Show THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS the attitude of 3 judge zane on the question of journalistic privilege as defined in his ruling on the demurrer in the late case in which this paper was a party was at once recognized as a sound principle and based upon the best beat of law in that it recognized progression gres sion and the needs of advanced times as against the restriction and tyr tyranny uny of bygone ages A california judge lorrigan of santa banta clara county recently held somewhat differt antly and an appeal from hla his action was instantly taken to the s supreme 1 court ut lf the state before which body it was wae argued the other day and taken under advisement it ft seems that on january last the divorce case of price vs ve price was wag called for trial in the superior court of santa clara munty county J judge Lor lorrigan made an order that the proceed inga should be in private and that they should not be published tn in the dally daily papers on the following morning charles M published in the san ban jose Mor mercury cury of which be is the editor a correct account of the proceedings at the tbt trial when cited to appear batore judge jude lorrigan and show cause why he should not be punished for contempt mr claimed that he be as s a citizen had a right to publish the proceedings notwithstanding the order of the court at ai the same time disclaiming any disrespect of that tribunal the court hold held that there had been a disobedience ot of its order although none of its proceedings had been Inter interfered ferea with and mr was fourie guilty of contempt in the argument before the supreme suan me court the defendants attorney claimed cla that the liberty of speech and freedom of the press were inviolable right guaranteed by the constitute on and the right to exercise them could not be interfered with except where the rights of 01 others would be interfere vi with thereby it being conceded that the published report was fair and correct the processes apes of the court were not interfered with and therefore there was waa no offense lense of it was also claimed that the court only had jurisdiction of the base case before it and the parties to it could not determine what the world at large should do and it if the published publia hed proceedings would not have been illegal without the order of secrecy they were not made so BO by such order it was wao further shown that it is the right of the public to be informed of the proceedings of its ito courts the J judges udger are only the servants of the people and the latter are entitled to know what their ministers minia tera and servants eer vanta are doing the petitioner claimed that there was nothing in the publication to chock public morals and if there was waa it bad nothing to do wibb the present hearing bearing the courts were not the custodians of public morals aa large laree I the attorney further argued that the examination must be confined to the charges contained in the affidavit which took the place of an indictment the affidavit set forth that hed been excluded from the court anaf that the publication by the petitioner gave them information as the court desired withheld from them the affidavit made no such charge if it had bad defendant might possibly be guilty of concemi t the question w 9 whether the affidavit presented suffix dent clent facts to constitute a contempt the petitioner contended that the publication was waa within his big right of free speech aud and free press the right of free press Is ie the bulwark of pu ho rights right the freedom of the press la Is the principal pillar of a free peorl pe 11 II I that sounds like the right kind of doctrin eyet to what extent can it not has it not been use I 1 the freedom of the press means or should luean the freedom to be just to be a defender against oppression and error and not that immunity from punishment or liability which permits if it does not incite to slander blander falsehood and wrong the press has a great a grand mission mlp Bion and except in places and at times is accomplishing its purpose it t JS an educator a disseminator of legitimate information and whenever it shall be even for one occasion at variance with this line of conduct it la Is wrong and all the more wrong because of its power still it must not be as earned that legitimate criticism la Is slander or reproach for wrongdoing wrong doing to la A abuse between the two extremes to te the legitimate and happy medium the following ian language langu 9 aee of the at arney t aney is also apt and propel in years gone by monarchical governments passed upon and determined what might be published america was the first to establish a free and untrammeled press the only limit to its freedom Is t that it must be exercised so BO that it does not infringe upon the just rightson right of others was the publication of a truthful and correct report an interference with the proper conduct of the proceedings could this be an interference with the duties and functions function of a court does the reading by a judge in the morning 0 a proceeding in his court the day before 14 1 in any way interfere with his under these conditions how can the publication a li injure any one if the petitioner has injured no one what law has he transgressed if be has transgressed no law why should he be punished the closing portion comes very nearly telling the whole story if he has haa injured no one he be has traus transgressed gressed no law and if be has transgressed no law he should not be punished good sound logic and good common sense we look forthe for the supreme court to take that view olit of it |