Evening star., 1952-09-14
Virginia Justice Goes Astroy

The contempt conviction of an Arlington
minister because he criticized Judge is, in The
Stars opinion gross miscarriage of justice and
a serious threat to freedom in the Old Dominion
Technically, the conviction was based, not
on the Rev. Ross A. Weston's sermon, but on a
press release he gave to newspaper. AS prac-
tical matter, however, this distinction is mean
1ngless. 1t was what he said in the sermon, not
the TACT that he gave out press release, which
actually constituted the alleged contempt. And
the practical effect is to rule that minister in
Virginia, or any one else for that matter, is not
Tree to say what he thinks about judicial ruling.
Mr. Weston ought to be ashamed of the
things he said about Judge Mccarthy. In their
Implications they were scurrilouS and do not
reflect credit on an adult intelligence. But the
nature of his remarks, in this instance has moth
ing to do with his right to utter them.
The case before Judge Mccarthy, involving
the right of Federal workers to hold certain
offices in Arlington, was over. The trial had been
held and the judges ruling had been announced.
In that situation, Mr.. Weston's remarks though
they may have been slanderous, could not be
said to have interfered with the administration
Of justice. And this. the Supreme Court has said,
Is the true test where a question of contempt
arises out Of spoken or published criticism of
Judge.
In the Corpus Christi Texas) Caler-Times
ease, an editor was convicted of contempt for an
editorial criticizing judge. In that case, unlike
the Virginia case motion for new trial was
pending, and it was contended that the editorial
was calculated to coerce the judge in ruling on
the motion. The Supreme Court set aside the
conviction, and Justice Douglas, speaking for the
majority, said:
This (the editoriaD was strong language,
tntemperate language, and assume, an un-
fair criticism. But the vehemence of Ian
guage used is not alone the measure of the
power to punish for contempt. The fires which
1t kindes must constitute an imminent. not "A,
merely likely. threat to the administration
OF justice The danger must not be remote or
eUen probable; it must Immediately inlperl.-
utalics supplied) The law Of contempt is not
made for the protection of judges who may be
sensitive to the winds of public opinion. Judges
are supposed to be men of fortitude, able to
thrive in hardy climate.
Judge j. Hume Taylor, who returned the
guilty verdict against Mr.. Weston, did not write
an opinion. So it cannot be determined why he
thinks the facts in the Weston case meet the
tests laid down by the Supreme Court in the
Corpus Christi case. Whatever his reasoning,
however, It seems plain that these tests were
not met
Judge Mccarthy is not the kind of Judge
who might be intinidated or coerced by any
thing Mr.. Weston might say. And even If he
were, the fact remains that there was nothing
before him concerning which he could be CO.
creed. The case in his court was over and his
decision had been announced.
In that situation, to say that the delivery of
the sermon or the giving out of the news release
imperiled the administration of justice is nom
sense. Nevertheless the conviction stands as
threat and warning to any one else in Virginia
who might someday feel impelled to denounce
a judges ruling. This clear abridgement of the
right of free speech guaranteed in the First
Amendment far outweighs any conceivable inter-
ference with justice in Mr.. Weston's misguided
remarks. It is conviction which ought to be
carried to the Supreme Court, if necessary, in
quest of reversal. To permit it to stand with
out full challenge would leave in force the
gagging effect of what, in The Stars opinion, Is
an abuse of the power to punish for contempt.