The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-01-17


Superior Courts Jurisdiction in
the Case Under Consideration.
Arguments in the Gibbons contempt
of court case were heard in the super
ior court yesterday when 1t began its
second weeks session at o'clock n.
m. l. II. Burns and Hon. H. w. Pal
mer of Wilkes-B Barre, appeared FOR the
appellant, and the opposition was rep"
resented by R. II. Holgate and j. j.
II. Hamilton. All four attorneys were
heard and their speeches consumed
nearly three and half hours.
The case came before the superior
court on an appeal from Judge Arch
bald's sentence committing John Glib
bons for contempt of court in refusing
to answer certain questions in the
Kelly-Langstaff election contest There
was also to be disposed OF Judge
Smiths writ of habeas corpus by which
Mr.. Gibbons was released. This was
made returnable last Monday, but was
set over to come up yesterday with the
appeal. Judge Rice brushed aside all
questions as to the regularity of the
proceedings by which the case was
brought up by announcing that both
the habeas corpus end of the case and
| certiorari, or merit of the case proper,
would be heard together and at that
time.
The judges not having had time to
peruse the paper books in the case,
Mr.. Burns, at the request of President
Judge Rice, gave a brief history of it
from the beginning to the present.
HISTORY OF CASE.
Briefly stated it is as follows Mr.
| Gibbons refused to answer certain
questions before the election contest
examiners on the ground that they did
not deal with the matter at issue, the
| treasurership fight. The matter was
certified to Judge Archibald and he di-
rected that the questions be answered
| Mr.Gibbons was again put on the stand
and as his answer stated generally that
| he had not been guilty of any Of the
| offenses forbidden by Sec. s. of Art. 3,
of the constitution, specifying the quail
| ification of voters.
He refused to answer in detail the
| questions as to whether or not he had
| received money from or paid money to
this one or that one and in this he was
sustained by one of the examiners, Mr..
Duggan, who, it later developed, had
not been informed of Judge Archbald's
ruling.
The specific questions asked of Mr..
Gibbons and his refusal to answer them
were certified to Judge Archibald and
he directed Mr. Gibbons to make an
swer specifically. Mr.. Gibbons de-
| clined again to answer, stating in ad-
dition to his previous reasons that he
refused because his answers might tend
to incrimnate himself
| Mr. Gibbons was thereupon adjudged
guilty of contempt of court and COM
mitted to Jail until such time as he
| would obey the courts mandate Forth
with, application was made to Judge
p. p. Smith, of the superior court, for
a writ of habeas corpus and at the
| same time an appeal was taken from
the judgment by which Mr.. Gibbons
was committed. The following day
| Judge Smith granted the writ and
made the matter returnable to this ses-
sion of the superior court, directing,
also, that the records of the case be
certified to this session.
MIR. BURNS ARGUMENT.
| IldNlHS lHuS DIlellS stated lne MS
| tory of the case Mr.. Eurns proceeded
with his argument. He began by call
ing attention to the fact that the cour!
below had passed judgment on Mr..
| Gibbons without a moments consulta-
| ton, virtually saying by this action
that his arguments had no merit what
| ever in them. AS an answer to this
he would present, he said, in the ma
ture of part of his argument two let
ters received from John C. johnson, of
Philadelphia, the recognized leader of
the Pennsylvania bar, whose services
he had endeavored to enlist for the APP
pellant. The letters read as follows:
Dec. 81, 1895.
| /. II. Burns, esq.
My Dear Sir-I sent you a telegram
this morning with regret. stating my in
ability at any time during the next three
or four weeks to clear my engagements,
| so that / could have a day at Scranton
| to argue your case. l think your
position is sound as regards the right
of the election court to go into the ques-
| tion of bribery. Very truly yours
John q. johnson.
Jan. H. 1899.
I. IL. Burns, esq.
| Mr.. Dear Sr-I have JUST had a mo-
ment, before leaving for the train, to
| look over your proof which | return in
order that you may be ready with your
| argument on Monday.
| l wish l had more time to state some
| views which l entertain. / think, how
| ever, you have handled the subject very
| we'll My idea is that the court in
| contest as to who was elected to an Of
flee cannot try as many issues of fact
concerning bribery as may be raised
against each voter who polled his vote
| The duty of the judges is to see wheth-
| er the judges of election performed their
duty by doing what the law required.
If this duty was performed, l do not see
how 1t can be revised.
AS TO FALSE IMPERSONATION.
OF course in the case of the false i'm
personation there can be proof of that
fact subsequently,; but this is because u
| of the fraud upon the election officers,
| and (0 because of the fact that the
vote was not of a person regularly upon
| the registry list.
| i think that every person upon the
registry lists is entitled to vote unless
before the reception of his vote some
| thing or other occurs throwing a duty
| upon the election officers which they
| failed TO perform. Very truly yours,
John q. Johnson.
If, as Mr.. Burns claimed, the court
below offended him by virtually pay
ing no heed to his argument, he had
| no like complaint TO make of the su-
perior judges. Every one of them, ex-
cepting Judge Beeber, interrupted him
with questions calling for an elluci-
dation of some point or a verification
of their Interpretation OF his position.
| Invariably Mr. Burns reiOinder tO