la information must be strictly con strued as well as the article alleged to be con temptous,* and the court further says "the de fendant is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the same as a defendant in any criminal case. There are no presumptions taken against him, but the pre sumptions are all in his favor.* This is a wide departure from the attitude of those courts which seem to have presumed that their critics were guilty and to have thrown upon them the burden of proving the innocency of their in tent. Certainly in contempt proceedings, where the offended judge sits substantially as accuser, judge and executioner, the rule announced is much more consonant with free press and free speech guarantees. The opinion handed down by the Supreme Court asserts "it is not the personal dignity nor the personal feelings of the court that justify contempt proceedings,' and that "attacks on the character or conduct of a judge as an individual may, in some cases, be so gross as to amount to a contempt," but "only when they tend to influence the course of justice.' A most important holding of the court, especially at a time when the rights of free speech and free press have been so much clouded by voluntary and involuntary censor ship and by so much public concern as to the effect of governmental control of many of the means of communication, is the reaffirmation of the principle that "under our theory of govern ment the right of the freedom of speech and of the press are essential to public welfare.' While holding that these do not afford license to indulge in unwarranted attacks upon the courts, the opinion notes that "public opinion has greatly restrained the courts in the exer cise of contempt powers, and that even false and unwarranted criticisms of judges affords them no greater remedy than those given to pri vate citizens, unless they encroach upon the rights of litigants and tend to obstruct justice in pending matters or embarrass the judge in the discharge of judicial functions.' See LIB
ERTY OF THE PRESS; CENSORSHIP OF THE PRESS.
Bibliography.— Canadian Press Association, 'A History of Canadian Journalism, etc.' (Toronto 1908); Coulon, H., (De la Liberte de la Presse' (Paris 1894) ; Duniway, C. A., The Development of Freedom of the Press in Massachusetts' (in Harvard University, De partment of History and Government,
vard Historical Studies,' Vol. XII, New York 1906); Fisher, J. R., and Strahan, J. A., 'The Law of the Press) (new ed., London 1898); Huber, H.,