New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-05-12
GLOBE IN CONTEMPT;
FINES TOTAL $1,000
Editor, City Editor, Re-
porter and Company Must
Pay $3.50 Each.
COURT REJECTS PLEA
OF "HONEST MISTAKE"
CensureS Advance Publication of
Whitman's Speech and Story
of Beckers' Emotion.

Justice Seabury adjudged Henry j.
Wright editor: George T. Hughes, city
editor; Charles r. Brodhead. reporter, all
OF THE Globe" and the corporation
which publishes the paper, In contempt OF
court yesterday for prematurely publish
ing the opening address OF District At
.torney Whitman TO the Becker Jury. in
an early edition on Saturday He i'm
posed fine OF $3.50 In each instance, or a
total fine OF 5000. and gave the respond
ents until noon to-day to pay 1t. Other
wise the three respondents may be COM
mitted to jail. They were released In the
custody OF their counsel
The respondents appeared before JUS
tice Seabury at p. m yesterday, soon
after the adjournment of the Becker
trial, in the Criminal Branch Of the Su-
preme Court in answer to citations call
ing upon them to show cause why they
should not be adjudged in contempt John
b. Stanchheld appeared as counsel for tho
respondents. ana argued that the publica
ton had been IAN honest mistake" which
in no way was intended to reflect upon
the court or the proceedings, and was
deeply regretted by the respondents.
Justice Seabury pointed out that such
an excuse could certainly not be offered
for that part Of the publication which at
tempted to describe the attitude of the
defendant and his wife during the time
the address was delivered. He referred to
the Introductory paragraphs Of the story.
He declared that such a statement could
not have had any basis in fact. and char
acterized the publication as false and
grossly inaccurate"
Justice Seabury's Decree.
Justice seabury's decree. in full, was
as follows:
The court does not accept the view that
the publication in the early edition OF
The Globe OF May 3, 1914, was solely the
result of an honest mistake. That excuse
certainly cannot be offered for that part
OF the publication which attempted 10
describe the attitude OF the defendant
and his wife during the time the address
as delivered. The part OF the publlca-
ton 10 which l refer reads as follows:
Becker, seated beside Martin T. Man
ton, his chief counsel, listened attentlVely
10 every word His face was study.
At times his eyes would have faraway
look and again the features would be
screwed up as il he were in pain. Almost
so close that she could touch the prisoner
sat his wife Her face reflected more
plainly than Becker's the emotion she
felt She bit her lips frequently, as II TO
keep from crying out protest. several
times she leaned over and made some ap-
parently bitter comment on the way the
proceedings were going
. The person writing that statement and
causing that statement 10 be set up IN
type and printed in advance OF the de-
livery Of the address of the District At
torncy must have known that that state
ment had no basis i'm fact. The whole
publication constituted a false and gross
IS inaccurate report Of the proceedings
OF the court at its session on May y
1914 All Of the respondents are IN some
degree responsible for that publication,
and the court adjudges them guilty OF
contempt Of court.
Judicial proceedings in the courts of
this county are persistently misrepre-
sented i'm the public press, and the ad-
ministration of justice is thereby EN-.
barrassed and impeded. The power or
the courts in this state 20 protect me
administration Of justice from this
abuse is very limited In England, Mas
sachusetts and New Jersey, and IN some
Of the other states, the courts are
clothed ~with ample power 20 correct
such abuse.
Court Censures Defendants.