The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1923-05-10

the statement that the selection of the
venire was rotten was an exhibition
of bad taste, and it would seem to be
obvious on the part of the newspaper
But there was nothing in the article
which called on the judge or called on
the jury or called on the sheriff to
do anything less than or more than
his official duty in the case which
they were proceeding to try, nor was
there anything in that article which
intimated to the Judge, sheriff or jury
any opinion entertained by the writer
as to the guilt or innocence of the de-
PENDANT of the thing of which he was
charged.
The case is on all tours; it is par
allel, perfect parallel, to the case
we have at bar on that point.
Josephus Daniels Case.
Now, if the Court please, my
brother, the learned solicitor, read
from another case' a quotation from
In re. Daniels, in 131 Federal. 1
have that case here. 1 have always
had a particular interest in this case
because 1T had to do with my dis
tinguished and dearly beloved associ-
ate. Mr.. Josephus Daniels. editor of
the Raleigh News and Observer, and
1t was common practice among us
sometimes to refer to the fact that
ne had to be in Jail for a few hours
before the circuit court of the
United States righted wrong which
was done him. The solicitor read
from this other book a paragraph
which 1 want to read to your honor,
but l want to emphasize 1t little
differently. l want your honor to get
the ingredients which a really very
great judge has described as neces-
sary to constitute contempt in this
kind of language, and he even then
things he has described would make
a contempt. Now. the facts in this case
are that a receiver had been ap-
pointed for a railroad up in North
Carolina, and for some reason or
other which 1 have forgotten, if 1
ever knew tt. my brother Daniels
didn't like that. He thought that
was not the thing to do. So he took
his pen in hand and wrote a blazing
editorial. scorching the court, and l
am not very certain that it wasn't
very libelous. Obviously, 1t was not
contemptuous, as was here said, but
that it was libelous, 1 suspect, was
fact. He got lot of his southern
ire aroused about that transaction.
The case was pending in court.
Obviously. a case is pending in court
s long as receiver appointed by
the court is in the performance of
duties. and my brother Davis is
wrong in his assumption that the
action OF Daniels in this newspaper
article was commenting on the case
after it had been disposed of.
That particular section was simply
an intermediary transaction between
the beginning and ending of the case.
The case was then pending, and l
suspect the purpose, OF my brother
Daniels was to intimidate the judge,
If he could. and make him discharge
the receiver, and turn the property
over to the people who had it. Any
how, the case was appealed from the
district judge, and it was heard in
the circuit court before Judge Pritch-
ard. Now, l have been reading law
books long enough to know that it
makes some difference as to who de-
cides a case. l remember hearing
great constitutional argument in a
city from mine, and hearing a
case cited as coming from Ohio which
seemed to be conclusive upon the is
sue, and when they finished read
ing the case. the judge looked down
te the lawyers and said, "Who de-
cided that case?" The lawyer turned
back and gave him the name of the
Judge. and I knew him; and I just
thought il the judge by whom that
case was being decided was equipped