The Plymouth tribune. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1901-1911, 1901-11-14
Judge Hanecy Sentences En-
pIoyes Of Chicago American
for Contempt.
Defendants Appeal TO Judge Dunno and
Arguments Will Be Hcurd TOmOr-
row Morning.

|
of Hearst's Chicago American,
and Fl. S. Garfield, reporter,
were sentenced to serve terms of
forty and thirty days, respect
lively, in the county jail for con-
tempt of court by Judge Hanecy
yesterday, and S. S. Carvalho,
financial manager, and j. G..
Hammond, assistant city editor,
were discharged. That is, Judge
Hanecy gave an oral verdict to
that effect from the bench, but
he did not sign the commitment
to jail, and so the case is not dis
posed of. The defendants es-
capped spending last night in Jail
by securing bail from Judge
Dunno under habeas corpus pro-
ceedings.
Incidentally Judge Hanecy ad-
ministered a scathing rebuke
from the bench to Clarence s.
Darrow and Adolph Kraus, at
torneys for the American, whom
he accused of Juggling with the
processes of his court in apply
ing for habeas corpus writ be-
fore their clients had been COM
mitted to Jail, and, privately, he
administered similar rebuke to
Deputy Sheriff w. G. Lawson.
A clash of authority between
Judge Hanecy and Judge Dunno
was prevented by Judge Hanecy's
refusal to sign the commitment
after a writ of habeas corpus had
been issued by Judge Dunno.
The argument on the writ will
be heard tomorrow morniug, and
Judge Hanecy may in the mean
time sign the commitment send
ing Lawrence and Garfield to
Jail.
The blunder made by the
Americans attorneys in securing
the writ of habeas corpus before
their clients had been committed
to jail led to many complicat;n, n,ns
and, as result. E silt. ii appeared for
a time as if the men would spend
the night in Jail. Only the
clemency of Judge Dunno
Strengthened out the legal tangle
in which the attorneys had in
volved themselves and promised
to confer with Judge Hanecy, so
that both could act without fear
of causing any conflict real or
apparent.
Judge Hanecy gave his opinion
in the case yesterday morning
after disposing of the usual busi-
ness of the court.
Judge Hanecy's decision is
sweeping in effect, and holds
that a newspaper cannot CON-
ment on any case until after the
term of court in which it is tried
without being held accountable
the court for its comments. 1t
concludes as follows.
1.-The articles In question were
not merely an attack upon this
court or the presiding Judge. but
were of graver nature. They
are a bold threat and a defiant
statement to every other court
that may have to do with any
case that this newspaper or its
managers may be interested in,
that such case must be determ.
ined and decided as the news
paper or its managers dictate, or
the court or judge who does not
do SO must submit to such at
tacks as were made in this case.
1.-The questions here involved
are of much more Importance tc
the people than to this court or
the presiding judge. They are
vital to the welfare and perpet-
uity Of our institutions. If such
attacks are admitted and allowed
to 60 unpunished the judicial de-
partment of our government cam
not long survive; and when it
falls the whole structure of our
will go with it. If
each disappointed or defeated
litigant can go out of court and
assail the court and the Judge as
was done here. how long can our
judicial system survive? .