New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-04-21
Contempt Charge Sent to 1t
on Writ of Error for
Adjudication.
PRESIDENTS PARDON
HELD OF NO EFFECT
Meantime Messrs. Burdick and
Curtin Are Technically In
Marshaps Custody.

The Tribune contempt case. whereby
the United States Attorney has sought
TO jail George Burdick. former city editor
and now financial editor Of The Tribune
and William L. Curtin. ship news re-
porter. for contempt of court. as result
OF their refusal 10 divulge to the grand
jury the source OF information for the
story about the Lttauer and Heitmeyer
customs frauds cases, first published IN
this paper, was started on Its way 10 the
United States Supreme Court yesterday
for final adjudication by writs or error
sworn out following the formal commit
ment OF the two men to the custody or
the marshal by Judge Hand.
The proceedings were purely formal the
defendants merely being technically IN
the marshars custody pending the sign
ing of the writ of error IN each case by
Judge Hand. and Immediately afterward
Of a supersedeas, admitting them both to
500 cash bail. which was furnished. IL
was specified in the supersedeas that the
writ OF error should operate as stay OF
proceedings under the contempt order.
In the assignments of error filed with
tended that the court erred in finding the
defendants guilty OF contempt. IL was
also contended that the court erred IN
ruling that the warrant Of pardon from
the President had any force Whatever
and that error was committed by the
court in ad1udging that the alleged war
rant of pardon. unaccepted, operated 10
take away the constitutional night against
characterization" and that by virtue OF
the warrant they could be compelled TO
give testimony which might tend to In
criminate them.
Further contentious as TO the paroon
were that error was committed In that
it was not ruled that there was no power
in the President TO grant pardon Where
there was no evidence that the person
10 whom Il was addressed had committed
any offence; also. that II was not ruleu
such attempted issuance was an unau-
thorized exercise OF power not vested IN
the President by the Constitution or laws
Of the United States.
In regard TO the grand jury wnlch
found the presentments against the 90
PENDANTS, the point was raised that the
court erred in holding that II was law
fully inquiring into any offence against
the United States or was inQuNinS INTO
any matter about which the defendants
could be examined before It as witnesses.
The writs Of error, which were identl-
cal command that you send the record
and proceedings aforesaid, with all things
concerning the same, TO the justices OF
the Supreme Court of the United states
at the Capitol In the City Of Washington
d c.. together with this writ, so that
Won have the same at the said place be-
fore the justices aforesaid. that the record
and proceedings aforesaid being inspect
ed. the said justices Of the Supreme Court
may cause further to be done therein, TO
correct that error, what Of right and ac-
cording TO the law and custom OF the
United States ought TO be done"
The writs were signed by Chief Justice
White OF the Supreme Court. The cita-
ton directed to the United States In the
case Of Mr.. Burdick was as follows:
You are hereby cited and admonished
10 be and appear at the Supreme Court
of the United States at Washington
D. C.. within thirty days from the date
hereof, pursuant TO a writ or error nled
in the office Of the clerk OF the United
States District Court for the Southern
District OF New York. wherein George
Burdick is plaintiff in error. and you are
the defendant in error. TO show cause, II
any there be, why the order and tudg-
ment In said writ mentioned should not
be corrected and speedy Justice should
not be done IN that behalf
Preceding the formal commitment yes
terday an answer TO tho grand Jury pre-
sentiment was fled, setting forth tho
same arguments against the contempt
charge as were filed at the time Of the
former commitment.