Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-06-02
COURT LIBERALISM
AGAIN DISPLAYED
Freedom of Press More
Deeply Entrenched by Su-
preme Bench Decision.
BY MARK SULLIVAN.

BY MARK SULLIVAN.
The Supreme Court yesterday in its
final decision ending the work of the
year, dealt with a case involving free
dom of the press. AS on several recent
cases involving principles classified
very roughly as liberal" and "conserv-
alive" the liberals on the court pre-
vailed. with five giving the majority
opinion, while the conservative four dis
sented That the case and the cleavage
upon 1t, was regarded as important,
was evident in several ways. The mere
fact that it was the last case decided
gave 1t certain amount Of dramatic
weight.
Six cases In all were decided during
the day. Justice Brandeis announced
decisions on two technical cases involv-
ing the Interstate Commerce Commits
sion. Justice Vandevanter, with similar
routine perfunctorinesS, made brief an
nouncement of decision In a group
Of cases involving the efforts of divers
persons, institutions and lawyers to get
hold Of slices Of upward of a million
dollars which accrued to feeble mind
ed Indian named Barnett, through
Oklahoma oil royalties. All the five
cases involving no disputed principles
were decided by the entire nine judges
without dissent.
Hughes Reads Opinion,
Then Chief Justice Hughes drew his
chair forward and proceeded to read in
his vigorous voice majority decision
In the case involving freedom of the
press. 1t was one sign of the important
and controversial character of the case
that the Chief Justice read the entire
opinion. The usual practice of the
court in ordinary cases is to give a very
brief oral summary of the decision,
while the printed decision is merely
filed for record. Similarly, when Chief
Justice Hughes had concluded reading
the majority opinion, Justice Pierce
Butler read with a vigor equal to Mr..
Hughes the complete text of his own
dissent, together with Justices Suther-
land. Vandevanter and McReynolds.
The case was described Throughout
and will stand in constitutional his
tory as one involving freedom of the
press. Justice Hughes made it the oc-
caSion for going deep into what he
called the historical conception of
liberty of the press" Probably, how
ever. most newspapers and most news
paper men, while grateful for protec-
ton of their historic guarantee, would
~40'N "a bAAob pal GlCQldI Cdoe
should have involved more typical
example Of the press.
Press" Not Representative.
The Saturday Press" of Mime
apolis, according to evidence read, was
not newspaper in the sense in which
the public understands the word. It
was casual sheet which, according to
evidence in the case, regularly and
cuStomarily" made a business of pub
fishing 'scandalous, malicious and
defamatory matter"
Minneapolis appears to have suffer-
ed from a plague Of similar sheets.
The Legislature of Minnesota enacted
a statute which in effect brought such
usual type of law against nuiSances.
Under the new law, the Saturday
Press was judicially declared to be
nuisance and further publication of it
was enjoined. The publisher appealed
through several steps to the Supreme
Court Of the United States.
Justice Hughes, and the four other
justices making up the majority, in
holding the Minnesota statute to be a
violation of the Federal Constitution,
laid particular emphasis on the fact
that the operation of the statute has
the effect Of previous restraint OF
future publications" That phrase or
its equivalent appeared perhaps a
score of times in Justice Hughes
opinion.
Butler Reads Dissent.
Justice Butler, reading the opinion
al the dissenting four, said in effect
that previous restraint of future pub
LEGATION" would be unconstitutional If
dictated by a mere administrative OFF,
cial of the State. He strongly argued,
however, that Injunction against con-
tinuance CT publication is not uncon-
stitutional when, as in this case, it
comes about through judicial process
after a court has duly declared past
issues of the same publication to be
common nuisance.
Aside from this freedom Of the
press" case, there was an extremely i'm
portant aspect of Mondays session OF
the Supreme Court. With the handing
down of Mondays decisions. the court
is absolutely up to date with its work.
Literally every case that has been ar
gued before the court has been decided
by it. That is an extraordinary condi-
ton. Further than that, every case has
been argued in which the attorneys are
ready for argument. Even as respects
cases not yet argued, there is no case
now on the docket of the Supreme Court
winch arrived on the oOckeC previous W
last March. It is doubtful II the same
could be said of any other court In the
country. If there are exceptions. prob
ably one example of similar industry
and expedition would be the Court OF
Appeals of New York State.
Supreme Court Expeditions.
Up to few years ago it was no I'M
common thing for cases to remain be-
fore the Supreme Court for as long as
two years. It is still no unusual thing
as respects most State courts. The Su-
preme Court Is absolutely guiltless OF
the condition epitomized in the phrase
the laws delays" Carrying a case to
the Supreme Court was once defeated
litigant's device for postponing justice,
or a convicted criminals means of de-
ferring the time when he must serve his
sentence. 1t Is so no longer. The pres
ent cleanness of the docket of the Su-
preme Court ends what Chief Justice
Hughes, speaking of courts generally.
once called deserved reproach."
Credit for what has been done by the
Supreme Court Is due largely, of course.
to industry and vitality of the justices.
It is due in part to legislation by Con-
gress which took away some of the auto
matte right previously possessed by some
classes of litigant to carry their cases
before the Supreme Court.
(N0nvr{Uhf