being within the province of the judicial authority. To empower one party to a controversy to decide it for himself is not within. the legislative authority, because it is not the establishment of any rule of action or decision, but is a placing of the other party, so far as that controversy is concerned, out of the protection of the law, and submitting him to the control of one whose interest it will be to decide arbitrarily and unjustly.1

Nor do we see how the objection of interest can be waived by the other party. If not taken before the decision is rendered, it will avail in an appellate court; and the suit may there be dismissed on that ground.2 The judge acting in such a case is not simply proceeding irregularly, but he is acting without jurisdiction. And if one of the judges constituting a court is disqualified on this ground, the judgment will be void, even though the proper number may have concurred in the result, not reckoning the interested party.3

Mere formal acts necessary to enable the case to be brought before a proper tribunal for adjudication, an interested judge may do; but that is the extent of his power.

4

1 See Ames v. Port Huron Log-Driving & Booming Co., 11 Mich. 139.

Richardson v. Welcome, 6 Cush. 332; Dimes v. Proprietors of Grand Junction Canal, 3 House of Lords Cases, 787. And see Sigourney v. Sibley, 21 Pick. 106; Oakley v. Aspinwall, 3 N. Y. 547.

In Queen v. Justices of Hertfordshire, 6 Queen's Bench, 753, it was decided that, if any one of the magistrates hearing a case at sessions was interested, the court was improperly constituted, and an order made in the case should be quashed. It was also decided that it was no answer to the objection, that there was a majority in favor of the decision without reckoning the interested party, nor that the interested party withdrew before the decision, if he appeared to have joined in discussing the matter with the other magistrates. See also the Queen v. Justices of Suffolk, 18 Q. B. 416; The Queen v. Justices of London, Ibid. 421. Richardson v. Boston, 1 Curtis, C. C. 251; Washington Insurance Co. v. Price, Hopk. Ch. 1; Buckingham v. Davis, 9 Md. 324; Heydenfeldt v. Towns, 27 Ala. 430.

CHAPTER XII.

LIBERTY OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS.

THE first amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides, among other things, that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. With jealous care of what is almost universally regarded a sacred right, essential to the existence and perpetuity of free government, a provision of similar import has been embodied in each of the State constitutions, and a constitutional principle is thereby established which is supposed to form a shield of protection to the free expression of opinion in every part of our land.1

The following are the constitutional provisions: Maine: Every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of this liberty. No law shall be passed regulating or restraining the freedom of the press; and, in prosecutions for any publication respecting the official conduct of men in public capacity, or the qualifications of those who are candidates for the suffrages of the people, or where the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and in all indictments for libel, the jury, after having received the direction of the court, shall have a right to determine, at their discretion, the law and the fact. Declaration of Rights, § 4.-New Hampshire: The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a State; it ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved. Bill of Rights, § 22. — Vermont: That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their sentiments concerning the transactions of government; therefore the freedom of the press ought not to be restrained. Declaration of Rights, Art. 13. Massachusetts: The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a State; it ought not, therefore, to be restrained in this Commonwealth. Declaration of Rights, Art. 16.- Rhode Island: The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a State, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty; and in all trials for libel, both civil and criminal, the truth, unless published from malicious motives, shall be sufficient defence to the person charged. Art. 1, § 20.- Connecticut: No law shall ever be passed to curtail or restrain the liberty of speech or of the press. In all prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence, and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court. Art. 1, §§ 6 and 7. — New York: Every person may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or the press. In all criminal prosecu

It is to be observed of these several provisions, that they recognize certain rights as now existing, and seek to protect and perpettions or indictments for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury, and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libellous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted, and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact. Art. 1, § 8. - New Jersey: Every person may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libellous is true, and was published with good motives, and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact. Art 1, § 5.- Pennsylvania: That the printing-presses shall be free to every person who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the legislature, or any branch of government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of the liberty. In prosecutions for the publication of papers, investigating the official conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or where the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and in all indictments for libels, the jury shall have a right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases. Art. 9, § 7.- - Delaware: The press shall be free to every citizen who undertakes to examine the official conduct of men acting in public capacity, and any citizen may print on any such subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. In prosecutions for publications investigating the proceedings of officers, or where the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and in all indictments for libels, the jury may determine the facts and the law, as in other cases. Art. 1, § 5.- Maryland: That the liberty of the press ought to be inviolably preserved; that every citizen of the State ought to be allowed to speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. Declaration of Rights, Art. 40. -West Virginia: No law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press shall be passed; but the legislature may provide for the restraint and punishment of the publishing and vending of obscene books, papers, and pictures, and of libel and defamation of character, and for the recovery in civil action, by the aggrieved party, of suitable damages for such libel or defamation. Attempts to justify and uphold an armed invasion of the State, or an organized insurrection therein during the continuance of such invasion or insurrection, by publicly speaking, writing, or printing, or by publishing or circulating such writing or printing, may be by law declared a misdemeanor, and punished accordingly. In prosecutions and civil suits for libel, the truth may be given in evidence; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libellous is true, and was published with good motives, and for justifiable ends, the verdict shall be for the defendant. Art. 2, §§ 4 and 5.-Tennessee: Nearly the same as Pennsylvania. Art. 1, § 19. - - Ohio: Every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects,

