Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-06-02
HUGHES AND ROBERTS OPINIONS
SHIFT SUPREME COURT LINEUP
Chief Justice Aligned With Liberals in
Press, Chain Store, Red Flag and
Naturalization Gases.

ticles concerning public officers, leading
newspapers in the city, many private
persons and the Jewish race.
Constitutionality Of the Minnesota
law was assailed in the courts by Near
who commended that the law violated
not only the State constitution but
also the fourteenth amendment OF the
Constitution of the United States. A
District Court Of the State held that
Court of the State affirmed the Dis
trict Court.
Repeal Of Law Sought.
The law has been a center Of con-
troversy in Minnesota. Although Its
repeal was recommended by the Gov
ernor, it still remains on the statute
books.
The statute Of Minnesota, known
sometimes as the press gag" law, pro-
vided for the abatement as a pubic
nuisance Of a malicious, scandalous
and defamatory newspaper, magazine or
other periodical" It provided that any
person in the business Of publishing
such a periodical was guilty Of a null
sance and that publication might be
en In the action brought to suppress
the Saturday Press 1t was charged
that it published. scandalous and de-
famatory articles concerning certain
public officials. These included Mayor
George e. Leach Of Minneapolis and
Chief Of Police Frank w. Brunskill.
The publication in articles charged the
chief of police with unlawful relations
with gangsters and grating. 1t. was
alleged that the county attorney knew
of existing conditions, but failed to take
action against them. Mayor Leach was
attacked for inefficiency and dereliction
of duty. A member Of the grand jury
was said to be in sympathy with the
gangsters. These were but q part OF
the scathing attacks made on ofhcials
and on conditions in Minneapolis by
the Saturday Press.
Hughes Reads Opinion.
In the majority opinion. Chief JUS
tice Hughes said, in part:
THE fact that for approximately $50
years there has been almost an entire
absence Of attempts to impose previous
restraints upon publications relating to
the malfeasance of public officers Is sig
nificant of the deep-seated conviction
that such restraints would violate con-
stitutional right. Public officers, whose
character and conduct remain open to
debate and free discussion in the press,
find their remedies for false accusations
in actions under libel laws, providing
for redress and punishment, and not in
proceedings to restrain the publication
of newspapers and periodicals.
1.-THE general principle that the con-
stitutional guaranty OF the liberty OF
the press gives immunity from previous
restraints has been approved in many
decisions under the provisions Of State
constitutions.
THE importance of this immunity
has not lesSened. While reckless as
saults upon public men, and efforts to
bring obloquy upon those who are en-
deavoring faithfully to discharge off1cial
duties, exert a baleful influence and
deserve the severest condemnation in
public opinion, 1t cannot be said that
this abuse is greater, and 1t Is believed
to be less, than that which characterized
the period in which our institutions took
shape.
Cites Constitutional Barrier.
1.-The recognition Of authority to i'm
pose previous restraint upon publica-
ton in order to protect the community
against the circulation Of charges of
misconduct, and especially oficial mis-
conduct necessarily would carry with
it the admission of the authority of the
censor against which the constitutional
barrier was erected. The preliminary
freedom. by virtue Of the very reason of
existence, does not depend. as that
court has said, on proof Of truth.
Usually unavailing is the insistence
that the statute is designed to prevent
the circulation of scandal which tends
to disturb the public peace and pro-
mote assaults and commissions of
crimes. Charges of reprehensible con-
duct, and in particular of official NAL
feaSance, unquestionably create a pub
lie scandal, but the theory of the con-
Stitutional guaranty is that even a more
serious public evil would be caused by
authority to prevent publication .
There is nothing new in the fact that
charges of reprehensible conduct may
create resentment and the disposition to
resort to violent means of redress, but
this well understood tendency did not
alter the determination to protect the
press against censorship and restraint
upon publication"
Law Called Unconstitutional.
The court held the law, 80 far as
1t authorized Injunction proceedings
against publication of a malicious,
scandalous and defamatory newspaper.
magazine or other periodical" to in
fringe the liberty of the press guaran-
teed by the fourteenth amendment.
I'VE should add" said the opinion
in conclusion, that this decision rests
upon the operation and effect of the
"TheGoodOld