The Judge and the Editor: A 1886 Contempt Battle in Seattle
When a judge appointed a receiver to run a newspaper, he effectively gagged the press by turning the paper's own voice against its editor.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
For some weeks, we have read comments of the press relating to the Chief Justice of this Territory, and have wondered what it was all about. We looked and asked and searched in vain to find reason for the tornado of wrath which has been turned on against him. The court, at the request of litigants, appointed a receiver who took charge of the 'Chronicle.' This receiver was an official of the court, under the control of the court. It was his duty, under direction of the court or judge, to control the property pending litigation for what might be found for the best interest of parties. The law made him an officer of the tribunal which appointed him. He was the editor of the 'Chronicle,' in contemplation of law. When Mr. Montgomery spoke in the columns of that paper, it was the voice of the receiver. When that paper went out to the readers, it contained the declarations and assertions of the receiver. No matter who wrote its editorials, they were the thoughts, expressions, language of the man appointed by the court. Was it, therefore, violative of the freedom of the press when the court made the order complained of—the order to the receiver to suspend publication? Suppose this receiver had been put in charge of any other kind of property, instead of a newspaper. Suppose it had been a railroad: and suppose the conductor, employed by the receiver, continued a part of his time in writing insulting letters to the court and in bringing the judge into contempt; and suppose an order was issued to the receiver to discharge the conductor. No one would condemn this act. Did Mr. Montgomery have rights superior to the supposed conductor?
“Was it, therefore, violative of the freedom of the press when the court made the order complained of—the order to the receiver to suspend publication?”
This 1886 legal maneuver—using a court-appointed receivership to effectively silence a critical newspaper—prefigures modern battles over media ownership and the weaponization of legal systems against the press. The tension between judicial authority and the 'freedom of the press' remains a fundamental strain in Seattle's political history.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.