The Alaska citizen., 1914-02-09
Kl0PSCH IS FOUND GUILTY
 0F CONTEMPT I
EDITOR OF FACTS WILL RECEIVE HIS SENTENCE THIS
 MORNING.

Louis Klopsch. editor of Facts.
 was adjudged gully of contempt of
 court by Judge Fuller Friday and
 will be sentenced this morning. The
 maximum penalty for the offense is
 six mon .hs' imprisonment or a fine
 of $500, or both fine and imprison
 ment Attorneys for the defendant
 say the case will be appealed.
 Klopsch was arrested January 31
 on a charge of publishing two arti-
 cles concerning cases pending be | fore the court in an attempt to
 prejudice and embarrass the court.
 One of the articles was concerning the Cadzow matter and the other, entitled "Si Reeds Ghost" concern
 ed the handling of the Washington
 Alaska bank funds by Receiver F. | q. Moves.
 l Bail was provided for klopsch by w. w. Pendergraft and John HoWie
 in the sum of $500 The hearing
 was delayed upon request of the de 1 fendant while he secured legal as
 sistance.
 | The case began to take more than
 ordinary importance when it was | announced Tuesday that five leading attorneys, McGoWan X Clark. T. A. | Marquam, Morton E. Stevens and l.. K. Prat would defend the accused without charge The announcement was a surprise, for it was not gen l orally believed that klopsch had
 any influence among the legal pro fession, and it was announced in 1 court that he was without money for
 carrying on his defense.
 Attorneys for the defense offered
 motions to have the case dismissed
 on various technical grounds, the one
 icing that the affidavit charging him
 with the crime contained two causes
 If action combined. It was attempt
 ed to prove at the trial that the in ; formation contained in the articles involved was obtained through the office of the district attorney and
 thus the defendant was not to
 blame. The court overrule1 all the motions.
 | Klopsch was placed on the witness stand and attempted to prove thai
 he had legal advice concerning the
 publication of the articles, and this prompted the court to declare that 1 my officer of the court who would 1 ake part in the effort 10 improperly I Influence the cour, was subject to
 punishment, but klopsch was not | permitted to name the attorney who
 ne said had aided him. klopsch
 admitted that he had written the ar l ices in question, and Clerk of the l 'ourt McBri4e testified that tn cases mentioned in the articles were
 pending before the court at the time
 the articles were published.
 In his closing argument, after the evidence was in, District Attorney | Crossley bitterly denounced the de
 fendant and characterized his paper
 T., dirty she-t, y
 1 In announcing his decision Judge
 Fuller said;
 l "I have indicated sufficiently be- fore that I think there is no ques- tion that the matters set up in
 the affidavit, which were proven on l the trial, and by the admissions Of l the defendant, constitute con empt of court. There is no ques- ion whatever-as far as that goes, | it appears from the evidence-that
 practically the only purpose of the
 publication of the paper was to comment on matters pending before l the court, and try and stir up and
 inflame public opinion in regard to them. Such matters as that are
 bound to embarrass the court in
 rendering it's decision.
 | "The matters in the first part of 1 the affidavit, referring to the CadzoW l ;pl in tho most fammatory style and set up matters
 highly prejudicial to the government | in that case. It holds the govern
 ment and it's witnesses up to rldl- | cule. There is no question in my 1 mind that such matters as that are
 prejudicial to the party, and have a | endency to prevent him from hay ng fair trial.
 l "The question in regard to the sec 1 ond part, in regard to the receiver ship: The receivership is still in l existence; the accounts of the re 1 ceiver have not been passed upon and his policy and actions in certain l matters are still to be determined.
 As said by the district attorney, if here is any person dissatisfied With l his proceedings, he has right to be
 heard in open court, but he has not he right in an underhand manner, as these articles are attempting to, 10 reflect upon the proceedings of l he receiver and hold him up to rldl- | oule, and intimate crookedness on
 the part of the court in connection
 with it. And there can be no other inference from the article, as l read 1 it.
 "Whe her or not the article is
 worthy of any particular considera-
 ion, is different matter. The
 so-called editor is simply seeking
 for notoriety and particularly grati- fled, apparently, by being in court on an occasion of this kind, being .reated as the editor of newspaper. IT can hardly think that such mat l CTS as were set out in those arti- 1 cles would receive any serious con 1 alteration in community of intelli- gent people It is unnecessary to
 say that the court was not influenc-
 ed in it's action in arriving at a
 decision in the Cadzow case by what was published; and it will (so far l IS any matters that may come be-
 ore it hereaf CT in connection Win the receivership). certainly not be
 prejudiced against the parties against
 whom these articles were directed.
 Whether or not it may be prejudiced against the parties whom it would naturally suppose had something to