The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-12-05

Instead Of making answer to the
rule for contempt on John Gibbons, in
the election contest matter, Mr.. Burns
appeared before court Saturday morn
ing at the appointed hour with a mo-
ton to quash the rule on the ground
of irregularity
Judges Archibald and Gunster, who
were on the bench. refused to duash
the rule and directed that Mr.. Gibbons
make answer. Mr.. Burns contended
that there was nothing to answer and
put forward some very sound and
strong arguments in support of this
contention, but court would not take
his view of the matter, and after in
dicating that it was not at all pleased
with what it considered the dilatory
tactics of Mr.. Burns, directed that
the answer to the contempt rule should
be made this morning.
Mr.. Burns reasons for asking that
the rule for contempt be quashed were
that the petition for the rule. while
purporting to be that of Wade NJ.
Finn, was not signed by him or sworn
to, and that man cannot commit con-
tempt of court outside of court.
There was a lengthy discussion pro
and con between Mr.. Bursn and Mr..
Holgate, with the court interposing fire.
quent questions and comments and at
its conclusion, the judges retired for
consultation. When they returned
Judge Archibald announced that the
motion had been overruled and that
Mr.. Gibbons must make answer.
ARGUMENT OF MR.. BURNS.
Mr.. Burns still had few more up
his sleeve. He argued that every man
charged with criminal offense must be
confronted with the accusation made
against him.
Mr.. Gibbons, he said. was called upon
to show cause why he should not be
held for contempt, yet it was not
brought home to him wherein he had
committed contempt.
Judge Archibald announced that the
record Of the case makes the charge.
But what is he going to answer ?"
asked Mr.. Burns. "Is he expected to
pick out the papers from the files and
make answer to them"
He is going to answer for his fail
ure to appear before the examiners and
make answer to certain questions as
directed by court" Judge Archibald
said
Then Mr.. Burns went on to reiterate
| that Mr.. Gibbons had never been con-
fronted with any violation of the law,
and that he had appeared before the
examiners as directed and made an
swer to the questions as he deemed
! proper.
Mr.. Holgate made a lengthy argu-
ment in support Of the rule, reviewing
| the case from beginning to end and ar
| guing that in refusing to answer the
questions specifically Mr.. Gibbons was
| guilty of contempt.
Mr.. Burns suggested that If court
| deemed the answer made through him
| by Mr.. Gibbons insufficient. that Mr..
| Gibbons be allowed to so before the
examiners again and recite it himself.
Court, however, would not hear to
! this and somewhat testify asked Mr..
! Burns why Mr.. Gibbons was not pro-
| ceeding with his answer to the rule
| for contempt.
MR.. GIBBONS REASON.
For the same reason" replied Mr..
Burns, that everybody has when
| they put in a motion to quash. They
| are not required to answer until the
| motion to quash is disposed Of"
There was no getting away from this
| and court admitted that Mr.. Gibbons
should be given a reasonable time to
answer. Mr.. Burns wanted q week, but
| Judge Archibald said this was ridcu-
| lous and fixed this morning at o'clock
as the time. Mr.. Burns next move is
| awaited with interest.