The sun., 1898-12-27
The Massachusetts, Contempt Case.

Mr. ToRREY L. WARDNER, President Of
the Boston Traveller Company and editor of
| the Boston Traveller, is undergoing a SEN
tence of imprisonment Of thirty days in the
! Jail at Dedham, Mass, for a contempt Of
court consisting in improper newspaper
! comments upon trial before the Superior
| Court of Norfolk county.
Mr.. WARDNER disputes the legality of the
| Judgment against him, and Mr.. Justice
| OLIVER WENDELL HoLMEs Of the Supreme
Judicial Court Of Massachusetts will in
quire into the lawfulness of his detention
in proceeding which has been instituted
for the purpose and which will come before
that learned and eminently fair-minded
Judge some time this week.
The trial out of which the contempt case
arose was a criminal prosecution, before
Judge SHERMAN OF the Massachusetts SUI
perior Court, against a locomotive engineer
named GETCHELL, who was found guilty of
criminal negligence in causing a collision
on the New York. New Haven and Hartford
Railroad at Sharon in August last, which
resulted in the death Of five persons. The
charge against Mr.. WARDNER was that
during the trial he published in the Boston
IIuUctCT vi tuc COHuuCL Oh Inc
Court and the character Of the prosecution
which were intended to influence the jury
in arriving at q verdict. Such at least is
the inference to be drawn from the accounts
Of the proceeding which we find in the Bos-
ton newspapers. On the other hand, the
following article has been printed here In
Now York as the offending editorial, although
it bears internal evidence that it was not
written until after tho conviction of
GETcHELL:
There those who agree with us that Judge
SHERMAN 10 united both by nature and by train-
ing. for judicial position. and that always in any
which is tried before him. he 10 still the pros
ecutlng attorney for the Commonwealth Under
these circumstances his very excitabo and raspine
cross-eIamlnAtion Of the accused GRrcHELL was no
surprise to those who have followed his judicial ca.
reer. In this case the words OF the Judge in his
cross.examnation OF GETcHELL made an Impression
upon the jury which could not be eaced by the alb
ject contrition whioh followed during his charge.
The mischief had been done and GErcHELL was con.
victed."
We can hardly believe that it was for this
publication, alone and OF itself, that Mr..
WARDNER has been adjudged guilty of con-
tempt OF court. 1t is not pretty talk about
the Judge, but II the Judge happens in fact
to be such person as it pictures we do
not see how the characterization, made
after the trial was over can ON any recog-
nlzed theory of the law OF contempt be
deemed to render the author amenable to
summary punishment.
In order, however, to form an opinion as
to the merits OF the case, in law and In fact.
it is necessary TO SEQ the text of the judg-
ment and commitment under which the |
imprisoned editor Is held in custody, and
also tho record of the contempt proceed
ings from beginning to end. These will
doubtless be produced before Mr. Justice |
HOLMES and will enable him to reach a |
satisfactory conclusion in tho matter.
We have no sympathy with that sort of |
journalism which endeavors TO Influence
jurors in the determination OF cases pend |
ing before them. Offences OF this kind
should be punished and punished severely
and summsrily. But the law relating TO
contempt OF court is 80 stringent that it
should always be administered with the