The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-12-08
HEARST'S MEN RELEASED
MANAGING EDITOR AND REPORTER
RESCUED BY JUDGE DUNNE,
Who Admitted Judge Hanecy Had
Been Libe1ed, but Granted
writs of Habeas Corpus.

CHICAGO, Dec. 7.-Andrew NJ. Lawrence,
managing editor of Hearst's Chicago
American, and II. S. Garfield, a reporter,
who were sentenced recently by Judge
Hanecy to forty and thirty days. respec-
lively, in the county jail for contempt of
court, were discharged from custody by
Judge Dunno to-day.
In granting a writ of habeas corpus to
the REALTORS. the court said the case hinged
on whether the case on which the Chicago
American commented had been disposed of
by Judge Hanecy. or was still pending.
Judge Dunno held that the case in question
had been finally disposed of by Judge Han
ecy when he gave his decision from the
bench. The fact that the clerk had not
entered the order when the Comment on
the decision was printed and published
therefore does not show that the case was
still pending. The act of entering the
order on the record was merely a minis
terial act, Judge Dunno said.
Judge Dunno admitted that the articles
and cartoon which Judge Hanecy objected
to were clearly calculated TO intimldate
and coerce the court. had the court not al
ready rendered its decision. Judge Dunno
admitted that the cartoon in evidence was
probably libelous and the articles possibly
so. Harsh criticism, Judge Dunno re-
marked. Is one of the incidents and bur
dens Of public life. Il see no reason" he
different remedy for attacks in the public
prints than a president, or a governor, or
a congressman. Criticism of a public Of
fetal, if just, will do good; If unjust, will
do no harm"
In concluding the court said: 81 am clear
ly of the opinion that the language used
in open court by Judge Hanecy amounted
TO a final order dispOsing of the case under
consideration, and that being a final order,
under the doctrine of contempt as laid
down in this State by our Supreme Court,
in Story VS.. the People. that the REALTORS
had a right TO comment and criticise that
decision, even TO the extent Of nbeling the
hOnored and respected judge who rendered
that opinion without exposing themselves
To prosecution for contempt of court"
Following is Judge Hanecy's cOmment on
Judge DUNES decision: Judge Dunno
had the power to so decide, but he did not
have the right. Any judge has the power
10 let every prisoner out Of the peniten-
~tiaries. but they have not the right, nor
does anybody expect that they will"
The contempt case and the habeas corpus
hearing which followed grew out OF an eff
fort made by the Chicago American to Sc
cure an order for quo warranto proceed
ings to compel the Peoples Gaslight
and Coke Company TO show by what right
they operated in Chicago. Judge Hanecy
refused 10 allow the quo warranto pro-
c~eedings and following this refusal the
American printed articles and a cartoon
strongly intimating that the judge had
been unduly influenced and that when he
AGAIN came up for election he would dis
cover that the people had no confidence in
HIM. Judge Hanecy cited Lawrence and
Garfield. with others of the paper, for con-
tempt and found Lawrence and Garfield
guilty. w. x. Hearst. owner of the paper,
Clare Briggs and Homer Davenport, car
toonists. nave not been within the juris-
diction Of the court and the contempt
charge still ponds against them. The evil
dence heard by Judge Hanecy was re-
viewed before Judge Dunno.