Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1853-10-29
THE JUDICIARY AND THE PRESS.

j. G. Chandler, George L. stephens anu D u himpai
indicted for conspiracy to burn the steamer Martha
Washington on the Mississippi river in January 1882
with intent to defaud certain Insurance Companies, is
now upon trial before Judges MCLEAN and LEAvrTT in
the United States Circuit Court at Columbus, Ohio.
Eminent counsel is engaged on both sides. For the
State: DANIEL o. MoRroy, United Ststes District At
torney Henry STASBEnY, of Cincinnati and T. G. WARE
For the defence The Hon. THOMAS EWING, Col SwAYNE
gro H. PESDLEToy, TMoTH WALKER, and J. d. WARD
The FIRST movement Of the counsel for the defence
10 ouash the Indictment in the case, the ground Of the
stitutionay and inappieabty Of the law. This
motion was oyerruled BY the Court
The jury then empanneled after some difficulty,
and the witnesses of whom there very large num-
Der, were called and sworn.
The Court them on motion Of the counsel for the de-
fence ordered Tint all witnesses should be excluded from
the courtroom except the actually giving his es
mony aud also that of the evidence should be pub
lshcd in the newspapers until the trial had terminated
The propriety aud legality Of this order meets with
much opposition from the Press of Cincinnati, of
which have expressed their intention to disregard it,
The Court however insists its enforcement
ta to the administration of justice On the fourth day Of
the trial Judge MCLEAN remarked in reference to the
opposition manifested against the order
That il the publication of the testimony permit
ted the object of the order exclude witnesses would be
the papers much perfectly than if they only heard
il in the courtroom Ii well understood right OF
the Court that had the power guard witnesses as 1t
proposed He had heard with establishment that there was
disposition the part Of OF the reporters to show
dsrepect the Court 1t had been said that the right
of the Press had been nterfered with 1t not yet
high power that it could defect impede the ends OF
justice Even disposition to proceed against the order
Of the Court gross impertinence and could only
arise from imperfect knowledge.
The Cincinnati Columbian" from which copy the
above says that of the counsel informed the Court
after this that the Reporters willing to submit to
the ORDER and respect it fully unless they obtained legal
advice that the Court had power enforce the order
whereupon Judge MCLEAN said that it was respectful
to the Court that any such should be pursued
The Court, he added, decided, its knowledge Of
the law, without advice from any quarter. Finding who
they had to deal with, the Reporters generally submitted
But the Cincinnati Commercial still evincing dis
position to dsobey the authority of the Court Mr. Ew
ING, of counsel for the Defence moved Monday last
for rule against the publishers of the COMMERCIAL to
show why attachment should issue against
them for contempt of Court in having published what
they represented TO be the testimony given by Robert
McGrew, the first witness who called to the stand.
Mr. EWING made remarks in support Of his motion,
in which he showed that the report in the CommerciaI
false, and to preclude the probability
that it derived from any who present when
the witness examined.
s'If said Mr. EWING this evasion IS effectual 10
the publishers from punishment for violation
the order, do not desire the preliminary rule They
profess publish testimony which was given in Court
subject to and under the guard and protection of the
der they, ac publish matter given testimony
in court and they probably designed the false petence
as a Of escape from legal liability. II this gives
them legal immunity, be il and | well enough
content that they should be left TO the Of law
abiding and hoving community for boldly declaring
and
necessary TO the due administration of justice in cmi
nal proceeding and at the time eyading the legal
penalty Of the ayowed act by palpn upon the public
false statement OF the testimony Bat the pub
lie cannot know from any thing which has yet taken place
that the court DO silently acquiesce in direct viola
ton Of their order think it proper 10 present the mat
ter in form that may it be proper case call forth
the action Of the court upon it,
Judge MCLEAN proceeded to remark on Mr.. Ewing 5
motion that from the suggestion made by the counsel
Saturday attention drawn to the publication
ferrcd to, and discovered that It not what il pur
ports to be. 1t states that
''0n motion by Mr. Ewing an order was allowed for
bidding the publication Of notes and evidence taken by
the reporters for the press The order allows reporters
10 be present and report the trial but forbd the pub
LEGATION Of the evidence until its close. Arguments Of
counsel rulings Of the court &C. may, according TO the
order, be published from day to day."
Then follows in the publication what purports to be
. the testimony for the prosecution"
"Robert McGrew sworn !" and his evidence Is pub.
lished ut length After the close Of Mr. McGrew's tes-
timony il is stated u. +. Penniman called 10 the
stand, but before any thing important elected the
Court adjourned"
This publication (said Judge McLBAS) was no doubt
intended 10 make the impression the public mind that
it the testimony Of Mr.. McGrew before the jury
whereas il is copy Of his testimony before the Com
missioner on the preliminary examination Of the
Il Is not fit for this bench speak of this imposition
on the public Of the motives which prompted it.
is enough TO say that the publication is not within the
rule, the rule applies only the testimony given be-
fore the court and jury.
The before is one Of the highest importanc co
Nine persons included in the Indictment all Of whom
with the exception Of three have families They
are charged with offence which in infamy Is moi
exceeded by any the calendar Of crime These
persons entitled to fair and impartial trial
From three to four hundred witnesses are in attend
ance. The defendants counsel under belief that Sc
paration Of the wipesses during the examination was
essential TO the attainment Of justice moved the Court
that the witnesses the part Of the United States should
be directed to withdraw from the courtroom except the
witness under examination The Court knowing that the
conspiracy charged must be proved if proved By great
number Of circumstances all Of which should be stat
from the personal knowledge of the witnesses ordered
that they should withdraw, requested by defendants
counsel This Is common practice in criminal cases
IL then suggested by defendants counsel that the
order could have effect whatever If the reporters
sent should from day day publish what the witnesses
stated and circulate their papers in this city This was
50 papable not to admit Of doubt; and the Court
ordered that the evidence given the jury should not be
Published until the close Of the examination Of the wit
nesses on the part Of the United States This order be-
ing necessary, in the opinion Of the Court 10 do justice
Is denounced by certain papers infringement Of
Their rights They deny the expediency Of the order,