The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-08-13

The bill was quashed by agreement
and without argument. on May 3, 1901,
leave was granted by court to the dis
triCt attorney to present an indictment
to the grand jury, founded upon the
transcript in the case, without further
preliminary hearing. A true bill was
returned May l, 1901, and 1t is the rule
TO quash this indictment that is now
before us for consideration. Seventeen
reasons are presented to convince us
that the indictment should be quaehed.
Some of the reasons raise important
questions; others are not so import
ant.
Appended is given the questions the
judge considered of sufficient import
ance to warrant discussion, together
with excerpts from the discussion:
First-The Indictment is not based
upon any information, preliminary
hearing or binding over.
This is not strictly in accordance
with the fact. 1t is only true in
motion to quash an indictment, or sub
sequent to it's being quashed. it has
been the practice, in our court and in
other courts, to send n new indictment
to the grand jury, with leave of court
without a second information or bind
| ing over.
Second--The Indictment is not found
| ed upon the transcript of the alder
man.
This is alleged because the indiCt-
ment sets forth the questions which
the defendant refused to answer with
out the reasons given for not answer
| ing. while the transcript sets forth the
questions and the reasons in full This
| objection cannot be sustained. In our
u of hh hn ryit'
We're immatcrial The defendant. as a
witness. is protected by the constitu-
ton. His counsel claim otherwise.
Even If the contention of counsel is
correct, the reasons given for not an
sWerirg the questions should not be
| included in the indictment. The fact
remains that he refused to answer the
questions. and this is the essence of
the offence. We do not see how it is
possible to raise the constitutional
question on a motion to quash. 1t can
| be raised at the trial only. or in some
| subsequent proceeding. If the indict-
ment charges in substance the offence
| set forth in the information. IT is suf-
| ficient, and it is not open to the OBJ
| lection made in this case.
WAS NOT CONTEMPT
Third-The act Of the defendant in
| refusing to answer the questions he
| lOlt an dlitIildu W as not con-
| tempt" within the legal meaning of
| the word.
| 1t is Contonded that the defendant
was not COntumaciOus, and was not
| ContemptuOus, either in manner or
| language. He simply asserted what he
and counsel considered COnStitu-
| tional right. and this was done in an
| orderly and respectful way. Does such
| a refusal to answer material ques-
| tion before an alderman or justice of
| the peace amount to contempt?
| We are of the opinion that the mere
| refusal to answer n material question
| before an alderman amounts to a CON
| tempt. If we do not thus hold, what
would he the result? All witness
would have to do would he to refuse
| to answer in respectful manner, Civ
| ing as a reason, maybe, a COnStitu-
| tiOnal privilege or the immateriality of
| the question. and thus succeed in alb
! soutely arrosting further prosecution
| in the pending inquiry. Such an oh
| struction to the administration of JUS
| tiCe could not be tolerated for a mo-
ment,
Fourth-The refusal to answer was
not in "a case pending before the al
| dorman.
The Indictment states that the alder
| man was engaged in and about the
hearing Of divers causes, wherein the
| commonwealth Was III tdCH case tne
| plaintiff" and certain COunCimen.
| naming them, were defendants, each
| charged with the crime OF bribery and
| corrupt solicitation 1t appears that
| the cases, as a matter of convenience
We're being heard together. The de-
| fendant, in the case at bar who was a
| witness in the bribery cases, cannot
complain of this arrangement He was
| sworn 10 tell the truth, the whole
! truth and nothing but the truth re-
| speCting said several charges of brib-
| cry" The objection is not well taken.
The other reasons assigned relate to
! the constitutional question already re-
| ferred 10. We have already stated that
! this question cannot be raised on a
motion to quash; but if it could be
| raised, we would follow the ruling of
| this court and of the Superior court
| in the case of the Commonwealth VS..
| John Gibbons, and hold that the de-
! fendant in answering the questions, al
| though his answers might incriminate
| him, Is fully protected by the constitu-
| tiOn of the state.
Now, August ~. 1901. the rule TO
| quash the indictment is discharged
In the six cases in which recent
grand juries found bribery indictments
without any previous binding over, the
| indictments were all quashed.
The defendant in one case was Select
| Councilman Vale NJ. Finn, who was
accused of bribery in connection with
lhe telephone deal Evidence adduced
IN other cases tended to implicate him
and the grand jury reported an in
| dictment against him.
NO IMPORTATION MADE.
A motion to quash the indictment
was supported by the officials of tho
| Municipal league. The ground for the
motion was that no information was
made against the defendant; no pri-
vate prosecutor appeared against him;
| that the indictm a.!t was eound with
! Continued ON Page o.