Year: 1874

During the progress Of the forgery trial just
concluded, this journal refrained from making
any comments on the case or the evidence, ex-
cept as to some OF the experts produced to
prove the genulneness OF tn signature to the
instrument alleged TO have been forged. The
experts from Grand Rapids, after testifying
here, had become the easy dupes OF stranger
in that city, and had paid, over their bank
counters, large sums Of money on forged
certificates. by which they demonstrated their
utter worthessness as judges OF handwrltings.
For saying what we did about them, the coun-
sel for the respondent took offense and, as we
understand the matter, went to the Judge with
our case and represented that the conductor OF
this journal, THE TRUE NoRTHERNER, was
guilty of great indecorum and mlsdemeanor


to wit of the crime of contempt OF Court,
and should be subjected to the pains and pen
alties Of fine and salutary lecture from tue
''wool-sack." His Honor, Judge Brown re-
garded the matter in very different hight


fortunately for us and was of the opinion
that the bounds OF editorial proprety bad not
been transcended


The counsel may have had in their minds the
recent case IN Massachusetts ia which Judge
Wells, one of the Judges OF the Supreme Court
had sent out and brought in the Editors of the
Saturday E0ening Express of the city OF Bos-
ton, and fined them twenty-five dollars for, in
the language OF the Judge, contempt IN pub
fishing an article tending TO bias the jury in a
suit then pending before HIM"


1t has time out of mind been argued by the
more sensitive and conservative OF the legal
profession that no Journal or person, by the
circulation OF news touching the facts or evil
dence in any case pending, eau be justified in
prejudicing the jury, or those who might be-
! come the jury but never BEFORE in this coun-
try at least, have we heard OF the enforcement
| OF the theory by pains and penalties, on the
part OF Judge The idea ought to be obsolete
for it grows out OF that other equally bad, that
, no man who has read OF or formed an opinion
in murder case, can sit upon the jury. Both
ideas have grown from those ancient forms Of
government which have looked to official safety
through the ignorance Of rather than the In-
telligence of the people. Enlightened and lib
eral Judges, sitting in American courts, have,
for years past pushed aside this idea as incon-
sistent with this progressive age, and as entire.
ly unnecessary in attaining the ends Of justice.
II seems to have been reserved for Supreme
Judge Of enlightened Massachusetts to put a
newer and more arbitrary construction upon
the old idea and one which, il allowed to stand,
more seriously threatens the liberties of the
press than anything which has yet transpired
Ill the history of this country. II an editor
may not comment on evidence or facts adduc-
ed, be surely cannot publish any OF the details
OF a crime before trial is had and verdict
rendered-for until the tr1al is reached it can
not be known just what facts may influence the
judgment Of the jury. This is not question
between liberty and license, such as is some
times raised in suits for libel. The Editors Of
the Express were not accused OF any abuse OF
that liberty usually accorded to the press but
by the arbitrary mandate of judge by virtue
OF powers presumed to be inherent IN him, and
not awakened by the appeal of any person
claiming to be agrieved the Editors were sent
for and on the dictum Of one man pronounced
to be guilty OF contempt" This appears to
be the kind OF precedent that was sought to be
established in Michigan where vast sums OF
money are yearly raised to support her nstitu-
tious of learning "a State whose proudest boast
Is that all her citizens enjoy the largest facil-
ties to become intelligent.