Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1891-10-26
DECLINED TO ANSWER.
The Publishers OF the Maryland
Republican Refuse TO Name the
Author

Author.
Messrs w. S Ridgely and George I.
Melvin. publishers of the Maryland Re
publican were before the grand jury OF
the Circuit Court Saturday and question
ed as TO the authorship of communica-
ton which recently appeared in that pa
per signed "Hayseed, on which they
were arrested for criminal libel at the In
stance of Robert Moss. democratic can
dite for State Senator. They declined
10 answer, claiming they would disclose
confidential re ations, and also because
the inquiry had been instigated by de-
sire 10 secure private vengeance. Judge
Jones, TO whom the matter was referred
by the Jury said be would confer with his
associates upon the bench, and give a
decision to-day as 10 whether or not the
witnesses will be required to give the in.
formation desired.
In Court this morning Judge Jones
laid rule on the publishers requiring
them TO show cause why they should
not answer the question OF the grand
jury as TO the authorship of the articles
published, by one o'clock to-day. to
which they filed the following answer
ITO the Honorable the Judges of the
Circuit Court for A. A. County.
''The answer of William S. Ridge'y
and Geo T. Melyin to the rule to show
cause why an attachment for contempt
should not issue against them for refus
ing to answer before the grand jury of
this Honorable Court questions touching
the authorship OF an alleged article said
to have been published in the Maryland
Repubttccn" newspaper, respectfully
shows:
That your respondents are advised that
they cannot be required to answer any
questions touching the matter of said al
legged publication, because they are under
reeognizance to answer the charge of
publishing the said article alleged to be
libellous. and any answer tending to show
knowledge on their part of any fact con-
nected with the preparation of the said
article, would imply knowledge of The
| transaction on their part, and IL the same
is libellous would be guilty knowledge.
and such answers would tend to their
prejudice as an admission of fact tend
ing TO involve them in any responsibility
which might attach thereto.
"2d. Your respondents are advised
that being under the said gecognizance to
answer said charge, they are not com
Jury. to testify In regard to any matter
whatever connected with said alleged
article.
I'D. For further answer they say that
they are advised by their counsel, that
there is nothing in the said alleged
al ,icle libellous or defamatory, and they
verify believe that the whole and sole
object of those originating this prosecu-
ton Is under cover of the charge against
these respondents to discover the author
or authors of the said article, in order to
make him or them the victim OF their
persecution, and that the said inquiry in
no manner tends to further the ends of
justice, but on the contrary, has no 9th.
er tendency than to arouse and excite
private enmity and ill-will, and is there
fore, contrary TO all proper considera-
tons of public policy.
And having fully answered the matter
alleged as fully as they are advised they
are required to do, they pray that the
said rule may be discharged and that
they may be hence dismissed
The Court set the bearing of the case
for tomorrow morning. Messrs. Frank
II. Stockett, Daniel II. Magruder and
Elihu S. Riley appeared for the defend
ants and James Nj. Munroe for the State