uate them, by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that they shall remain inviolate. They do not create new rights, but being responsible for the abuse of the right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libellous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted. Art. 1, § 11.-Iowa, Art. 1, § 7, and Nevada, Art. 1, § 9. Substantially same as Ohio. — Illinois: Nearly the same as Pennsylvania. Art. 13, §§ 23 and 24. — Indiana : No law shall be passed restraining the free interchange of thought and opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but for the abuse of that right every person shall be responsible. In all prosecutions for libel, the truth of the matters alleged to be libellous may be given in justification. Art. 1, §§ 9 and 10. ·Michigan: In all prosecutions for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libellous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted. The jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact. Art. 6, § 25. — Wisconsin: Same as New York. Art. 1, § 3. Minnesota: The liberty of the press shall forever remain inviolate, and all persons may freely speak, write, and publish their sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right. Art. 1, § 3. — Oregon: No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right. Art. 1, § 8. — California: Same as New York. Art. 1, § 9. — Kansas : The liberty of the press shall be inviolate, and all persons may freely speak, write, or publish their sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right; and in all civil or criminal actions for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury, and if it shall appear that the alleged libellous matter was published for justifiable ends, the accused party shall be acquitted. Bill of Rights, § 11. — Missouri: That the free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man; and that every person may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty; that in all prosecutions for libel, the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and the jury may determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court. Art. 1, § 27.- Nebraska: Same as New York. Art. 1, § 3. — Arkansas: That printing-presses shall be free to every person; and no law shall ever be made to restrain the rights thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man; and every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. In prosecutions for the publication of papers investigating the official conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or where the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and in all indictments for libels the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts. Art. 2, §§ 7 and 8.— Florida: That every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty; and no law shall be passed to curtail, abridge, or restrain the liberty of speech or of the press.

their purpose is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of those already possessed. We are at once, therefore, turned back from these provisions to the common law, in order that we may ascertain what the rights are which are thus protected, and what is the extent of the privileges they assure.

At the common law, however, it will be found that liberty of the press was neither well protected nor well defined. The art of printing, in the hands of private persons, has, until within a comparatively recent period, been regarded rather as an engine of mischief, which required the restraining hand of the government, than as a power for good, to be encouraged as such. Like a vicious beast it might be made useful if properly harnessed and fettered. The government assumed to itself the right to determine what books might be published, and censors were appointed

-

Art. 1, § 5. Georgia: Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are inherent elements of political liberty. But while every citizen may freely speak, or write, or print on any subject, he shall be responsible for the abuse of the liberty. Art. 1, § 6. Louisiana: The press shall be free; every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for an abuse of this liberty. Title 7, Art. 111. · North Carolina: That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and therefore ought never to be restrained. Declaration of Rights, § 15.- South Carolina: The trial by jury, as heretofore used in this State, and the liberty of the press, shall be forever inviolably preserved. Art. 9, § 7. — Alabama: That in prosecutions for the publication of papers investigating the official conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or when the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and that in all indictments for libels the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court. Art. 1, § 13. Mississippi: No law shall ever be passed to curtail or restrain the liberty of speech or of the press. In all prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libellous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts. Art. 1, §§ 7 and 8.- Texas: Every citizen shall be at liberty to speak, write, or publish his opinions on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege; and no law shall ever be passed curtailing the liberty of speech or of the press. In prosecutions for the publication of papers investigating the official conduct of officers, or men in a public capacity, or when the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and in all indictments for libels, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases. Art. 1, §§ 5 and 6. — Virginia: That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments. Bill of Rights, § 12.