The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-11-28
GIBBONS WILL DECLINE.
BY Advice of His Attorney He will
Refuse to Reply to the Dues
tions the Court Says He
Must Answer.

John Gibbons will not obey the man
date of the court directing him To an
swer questions pertaining generally to
his actions in last falls campaign. At
least he will not answer them today
when the contestant will once more
put him upon the stand for eXamina-
tiOn.
Mr.. Burns, under whose advice Mr.
Gibbons is acting, said yesterday that
his client assures him that he can an
swer without the slightest embarrass-
ment any and all the questions pro-
pounded to him, but since his own
belief that the questions We're improp-
er ana impertinent has been strength
ened by his consultation with attor-
neys, he has determined, as might be
expected from the old warhorse, that
he will not bulge AN inch from the
position he has taken until he is con-
WINGED beyond all question that he is
wrong.
When Mr.. Gibbons refuses today to
answer the questions the contestants
attorneys will move to have him in
dicted for contempt. This will bring
the matter before court and then Mr.
Gibbons side of the case will be heard.
As yet Mr.. Gibbons has had no hea"-
ing. The opinion of Judge Archibald
rendered on Friday, was nothing more
or less than an adjudication of a dis
pute between the examiners. Mr.. Glib
bons, in the examination before the eX-
aminers, neither refused nor agreed
to answer the questions. One commits
sioner said the questions were proper
the other said they were improper. Mr..
Gibbons did not figure i'm the matter
at all. This, as indicated in The Trib-
une, was what caused the court to
rule out the contempt feature of the
case at the hearing two weeks ago.
When the contempt proceedings come
up, Mr.. Burns says, the public will
! learn that there are two sides TO the
| case. One of the contentious of the
| defense-for the proceedings will then
| have assumed a criminal phrase--is
| that Sec s, Act s. of the State Consti-
| tuition, under which the contestant is
| moving in this case, is unconstitution-
| al. This clause says that man can
| not refuse to answer a question in an
! election contest hearing on the ground
| that he would incriminate himself a
| provision being attached that any tes-
| timony he may give can not afterward
! be used against him in any judicial
| proceeding, except in the matter OF
| perjury. This clause, Mr.. Burns claims
! is opposed to the federal constitution
| which says in an amendment to Act
| 5. that no witness need answer ques-
! tion that would tend to incriminate
| himself. The clause makes no eXcep-
tions, and when the state constitution
| attempts to make an exception, as II
| does in the matter OF election contests
it violates the Federal constitution and
therefore Is nil. The United States Su
| preme court, Mr.. Burns says, decided
that this holds good even when the
| question arises from a civic proceed
ing. He cited the interstate commerc,
| investigations as an example.
1t will also be contended, as already
published that the legislature haI
made the election board the court o
last resort. and that after a ballot IL
deposited it is a good ballot. This at tht
first glance appears to be absurd, Mr.
Burns admitted, but it is nevertheless
the true status of the case, he says
and court will have to so declare if /
decides the question according to tn,
statutes.