New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-02-22
Pardon Must Be Unlimited.

Now then said Mr.. Wise, If the
for any offence under Section 81 or Sec
ton go Well, they have made their pros
ecution under those sections. but there
are a vast number of other sections Of
the revised statutes Of the criminal code,
and We have not said in our declaration
that TO decline 10 answer would tend to in
crlmnate US under Section 81 or 80. II
may tend to incriminate us under Section
or go or any one between. And there
fore the President must come ahead with
another pardon and pardon us for any
crime we may have committed under any
statute Of the United States"
81 shall rule against YOU on that" said
the court. Il have strong belief the
witness IS not the sole judge of the priv
I ilege. If that rule becomes established.
in case the Supreme Court establishes it.
that ends il. But I would want some au-
thority that | was bound to follow IL
said that. Because | think the result OF
IL would be that any man could shut his
mouth whenever he wanted to, and we
would not have any power whatever. and
we would not have any power to examine
whether there was the least color or
danger Of Jeopardy.
The logic of the situation is quite as
YOU say the very examination may be the
means OF destroying the privilege, and the
only answer 10 IT is there has got to be a
certain practical administration OF the
rules"
'Now, your honor" said Mr.. Wise. II
think that I have presented this case in a
way that must convince your court II is
not an idle question. and that II is serious
~ urged I would ask the court IL you
wish aid. for some time to prepare memo
randa."
IF YOU want to-" said the court. II
don't mean that will not give any atten-
ton 10 ii. but IL is quite apparent from
both OF YOU that II doesn't make a great
deal Of practical difference which way
decide the case is going up. anyway TO
the supreme Court
81 don't think Mr. Carstarphen will OBJ
jet should l decide in his favor and i'm
pose fine. II ] extend the defendants
time within which TO answer-that is.
supposing 7 said in my order. the wit
nesses might go before the grand jury
within five days. or pay a fine OF $500 or
$1,000. or whatever 1t might be. II they
appealed from that. and the order was
affirmed. their five days would have ex-
PRED. and they would not have had a
chance 10 purge themselves
II | thought this was a baseless ap-
peal should do that. but think that in
this case there are real questions TO be
decided and il would he fair Ia extsud
the time until after the Supreme Court
has passed upon IT before they would
have TO answer"
When the judge had finished H. Snow
den Marshall. United States Attorney.
who had sat in the courtroom while Mr..
Carstarphen. his assistant, presented
argument addressed the court
You are considering the presentment
Of a grand jury for contempt" he said
Two witnesses appeared before the
grand jury and refused to answer ques-
tons. pleading privilege. The question
you have before YOU IL whether they were
then justified I'm that refusal, and then at
that time. while they were making that
refusal, they concede they had tende-se
them "A full. free pardon that woulc abso-
lutely cure them of any Liability If they
had incurred any for arg offence they
might have COMMITTEES.