Criticism Of Missouri Court By Press

The supreme court of Missouri has fined Editor Shepherd, of the Warrensberg Standard-Herald $500 for contempt in that he published some severe strictures upon the court. It is undoubtedly true that the article complained of was extreme and violent even to the point of abuse , but even if the article was all it is said to have been, it hardly justified the court in going to any such extent as it did in the opposite extreme. If the article was libelous, and it probably was, the honorable gentlemen of the court had the redress of all other citizens without outraging a well defined principle of government that no citizen shall be his own complaining witness, attorney, jury, and judge in the determination of an alleged injury to himself. Editor Shepherd was undoubtedly very intemperate in his language as to the official action of the supreme court but there is no such thing in this country as lese majesty and there will not be until our people get to the point where they are ready to surrender their liberties. The honorable gentlemen composing even the supreme court of Missouri are not, nor should not be, above criticism of their official actions. Had the offense of Editor Shepherd been committed in open court or in a manner to bring the court into contempt, the case would have been very different, but the court is certainly not above criticism of its official acts, even severe criticism. But if comment upon the official acts of any public official is not to be permitted, then a very essential, even vital principle of our government is abrogated. If these same men were in equally prominent executive or legislative positions, would they consider themselves or their acts too sacred to be criticized? Wherein are they any better men because they happen to be temporarily on the bench? As stated before, if assailed in open court, or in any way calculated to bring the court into disrespect, it might be entirely proper to fine the assailant, but even then it is probable that there is something lacking in the judge who has to do very much of that thing.

But for any criticism of acts of a judicial officer outside of court, the case ought to be a very aggravated one to justify the court acting as the supreme court of Missouri. The principle involved is one so absolutely essential to the liberty of the citizen that the people should be jealous of any infringement of the same.