New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-05-09
HALE HELD IN CONTEMPT.
Loconbbe Fines Tobacco Man for
Refusal to 4ns4cer at Inquiry.

Judge Iacombe at the instance OF the red
eral grand Jury after two requests, agreed yes
terday TO sign an order filming Edwin e Hale
So for contempt Of court and ordering MIN 10
be placed in the custody of the marshal untli
he sees 1T TO purge himself of contempt. Judge
Iacomhe believed the proceedings proIsriy
should have been brought before Judge Ihomas'
Of the Criminal Branch Of the Federal Court
Mr.. Hale was punished for contempt in hav-
ing refused 10 answer questions relative 10 the
business of the McAndrews & Forbes Company
manufacturers Of licorice, a subsidiary organ
iza,ion Of the American Tobacco Company. A
,,reseDtr1ent was handed the judge showing
that notwithstanding the promise made by
former District Attorney Delaney NicoH on
Friday that Mr.. Hale would answer such ques-
tions as might be put TO him, he again refused.
Mr. Taft argued that ii was not strictly
criminal case. and that Judge Lacombe was
the proper official to sign the order.
4 stipulation entered into between coun-
sci that Mr.. Hale was not to be formally placed
in the marshaI's custody until his counsel had
time 10 prepare writ of habeas corpus and
certiorari TO be presented 10 the United States
Court OF Appeals that the legality of the entire
proceeding might be reviewed. In view of the
statements of John D. Lindsay. of counsel for
MIR. Hale. il is not probable that the writs can
be argued before the end Of the week
The presentment shows that Mr.. Hale refused
10 answer questions relative TO what business he
himself was engaged IN. what business he was
in before he came 10 New-Yorl1 City. who was
president Of the McAudrews * Forbes Company
and what its business was. where the office of the
McAndrevgs & Forbes Company was. as well as
The Office Of the American Tobacco Company and
The name Of its president if any agreement or
understanding or arrangement existed between
the American Tobacco Company and the Mean
drews & Forbes Company in relation to the trade
or business in licOTice paste or mass. affecting
the business in the several States Of the United
States, whether he knew the J. :. Young Com
PaIy or whether his company sold lcolce paste
10 the manufacturers of plug tobacco through
out the United States and whether he was en-
plOyed 10y the American Tobacco Company.
The presenLment showed that MI TAFT m
formed M Hale at the beginning of the eX-
animation that the Investigation was under the
act 10 protect trade and commerce from unaw-
<ul trade and competition ana that he could not
be punished for evidence given during the course
q the examination except for perjury. MI
Hale respectfully declined to answer the Dues
lions asked upon the ground that the answers
might incrimnate him and. further that he had
not time in the few days given him to produce
The vast amount OF records and data called for
in the subpoena.
second Dresentnent made by Foreman
Thomas u. Folsom of the federal grand jury
yesterday shows that on May >. before refusing
70 answer the questions. Mr.. Hale read state
Irent. which he desired To be placed on the
minutes OF me grand jury IN NhlCh ne asked 10
De shown under what authority the grand jury
was proceeding. the nature and purpose of the
investigation. and also TO receive a copy Of the
complaint. information or proposed bill Of in
dictment under which the grand jury pro
Ceeding.
Il is understood that Mr.. Hale's counsel will
contend that there is no warrant authority
al law for the action Of the grand jury. Mr..
Taft, however, contcnded that the questions
were clearly within the scope of the investga-
ton under The act 10 protect trade and COM
merce from unlawful trade and competition.
II Is not probable that the papers in the case
can he prepared in time for hearing before
Friday next.