, dominant political issue in
the campaign. Suppose the commissioner had then
cited for contempt for continuing to agitate that
great question of public policy, charging that we
prejudicng the people against him in the case
he had pending against If the Reynolds theory
of contempt were the rule in New Mexico would
be pronounced guilty and steps would be taken to
silence
The route could be taken by clever poll
tcians to shut off public discussion of any and all
political evils, If such a rule to prevail. By
charging the press with libel and platform speakers
with SANDER, to be followed by contempt charges,
immunity from criticism could be had and the
people be left without information concerning the
conduct of their unworthy officials
Such a situation is unthinkable Yet that would
be the net result in possibilities under the law, if
the rule of contempt sought to be established By
Mr.. Reynolds becomes binding precedent in New
Mexico. Mr.. Reynolds intentions toward the peo-
pie would have nothing to do with the result
The theory of libel which Mr.. Reynolds is press !
ing In his charges against us is extremely serious
for newspapers. Under it charges of conspiracy /
against gang" could be taken up by any ndivid- !
ual whom it had been intimated belonged to the
gang and everything charged against the gang" |
could be pleaded being imputed to that ndivid-
ual and the offending newspaper be put to the inn
possible and financially -burdensome task OF !
proving the individual guilty of all the things
charged against the gang"
If charges against a group, constituting in
visible but all-powerful political combine, can be
taken up by individuals and sued upon in libel, a
multiplicity of expensive protracted and vexatious
suits be filed which will silence any newspaper.
This to free speech led US to publish
a series of editorials the freedom of the press
and the libel laws. We published them in spite
of repeated warnings that would be cited for
contempt of court by Mr. Reynolds if did not
refrain. The menace to the liberties of the people +
involved in any such construction OF the law, fore
bade adopting the prudent and remain
ing silent.
Now has the contempt charge. 1t SO great
ly augments the dangers to free people and 50
threatens to provide effective weapon of sup
preston by designing men, that we are forced to
fight it out where we stand. We have decided that
we will not be silent. We must enighen the peo- +
pie on the meaning of this proceeding and the
danger that the benighted silence of the past will
be re-imposed upon them unless stern resistance
is made. h
Mr.. Reynolds charges that each new utterancc
is added contempt. This editorial will be pressed
upon the court as additional for punish
ing us. Il
We accept the issue. The Journal has con-
fidence in the integrity of the courts and in their
to preserve unimpaired the liberties of
the people II
What we have said may may not prejudice
the libel case of Mr.. Reynolds against us. We have
not discussed the facts of that sought to
have the people pre-judge those facts. We have
discussed the public policy involved, which is so
vital to the general welfare that Mr. Reynolds can
have legal rights in derogation of the rights of
the people of whole state. Silence would be dis
loyalty to the people. Cowardice would stamp us
as unworthy of public confidence. We will go to
jail proudly in the peoples interest, II such be the
unexpected result.
The courts of America will never in the last
analysis, uphold so dangerous doctrine. With
such construction Of the law, constitutional guar
antees of the freedom of the press would mean
nothing
We face the issue with confidence. Mr.. Ray
nolds surely cannot understand. in his present
belligerent mood toward us, what he is doing 70
the people Of New Mexico, he would desist.