The San Francisco call., 1901-10-30
NOME CONTEMPT
CASES PROCEED
Court Will Not Define
the Issues for the
Respondents.
Attorneys for Contending
Sides Must Meet ALI
the Evidence.

The lawyers talked and the Judges lis
tened yesterday in the Nome contempt
proceedings before the Circuit Court OF
Appeals The honors were not evenly d.
vided, for when a count was taken at the
end Of the day the amicus curiae came on
the field with one signal victory, one
mooted point left in allegiance and sin
gle defeat. the Importance of which Is
doubtful.
Even the best plans miscarry before the
Circuit Court of Appeals. Francis J.
Heney, associate counsel for respondent
Judge Arthur H. Noyes, declared he
would go before the court and have the
question which he asked William f.
Britt and which the latter declined to
swer certified. Britt, a Call reporter re-
fused to tell Heney who wrote a certain
article which appeared in Mondays issue
Of The Call. A similar question had been
asked on Monday and the court decided
IN favor Of Britt. For different reasons
Heney propounded the identical question
ana the examination then closed, with the
promise on Eeney's part to take g. certif-
cat1cn Tuesday morning. The point was
q hotty one. Heney slept on It Monday
night and decided not to force the Ques-
ton which still remains unanswered.
Letter Must Be Produced.
When the Circuit Court Of Appeals con-
vened In the morning the lawyers on both
SIDES, witnesses and the interested public
were on hand- An argument was prom
Francis J. Heney and Anxious Curiae
Pilsbury being the contending parties.
But before this pouring out of troubles
formed the snaicus curtae that the letter
which the respondents asked for should be
produced at their request. This letter is
1t was. according to the ,D Claims 'sS Of pe-
epondents attorneys, sent to sAmicus
Curiae Pnlsbury some time last May or
NFFF1A ND cfc
Judge johnson and Fincke. The letter is
supposed to contain request on the part
Of the senders for Pillsbury 20 use his
Monday the court ruled that Pillsbury
should hand the letter over and reserved
the right TO pass upon its adnissibility
go in as evidence during the taking OF
testimony to-day.
Argument on Evidence.
This was not the pith Of the days work
however Il was ordered by the Judges
eo..ss sno sssreed by the attorneys that the
should not be met by the respondents
should be settled once and for all at the
morning 5 session Francis J; Heney. ap-
Indulgence of the court and asked for q
Gay longer to present the facts and evi-
oence conhrmatory Of their position The
ference and the time was allowed Nc
Laughhn and PIllsbury had their say be-
fore the order Of the court was declared.
Inc afternoon brought them all back
TO the courtroom and Attorney Heney
made the first plea He was armed with
a an appicadon that contained exactly one
dozen requests, all Of which in the essence
refer 10 the striking out Of testimony
taken before the Commissioner that saw
ors Of hearsay, opinion, deduction. infer
based his motion on the ground that no
conspiracy was charged or could be proved
under the affidavit upon which the order
M Er--@
that the respondent was not liable for
judicial acts, and that evidence of other
and dissimilar and indictable crimes were
not admissible to prove motive in a pro-
ceeoing for contempt. After reading of
this application Heney pulled another
9 en1 n Ia r out 9T his pocket
ing the court TO define the issues and fix
with some degree Of certainty the testt-
mony which the respondent would be re-
Court Refuses to Define.
Then the argument began. Heney. Nc
Laughlin and Pillsbury dipping into the
mixture and tangle without much straight
ening effect Now and then the members
advice. Heney and Mclaughlin argued
that the evidence was of so wild. chaotic
and broad nature that they could not
Defined Heney said '1 that any N.Y. evidence iitIsecs
tending toward a conspiracy to resist the
writ of supersedeas was admissible, but
the evidence introduced to prove a GRIM
tnal conspiracy which antedated or sue
ceeded the disobedience of the writ was
not material The amicus curiae closed
the argument. He declared that the con-
spiracy went to show the motive of the
contempt
The court did not take long to decide.
The respondents attorneys lost their ap-
plicaton- The court will not review the
evidence or pass upon 1t until it is en-
tirely taken before the Commissioner.
There was one reservation, however As
the attorneys for the respondents claim
that the testimony adduced can not be
met until dispositions in far-away coun-
tries are taken and witnesses notified, the
court allowed them the privilege Of ar
guing an application for a postponement
at some future time
The examination will be continued to-
day before Judge Heacock az 10 O'Clock