The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-12-21
STRANGE REVELATIONS.
Secrets of the Grand Jury
Room Laid Bare in
Open Court.
RAppLEYE NOT IN CONTEMPT
Mr.. Corbin Assails Foreman Nc
Dermott Fighting for Re-
porters' Statements.

There was a large crowd IN the court
again today to listen to the proceedings
in the application to have Elbert Rap
pleye, managing editor of the Evening
Journal" adjudged in contempt for re-
fusing to answer question asked him
when he was before the Grand Jury last
Wednesday, and also for refusing to sub
nit certain papers to the Grand Jury for
inspection. Justice Lippincott and Judge
Hudspeth were ON the bench. Mr.. Rap
pleye occupied one of the chairs in the
jury box, and his counsel, Charles L. Cor
bin, sat at table.
Assistant Prosecutor William M. Klink
opened the proceedings by reading the
affidavit of Allan L. McDermott in the
first case. 1t set forth, as has already
been published, that Mr.. McDermott
asked Mr.. Reppleye to disclose the name
of the notorious jury fixer mentioned in
the Journals" article, and that Mr..
Rappleye positively refused to do so. Mr..
Klink did not press the application very
strongly, merely suggesting that the
Court should deal with the matter.
Mr.. Corbin recited the facts of the case
as they had been told to him by his client.
When his client was asked to disclose the
name of the jury fixer he answered that
he had not expected to be asked the ques-
tion at that time, and was not prepared to
answer it. He asked for time, twenty
four or forty-eight hours and that he
would then produce his witnesses and
give all the information they had in their
possession. After the Grand Jury had
gone up to court and returned to their
room, Mr.. Rappleye was asked again to
fl,o frtr-x fxv1a,~ Il
again declined. He finally said that he
did not know what the mans name was.
The jury asked him why he did not tell
them that before.
The Court, Justice Lippincott said, did
not propose to punish the witness until
that discrepancy was explained, but it did
not appear in Mr.. McDermotts affidavit
on the Prosecutors statement that Mr..
Rappieye had asked for more time.
Mr.. Corbin said that the witness did
ask the foreman to lay the matter. over
rogated on that point. Mr. Klink con-
sidered Mr.. Corbin's suggestion good
one.
Justice Lippincott suggested that if the
Prosecutor had consulted with the Grand
jury and the jury was satisfied that all
the questions had been answered the pro-
ceedings could be dropped. The court
would not consent to making public the
proceedings before the Grand Jury unless
1t was absolutely in the interest of JUS
tice. 1t has been mooted question, how
ever, whether when a witness before a
Grand Jury goes out and makes public
what took place there he is not liable for
THE impropriety of doing such thing 2
said Mr.. Corbin, sis quite manifest"
Mr.. Klink said he only desired Mr.. Rap
pleye to explain why he did not answer
the question. Justice Lippincott said that
if the witness went before the Grand Jury
subsequently and gave all the information
desired that was all that was necessary.
Mr.. Corbn said it appeared to him as
if they were fighting shadows. If the
Grand Jury had got all the information
compelled to testify against himself.
You may proceed said Justice Lip
pincott. addressing Mr. Corbin. -.
the State has ali the information it de-
sires."
Il must say" replied Mr.. KIink, .that
the Grand Jury is not entirely satisfied
and I think it would be better to call Mr..
Rappleye."
Mr.. Rappleye was called, and in answer
to Mr. Corb1ns questions said that he was
managing. editor of the Journal" also a
stenographer, and that he took notes of
his examination before the Grand Jury.
Mr.. McDermott asked me-" he said,
what was the name of the notorious
jury-ixer referred to in the Journal
told him that I did not know and that /
could not disclose the mans name then.
Mr.. McDermott said that | must answer.
replied that did not expect to be called
what was the name of that man. I told
him that I had made my position clear,
and that would not answer any further.
On returning from the court to the jury
room he again asked me the name. I told
him that if he would give me forty-eight
hours l would produce witnesses who
would answer that question and all other
questions. I asked Mr.. McDermott if
he would explain my position to the
Court. Il went before the jury again on
Friday and told all knew. l was COM
PEELED to testify under protest to hearsay
evidence, but told all knew
Ibid you disclose the name of the jury
fixer?" asked Mr.. Klink on cross-exami-
nation.
had heard him called by / never knew
what his right name was
Mr.. CQrbin asked that the rule be dis
charged and said that the foreman of the
Grand Jury should be rebuked.
Assistant Prosecutor Klink said that he
had nothing to add. Justice Lippincott
discharged the rule as there was no con-
tention on the part of the State that there
witness to answer the question or that
witness was contumacious He added that
there was no occasion for any criticism
of the Grand Jury. He added that before
the close of the Investigation other facts
may crop out which would show that the
dignity of the Court had been offended
by witnesses.
Mr. Klink then argued his application
for the rule, because of Mr. Rappleye's
refusal to submit for inspection the type
written reports made to him by Pidgeon
and Beck Mr.. Corbin argued that the
contained matter not german to
the investigation and that the Grand Jury
had no right to take a mans private
papers. The men who made the reports
had testified and that was the best and
the only legal evidence.
Mr. Klink argued that the Grand Jury
should be allowed to inspect the reports
to test the memory of the witnesses and
to find out if they contradicted them
selves. After a prolonged argument the
Court reserved decision.