Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1910-07-08
Judge Lewis Imposes Fines and
Imprisonment for Herald
Republican Men.
MANAGER IS RESPONSIBLE.
Geo. T.. Hale Sentenced to Thirty Days
And Fined s2Oo-Going Into
Supreme Court

George T.. Hale, general manager. 600
fine and 80 days In the county Jail.
A. J. Brown, managing editor. $40
fine.
Paul Armstrong, acting city editor. $40
fine.
Carl Williams, court reporter for Her
ald-Repuhlcan, so fine.
Such was the Judgment given by
Judge r. u. Lewis this morning I'm
the matter Of the citation Of the above
named for contempt OF court I'm publish
Ing twice, while juries were being inn
paneled the confession Of Harry
Thorne, murderer of George w. Fasseil
and the companion Of Thomas Riley IN
the commission OF the crime; but a stay
Of proceedings was granted until Fri
day, July 10, in order to give the de-
PENDANTS time TO prepare affidavits I'm
habeas corpus proceedings to be heard
before the supreme court.
Judge Lewis stated that he had in
tended t1 give no punishment in the
citation for the confession published the
second time, namely during the trial
OF Riley. for ne thought the mere bring
ing Of the papers attention to the mat
ter would suffice. but when the paper
again republished the confession the day
before Jurors were about to be exam
ined on the Thorne case, he thought
the matter a defiance, deliberate and
wilful. This explains why Mr.. Hale
was given such a sentence. All tcsti-
fed that the confession was republishcd
at his order as general manager.
Shortly after 10 o'clock the contempt
proceedings began with H. f. Booth
as the attorney for the defendants. Mr..
Booth insisted that the paper had a
constitutional right to publish con-
fessions which were matters of COM
mon knowledge; denied that the pub
LEGATION OF the confession biased the
minds Of any men otherwise qualified
as jurymen. denied any intention on
the part Of the paper to interfere with
the process or proceedings OF the
court; and said that Messrs. Brown,
Williams and Armstrong had merely
acted in accordance with the instruc-
tons Of the management.
MR. BOOTHS ARGUMENT.
Mr.. Booth argued In the nature Of a
demurrer 20 the proceedings that to
punish for contempt in this case
would establish precedent which !
violated the we'll grounded right OF /
freedom Of speech. our statute, he said, /
punished as contempt amy unlawful /
Interference with the process or pro- [
ceedings of the court" but the /
supreme court OF California, after |
which state the Utah statute was /
taken. had defined the law and ex- 4
cluded cases OF this kind.
1t is clear" said Mr. Booth. that /
a paper has no right to give its
opinions on the proper verdict TO be
rendered In cases on trial or TO intim-
idate witnesses but that IL has a
right to publish matters OF common |
knowledge, and matters which one
citizen may say to another on the
street without being guilty Of con-
tempt, Is well recognized"
The attorney for the defense then
referred TO Art. !, Sec. 10 OF the CON
stitution which placed freedom OF !
speech and freedom Of the press on an
equal footing; and showed how by the |
mere publications OF false confessions
real murderers were at times 80 |
stricken in conscience on account Of the |
wrongful punishment Of others that |
hey came back to the scene OF the
rhine and confessed. He told how one
Warren Clun was sentenced TO life i'm
)risonment in Nebraska for the killing
" his brother and how the divorced |
wife of the deceased brother. reading
" the sentence, came herself and adj
nitted the commission OF the deed-a |
hing which would never have happen |
ID unless the newspapers had printed |
he story Of the trial and the sentence.
Mr.. Booth argued that any man who |
aid he was ready to hang a defend |
mt because he had read a confession |
printed in a paper and from that evil |
ience alone was not man. and GER
atnly not one OF sufficient brains to sit |
N jury. As a matter Of fact. how
YER Just such answers were given i'm |
10Th the Riley and the Thorne cases |
When jurymen were being examined
his fact the court at once pointed out
o Mr.. Booth.
Aaron Burr was ono time on trial
?
Z the jurymen being examined said he
'ad come 60 help hang Aaron Burr
aaron Burr asked the man N ne was
Wiling to cast that opinion aside and
q governed by the evidence He said.
fes'' and Aaron Burr was convicted"
JUDGE LEwIS's STATEMENT.
Without asking for any authorities
'om Mr.. Loofbourow tho district a.
'rney, Judge Lewis then took matters
1 his own hands and explained thar ,
he confession OF Thorne was pubIIshed
! all OF the papers on March 81 imme-
lately after the murder OF FasseU on
he evening or March 20. He took thar
5 a matter Of course for such things Z
'cur every day and the cases OF Riley
ma Thorne had not yet boon called d
ir trial When Riley's case was called 4
ie jurymon were being examined, Inc ,
lnfesslon OF Thorne. which implicated {
Hey, was re-publishcd and thereafter | ,
was almost impossible 10 secure n &
lryman who had not read the confes-
on.
The publication Of the confession at | =
he beginning or the Riley trial was | /
no sense news" said Judge Lcwis | a
as IL had been published in an OF the n
ipers once before The only effect n | n
,uld have was 20 make IL more diffI
at 10 secure a fair and impartial Jury. A
resulted in a motion for a change b
venue I cited the paper into court h
the hope that the citation for con =
mpt would be sufficient warning; ana 2
did not intend to punish for the same 4
hen, however, at the close OF the I
Hey case and AZ the very beginning N
the Thorne trial the confession ~ | :
horne was again re-published and tho ! +
OF a jury was made doubI, | I
nicult, the matter became an absolute | Z
'hance OF my orders inferred from | a
q citation. Then again the tone of | h
e paper at the time OF the third pub | =
'ation was one OF defiance OF the | q,
urt." a
This y the hrst time" continued | a
idge Lewis, ''in all tho seven years | ii
at / have occupied the bench that A | ii
per has violated its obligations to l y