| OCR Text |
Show tiii: i itLcuuM or ruu vntm. The attitude of Judge Zaun on the iiuretlon of journaliitli: (rlvllrge, aa defined In Ills nil-Ini; nil-Ini; on Iho demurrer III the late cam in Which thla paper waa a party, wat at once recognlted aa a sound principle nnd bued upon the but of law, lu that It recognized pro. gn salon and thoneida rf advance d llmea aa ngaluat the reitilctlon and tyranny of b gone aRea. A California Judge l.oiilgau ol Hantn Clara county receully In Id tomewhat dltferenll) and an apeal from liU action waa Inttnntly taken to the supreme court of the state, be oro Mlilch body It vtu argued the other day and takon under advltemeut. Itteeina that on January 10th hit theillvoicooaioof l'rlcovs, I'rlco wat called lor trial lu the nupillor court ot rtinta Clara uctinty. Judrfn Lorrlguti undo on order that tho noted in gi ijnul 1 bo In prlvato and Hut tlu-y should not bo publlihed In IhuiUliy par. On the following inornlug Cbarlea M. Hliorlrl Igu published lu the Ban Jote Mercury, of which he Is the editor, a uuiect nccount of the proceedings nt the trial. When cited to appear tcforci Jude Lorrigan aud ahow caute why ho should not be punltheJ for coulemtt, Mr Hhortrldge claimed that he, aa a cltlno, bad a rlghtloubllah the ptocroslngt, not-wlthttandlng not-wlthttandlng the order of the couil, at the tame tlmo dltclnlinlng any dif respect of that ttltuml. The court held that there, had been re dlsote-dleoceollls dlsote-dleoceollls order, although none of lis irotecdlngt liol been Intelfered with, and Mr. BuortrlJga wat found guilty of contempt. In the argument before the supreme cotilt the defendant's attorney clalmeJ that the liberty of speech and freedom of tho press were Inviolable rlghta guaranteed by the Coustltut on, and the right to eierclte them could not bu Interfered with except wheru the rlghta of othcra would bo Interfere I with thereby. It beltu cjneode I that the published fcport waa fair arid col rtct, the roccsrea of the court were not Interfered with on I Ihere'ole there net no olttntc. It mi also claimed thai tho court only hsd Jurlillc-Hon Jurlillc-Hon of the rato before It and tho partlei to li; could not dttttmlno what the worlJ nt largo ahould do, aud If Ihe pit Hilled proceedings would not have bren Illegal without the order of secrecy, llioy wero not made ij by tuch order. It waa further shown that "It la the right of Ihe publlo to be Informed of the proceollugs of Us courts. Tho Judges aio only the terv-nnts terv-nnts of Ihe people and the latter ate entitled to know what their ministers and servant ore doing. The petitioner claimed that Iheie waa nothing In the publication to shock publlo moral and If there was It had nothli g to do wlln the pretent hearing. The cotiila were not Ihe custodians of t utile morals at large." Tho attorney further argued that the elimination must be conltued to the chargra contained lu tbe allldavlt, which took tho place of an Indlctmont. riieamdavlttetfoith that wltoomes had been eicluded from the court, and that the publication by the petitioner gave them tuch Infoimatlon as the court desired withheld from lliem. Thu allldavlt made nisuch charge; If It had delcndsnt might poitlbly be guilty of couteiaft. Thequeellon we whether the allldavlt preienled stittl. dent facta to couitlluto n contemit. Tho letltloner contended that tbe publication waa withlu hla right of free speech aud free preia. The right of lice press It tho bulwark of put Ho rights. The freedom of tho prett la tbe principal pillar uf a frco ptijpb." That aounda like the right kind of Coctrlne.yet to hat extent can It nol, haa It not been ute. I The freedom of tbe prrra means or ahoulj luoau tbe freedom to bo lust; to be a defender against oppreailou and error, and not that Immunity from puulthment or liability which permila If It docs not Incite to rlauder, falsehood and wrong. The prrr t has a great, a grand mlialou, an I except In laces unJ at times Is acccuipllihlng Ita urioie. It la an educator, a dlttemlnator of legitimate Information, and whenever It shall bo even for line occasion nt arlauce with this line of conduct It Is wrong aud all the more wrong t ecaute of Its i ower. HUH, It mutt not be ns-turned ns-turned that legitimate criticism la slaudtr or reproach for wrong-doing la abuse. Between thu two extrcmea la the legitimate aud ha py medium. , Tho following language of the attorney at-torney la alto a t and propel! Inyoarsgonoby monarchical govern menu prt.sed upon aud determined what lulubt lio put lulled. Alliorlea Wit! the llret to eiiublliti a freo and Ulttrauiiuulpd irc.. 'the only limit lo Ita freedom li UmlltinutlhoelorcUnl ao Hint li duea not lulrlnge u im Hie Jiittrlghuol others. Waa the publication of a truthful and correct rex,rt an Interference with tho propor conduct of the proceeding! Could tbU be an interference with the duties and lunutlons of a courtr Hue the reading by u Judge In tho morning of a prucuediuittn hu court Itio day butore In any way Intorfuro wlih his rlghuf Under Ibeno conditions bow can tho pub Illation Injure any one; If the petitioner bae Injure I tin one what law ha ho transgressed? If ho ha Iriuiigressod no law tvhy ahould bo be punished? Theclosln. portion cornea very nearly near-ly telling the- whole atory. If ho haa Injured no onu lie haa transgressed no law, and If he has trausgrcnod no law lie should not bu punished, (loud, ound loglo nnd good common tcnte. Wo look forthutupremo coutt totiko that view eiClt. |
