New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-02-21
wilson PowerleSS to tx
cuse Acts of Which They
We're Not Convicted.
HOLD NO CRIME Is
BEING INVESTIGATED
sBrccklyn Eagle" Commends
Stand of The Tribune in Pro-
,sctinq lis Source of News.

N. Trfouue fled yesterday in The
r-s.s states District Court, through
-, ,cnr.,l. Henry A. Wise, former
r,.,6 states Attorney, answers or
,.,,Y O, George Burdick and William
Curtin. both OF The Tribune staff, &c
a. charge that they were guilty OF
.,,,,mpt OF court IN refusing 10 dis
"a. the source Of information for the
.,-,s Of tho Heitmeyer and LittaueI
.,,,orns cases which were printed ex-
,,,,,v,lv in The Tribune. The hearing
., ,he case. which was set for yester-
,,v wss put over 10 this morning at 1C
s'slcck.
Nr Burd!ck. formerly city editor and
.sv financial editor OF The Tribune
,,s Mr.. Curtin. ship news reporter
shading their constitutional privilege
hzsed their refusal 10 indicate the
su-ce Of information on the ground
as, they did not wish 10 incriminate
,smselves. To meet this Assistant
United States Attorney Carstarphen in
formed Judge Hand when the case was
bs'ore him on Thursday that President
VaSn had granted pardons TO the
rarssses for any offence" they might
sru committed. but they refused tc
srsg the pardons. Mr.. Wise SAID
isgsrdsy that this was the first time
n his jurisdiction that a President
ysfton had been refused.
The snsusr filed yesterday in be-
Asf Of Mr Burdick follows:
~ TIE DISTRICT COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT or NEW
TORK-IN TIE MATTER OF THE
RESENTMENT Of GEORGE BUR
DICK as for an alleged contempt OF
Court
NOW comes the above mentioned
George Buriick, and for answer 10
The Presentment returned against him
y The Grand jury for the Southern
District Of New York. on the 18th day
o February. 1914. and says:
That ne admits that paper pur-
porting 20 be a subpoena was hereto
ore served upon him and that in COM
Nance with the terms thereof he ap-
eared before the Grand Jury for the
Suihern DistriC, Of New York on or
leou, the 10Th day Of January. 1914,
nd was then and there sworn and eX-
vnihed or attempted TO be examined
VA witness that thereafter and on or
nout the 2sth aui Soth days Of Janu-
Try and the 3rd, 10th and 18th days
tFebruary ne ssain appeared before
so Grand jury
!! That on several Of these days he
'u interrogated by an Assistant
United States Attorney: and that 20
hns interoEatiOns 90 propounded 10
hin h. made rcply and 20 others
u~eof Re declined 20 answer; and
nat his reason FOR 50 declining 10 an
Ner vas that he believed that his
'svers, II given, would tend 20 In
eliminate him.
That on the 18th day OF Febru-
'y he appeared before said Grand
''Ty and then and there gentleman.
sho he Is informed. IS an Assistant
Vh'sd States Attorney. handed TO him
eper, and az the time the same was
handed 20 this respondent said As
want United states Attorney stated
al The Ir.c . 4, - a1 ~
&c granted respondent a fun and un-
~euonal pardon for all offences
~hsi The United States which re-
'seoeni had or might have commit
Or taken part in. in connection
~ The securing writing about or
&suns IN the publication OF the in
"euon Incorporated i'm an article
~ appeared In The New-YoTk
o1he In It's issue OF December Sist,
,S' headed Glove Makers Gems
& &c Customs Size" and in con-
eU0n with any other article. mat
%' thing. concerning which he
e' NJ in-e-rogated in the Grand
Proceedings entitled United
10" John Doe and Richard Roe"
ine same time respondent was
'@'ed to read said paper. and re-
nme
49,, inA' respondent did not accept
ppefi has never accepted the
~'o now and here refuses 20 ac-
a. n' same and denies the power OF
q
nne "'''' ~ "0''p' '"'
A, mat the said paper is not now
- ~ never has been in the possession
e.. respondent. and respondent
,ess no' know whether the alleged
s.. VI said paper set forth in the
Asreof 0oiie'' ana true COPY
~. mN respondent denies the right
us P'ssidsu, Of the United states
s.,.,.s,. This respondent "a fun and
=, s,ao'uonsl pardon or any other
s., una OF pardon for any alleged
"a " which this respondent has
u. 49,, convicted; END alleges that
hh.o~ 80 70 do is unwarrantcd
"' contrary 10 the provisions
n IA