Evening star., 1897-06-16
ARGUE F0RAcQUiTTAL
Mr. Shrivsr's Counsel Present Reasons
in Support Of Motion.
JUDGE DlffENBEFER'S ADDRESS
Decision in the SearIes Case
Quoted by the Attorney.
THE JURY WAS EXCUSED

/
When the trial OF Mr.. John 8. Shriyer.
the Washington representative of the New
orK Mall and Express. was adjourned by
Iuoge Bradley in Criminal Court No. 1
yesterday afternoon ex-Judge A. ], Ditten-
noeter OF New York. who is associated
| with Mr. Jere NJ. Wilson Of this city as
counsel for Mr.. Shriver. had not concluded
| his argument in support Of the motion for
e. verdict of not guilty. This morning.
| after the court had excused the jury for
the rest Of the day, informing it that
the argument on the motion would con-
ttnue until evening, Mr.. Dittenhoefer re-
sumed his remarks.
When the court adjourned Yesterday
afternoon Mr.. Dittenhoefer had discussed
four of the six grounds on which is based
the motion for an acquittal. He dwelt at
length upon the point that the article writ
ten by Mr.. Shriver was not mentioned in
the resolution Of the Senate appointing the
investigating committee. the article con-
tanning none OF the allegations or charges
falling within any Of the four branches of
the investigation authorized by the Senate
Therefore, submitted Mr.. Dittenhoefer the
committee had in no aspect of the case
power to require a disclosure of Mr.
Shriver's informant.
Question Not Pertinent.
Another point urged by Mr.. Dittenhoefer
was that the question put to Mr.. Shriver
was not pertinent to the inquiry Mr.. Dit
tenhoefer also argued that Mr.. Shriver was
not directed nor required to answer the
question, and in support of that position
he quoted from Judge Bradleys decision in
the Searles case where the judge held that
Searles could not have been deemed in con-
tempt OF the Senate, for the purpose of
contumacy proceedings, until after he had
been brought before the bar of the Senate
and then persisted in his refusal to answer.
But beyond all that, remarked Mr.. Dit
tenhoefer, Mr.. Shriver did not in fact re-
fuse to answer the question put to him,
and he called attention to the omission In
the indictment of the defendants state
ment that he merely deferred his answer,
never absolutely refusing to answer. That,
Is. explained Mr.. Dittenhoefer, Mr.. Shriyer
Only declined for the present" to answer
the question, and in that connection coun-
sci referred to the omission of the com
there respond Therefore, he submitted.
the defendant had the right to assume
mat the time he required in which to an,
swer was given him.
The Searles Decision. !:
Again Mr.. Dittenhoefer referred To Judpa
Bradley's decision in the Searles case
where the Judge said he was very much in
doubt whether, even admitting the oues.
ton to be pertinent. the witness could be in
contempt and guilty of a misdemeanor
until he had been advised that persistence
ment. ~ p"iisn
AFTER discussing briefly the fifth ground
uieeo IN support of the motion that Mr.
omaaser o,,aass was not called upon to answer the
questlon ne Is charged in the Indictment
with having refused to answer. he was
merely asked, explained Mr. Dittenhoefer
w nat nave you to say?" That was not
s,e 'ss;ao s;aaomllteo, a direction to answer, nor
speclhc enough to base an accusation of
contempt on. VI
The Sixth Ground. .s.
The greater part of Mr.. -Dittenhoefers
argument Today was devoted to the sixth
ground. on which the motion for a verdict
Of not guilty is based, that Mr.. shriver
was privileged not to disclose the name
of his informant
Mr.. Dittenhoefer admitted at the outa.f
that the application of the rule of priy.
heged communications to public journals
ana newspapers is not yet so well defined
assI, as ~ Is IN other branches of confidential
disclosures, founded upon public policy.
put he remarked that it is bound to come
IN all his public experience extending
over many years. never had he been be-
called attention to Mr.. Shriyers statement
to the committee that to answer would
degrade and disgrace him in his profession
ana make MIN an outcast He also refer
red to Mr.. Shriver's explanation that he
had, IN order to answer the question un-
successfully endeavored to obtain his tn-
formants consent to reveal his name,
Freedom of the Press.
Thomas Jefferson once said remarked
Mr.. Dittenhoefer. that 1t is much better to
have free press without a free goyerr-
ment than to have a free government
without free press.
We could" interrupted Judge Bradley,
have no free government without free
press"
In that Mr.. Dittenhoefer acuuiesced- and
ne proceeded to argue that free press
only can be maintained by protecting it
Mr. Shrtver, he explained, was and is a
Weu-known newspaper man Of the highest
character, and the information was given
him by a, member of the House Of Repre-
sentatives.
Mr.. Dittenhoefer referred to the great
and valuable assistance given daily to the
public authorities by newspapers and news
paper men. bringing to punishment GRIM
1nals and exposing crime and wrongdoing
Ihat agency will be rendered useless If
they can be compelled to disclose the
sources of their information, and even the
administration Of Justice will be interfered
with.
The Maryland legislature. remarked Mr.
Dttenhoefer. year or so ago recognized
that they shall be so privileged.
Not "a Matter for the Courts.
Judge Bradley interrupted Mr.. Ditten-
hoefer to remark that the extension of the
privilege is a ma tier not for the courts, but
for legislatures. and he added that no
court has yet extended such a privilege to
newsI aper men.
Mr.. Dittenhoefer admitted that no court
has yet SO moved, but he commended TINT
Il Is a question for the courts that they
possess such power. ard remarked that
some judge must be the pioneer in the
matter, and he suggested that in the pres
ent. the court might and should take
such a step, step which will surely be
taken before long.
Then Mr.. Dittenhoefer went on to argue
that even II Mr.. Shriver had given the
committee the name Of his informant it
would have done no good. and he submit
ted that the question asked Mr.. Shriver
was. after all, an improper one, when
Judge Bradley remarked:
Il cannot imagine any judicial investiga-
ton where 1t could become necessary for a
newspaper man to disclose the name Of