OCR Text |
Show annul such power." Ho even went further: and said that "should a newspaper publish what it believes to be a truthful report of proceedings proceed-ings in open court, the judge has a right to denounce such report as false without summoning "the editor and permitting him to be heard in his own defence," and that "for any injury thus done to the reputation of a newspaper the judge cannot be called to account; that the newspaper cannot venture to say that the judge had willully misstated the facts, and that, in summarily . punishing the editor for such contempt, the editor may be deprived of the right to prove by witnesses the point made in his answer. These assumptions as to the extraordinary powers of the . jn-kicary jn-kicary stand as a menace to the freedom of the press fraught. with tremendous possibilities. While the Supreme Court of California is likely to jealously guard every avenue by which the protection of judicial courts may be threatened, it seems improbable that the placing plac-ing of such monstrous powers of absolute control 'in Ihe hands of i judges can be sanctioned by it . "A Menace To The Press.'; - ' There is a case pending before tl e Supreme Court of " palifornU ; ol' unusuaT importance to' newt-papers, newt-papers, as, the freedom of the press and the public's right to receive, a full unbiased report of court pro ceedings is involved in the issue. The case grew out of a report ma4e by . the Sacramento - Bee in which certain testimony was printed print-ed as the Bee claims to. be able to prove correctly This report was subsequently criticised severely severe-ly by counsel in the case in which thetestimony was ,given, and the 1 judge, at His request, declared the report to be a 'giossty false statement, state-ment, .a gross fabrication.'' The Bee undertook to prove the trutli of its report by comparison $ith, ithe3 c o jn r t, stenographers notes and, by witnessds, but per-missiontp per-missiontp .osq was.(refusedrf In defending - t h e report , it ' stated editorially that ''the judge's statement state-ment that it had falsified the news was 'untrue, and the judge knew it to be untrue when he uttered it" Whereuiwn the, judge caused the editor o he arrested and sentenced him to pay a fine of 9000 or go to prison for Sj5Q .(lays. In sentencing the editor . Judgp (jatlin heldthat Vcourts have an inherent right to protect, theml allyfs by punishing for contompl Committed, in or out of the pres ance," which is.no doubt true, but his second proposition is doubtfulj It s that "courts created by the constitution, should that .instrument .instru-ment fail to confer such power on tfiem, have unlimited power in this direction, and that no act of the Legislature can restrict or |