The Evening critic., 1883-03-10
Contempt of CoUrt-Mr. BelfOrd in
the Stnr-ROute Case.


the stnr-Route Case.
N. Y. Sun.
In the exercise of his authority TO punish
disorder committed In the immediate pres
ence and view of the Court, Mr.. Justice Wylie,
of the Criminal Court OF the District OF COlum
bin, fined Mr.. James u. Belford, Representa-
tive In Congress from Colorado, 800 on
Wednesday for having mado q statement In
the course OF tho Star-Routo trial which the
Judge had previously forbidden him TO make.
During his examination as witness for the
defense, Mr.. Belford was asked
"Dld you over receive any money or any
check for any money from s. W. Dorsey OF any
one OF these defendants In consideration OF
what you did in this matterT'
Mr.. Merrick, for the prosecution, objected TO
this question. 1t seems that the only intima-
iion that Mr.. Belford had received any money
dell, who testified on cross.exam,nation that
certain check stub indicated the payment of
$4,000 to the Congressman from Colorado. Mr..
Belford was naturally very anxious. to deny
the receipt OF that or any other sum from Dor
sey. Mr.. Ingersolls question was framed 30
as to enable him to contradict the inference
which was certain TO be drawn from Rerdelrs
testimony, but the Court would not allow 1t to
be answered.
IN unwse ruling, and one which seems to us
more likely to injure the prosecution than any
other party.
We understand that Rerdelps testimony
about Mr.. Belford had previously been
striken from the record. on this ground the
contradiction of that testimony could properly
trial. But the jury had heard Rerdells state
ment. 1t had done all the hurt Ii could do,
both 10 Dorsey and Belford. The fact that the
Judge had ordered It stricken out Of the
record did not strike 1t out of their memory;
and any fair-minded Court would, under the
circumstances, go as far as possible to permit
a person whose reputation must suffer Injury
from such statement the opportunity to deny
the guilty conduct It imputed.
To say, as Judge Wylie did, that Mr.. Belford
could accomplish his purpose by making an
AFFIDAVIT before justice of tho peace was
cbildish and II was also misleading to speak
of Rerdell's testimony concerning Belford as
part of the case for the defendants. Tho state.
ment was that OF n hostile witness, and did
not become part OF the case for the detense
simply because 1t was drawn out on cross-ex-
animation.
Suppose, however, that the Court was right
In sustaining, on the various technical
grounds stated, the objection which Mr.. Mer-
rick made to the question put to Mr.. Belford
on the witness.stand, what harm could have
come from allowing Mr.. Belford afterward to
contradict in the presence of the Judge and
jury statement most Injurious to his char
acter previously made in their presence by
another? The position of the coun-
sci for the prosecution that he ought
was not allowed to say on the witness stand Is
not necessarily correct In our opinion he
might we'll have had permission subsequently
TO refute charge which he could not be heard
to deny as q witness, for the reason that the
record or that any further Investigation OF 1t
would be collateral and extraneous to the main
Issue.
Unauestionably Mr.. Belford dIsregarded the
| direction OF the Court when he went on to
| make his stirring and dramatic denial. But
reports do not convey the idea that he was
| either impertinent or insolent as Judge Wylie
| asserted. There are occasions when 1t Is bet.
ter to speak at all risks than 10 be silent; and
| many persons, we think, will agree with Mr.
| Beiford that this was one OF them.