The record-union., 1896-06-06
A FINE OF FIVE HUNDRED.
s--dse Catlin'S Decision in the Nc
ClatChy Contempt Case.
Ten Days in Which To Take the
Matter to the Supreme
Court.

The contempt case Of c. K. Nc
Clatchy. editor of the "Bee," was con-
cluded in Judge Catlin's court yester-
day and resulted in the de1enoaht pe-
ing adjudged guilty of contempt ana
fined in the sum of $500, with the al
tentative of Imprisonment IN the
County Jail at the rate of one day lot
each 81 of the fine. Ten days was al
lowed in which to take the matter De-
fore the Supreme Court on a writ OF
review.
The courtroom was crowded yester-
day morning when the case was nrst
called. and again in the afternoon when
the court announced its judgment
When court opened Judge Catlin
said he was not at that time ready to
file his decision. He had worked on
it to a late hour the night before, ana
it was then in the hands of the type
writer. He would therefore put the
case over until afternoon.
Mr.. Reddy, attorney for the defense,
asked Judge Catlin if he had any objec-
ton to stating at that time whether
he would find the defendant guilty or
not guilty.
The Court have no objection My
judgment is that the defendant is
guilty. The only matter that l have
rot determined entirely on, and which
1 will determine between this and then,
will be as to the extent of the punish
ment There is some little difference
of opinion, or some little doubt in my
mind and some slight difference OF
opinion between myself and one of my
associates, in regard to the punish
ment.. 1 shall try to get on the safe
side of that question in my judgment.
Mr. Reddy asked If it was customary
in such cases to allow bail. The de-
fense wished to know, so they might
prepare for taking the matter to the
higher court either by certiorari or ha-
beas corpus.
Judge Catlin replied that he had
never had a similar case before him,
and he could not say what the Gus
tom had been. He wished to be ad-
vised by counsel His impression was
that such a case was not bailable, still
he might be mistaken. He would like
to have Mr. Reddy present authorities
on that point.
The matter was discussed for some
minutes between Attorney Reddy, the
court and S. S. Holl, and finally Mr..
Reddy said:
"Of course, in a case where there is
such an important question-it is a
question 1 think. 1t is worthy Of con-
sideration at least, of presenting it to
the Supreme Court whether the court
has power in this case. In other words,
the Jurisdiction of the court; that is
would be too bad, 1 take it, and your
honor will see that it would be too bad
to make a man undergo the penalty
before that question is determined, or
until he can get before the Supreme
Court For instance, probably 1t
would take two or three days to get 1t
before the Supreme Court, probably
four or five days, and if in the mean
time he should have to suffer five days
Imprisonment, which 1 understand is
the limit of the law-I know that your
honor would not require anything of
that kind 1t would be almost like
hanging a man and finding out after
he was in his grave that he was in
rocent."
The Court-You could not take the
ca Sc by habeas corpus to the Supreme
Court unless the man was imprisoned
Mr. Reddy-We can take certiorari
without Imprisonment, and we would,
of course, prefer to take the case in a
way that would avoid the suffering of
the penalty before the great question
in the case is determined.
Mr. Holl-The question won't arise
until we know what the decision of the
court is in the matter. If there is no
Imprisonment, there is no necessity
Mr. Reddy-If we won't get imprison-
ment we are very much obliged, but we
expect it, Of course, we have no right
TO anticipate, but still we cannot help
cur thoughts.
Judge Catlin said the matter could
be discussed in the afternoon, and an
ncunced that the proceeding would
then be continued till 80 o'clock.
When the court reconvened in the
afternoon Judge Catlin promptly called
up the case again and said:
JUDGE CATLIN'S REMARKS.
81 think / have already stated that
the answer of the defendant in this
case does not present anything in the
way of diminishing or extenuating the
charges. 1t merely reiterates and justi-
fies them. 1t states reasons in 1ustiti-
cation which this court cannot admit
as sufficient to palliate, in any degree
the gross and offensive publications
complained Of 1t is itself contemptu-
Gus, insolent and insulting, and shows
a deliberate intent to insult the court
in its immediate presence by character
iZing 1t as having in the case OF Tai
madge VS.. Talmadge uttered from the
bench shameless, braZen and unmiti-
gated falsehoods in regard to testi-
mony in that case. AS such 1t is an
aggravation of the offense in the first
instance.
THE remarks Of the court referred to
show upon their face that they were
not directed at Mr.. McClatchy, nor did
they refer to him or any other editor
of the paper, but referred (as anyone
will see who will read the remarks OF
Mr.. Devine and the courts response
thereto) to report made by some one
who was not present when the testi-
mony was taken, and who, If he die
not fabricate the material part of the
report himself must have obtained il
from some one who did fabricate it.
These publicatins distinctly charge