New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-12-17

The parties appealing to the Su-
preue Court in both of these cases are
members Of the staff of The New York
Tribune. Mr.. Burdick at the time when
the questions arose being the city ed
itor and Dir. Curtin a reporter. Zach
0. them appeals by a writ OF error
from an order Of the United States Dis
trict Court fning and committing him
for contempt for refusing TO testify IN
a grand jury investigation as to the
sources of information for articles re-
gsrding certain smuggling cases OF
nuch subsequent notoriety which The
Tribune was the first TO expose.
The Counsel in the Case.
Former United States Attorney
Henry A. Wise and Colonel Henry W.
ssckett we're the counsel for The Trib-
une writer's before the Supreme Court
to-day, and the government was repre-
sented by Solicitor General John W.
Davis.
The two articles out of which these
cases arose were published last winter.
The first of them related to the cir
eumstances which led TO charges Of
smuggling Of jewels into the United
States against Robert 7. Heitmyer, the
wealthy leather manufacturer OF ho-
boken, and Mrs. L. VI. Alexander, who
accompanied him TO this country on
The French liner France.
But apparently much more lmpor-
;ant, in the view Of the government
officials, was what they called the pre-
nature" publication in The Tribune OF
The story of Lucius y. Littauer, glove
manufacturer and for many years e
prominent Republican Representative
in Congress from New York districts,
bringing into this country jewels OF
great value without paying duty there
on Both Of these articles we're lDeI-
lous on their face. and exposed the
writer's as we'll as The Tribune TO
prosecution for criminal libel under
ne New York law. Subsequently Mr.
Li.tauer was indicted for smuggling
and pleaded guilty and sentenced 20
serve a term IN the penitentiary at At
lsn.a,' but stay Of execution was
granted almost Immediately, and he
has never been confined in prison. In
the Hei'myer cases fines were imposed
and paid.
These publications. and particularly
mat IN the Littauer case, aroused tne
ire Of the officials Of the Treasury De
paftneni. An investigation was at
once begun % ascertain from what
sources The Tribune had obtained its
exclusive information. United States
Attorney Marshall. acting doubtless
under Instructions from Washington,
demanded Of the editor Of The Tribune
that be tell him such sources. ard
shen this was politely refused he
threatened % bring the matter before
ne United States Grand Jury.
Taken Before the Grand Jury.
This threat was carried out, and
Asssrs. Burdick and Curtin were sum
noned before the grand jury and u
vas demanded Of them that they re-
veal such sources OF information. Inc
nature Of the proceedings that followed
AID IN particular the language OF the
paFson Of the President that was after
ssto granted. very frankly reveal the
fesi object OF the action taken. when
az for the purpose OF determining
SShethef any cmploye Of the Treasury
department at the Custom House, New
iork City, had been betrsying informa-
non that came 20 such person IN AN
omeial capacity.
BY regulation promulgated by the
secretary Of the Treasury, any subor'
elnate Was forbidden, without the au-
ssaoniy Of the Secretary, making pub
ie omeial matter" and IL wag his mani.
iest purpose, If through these grand
ITary proceedings he could compel The
iIDanf pen % connect any suboTGi'
t@ss with the publication, % discipline
",n under such regulation.
@e1srs. burdiek and Curtin declined
iSwer al questions put 70 them
Nlofe the United States Grand Jury
pyh these points, giving ~ the reason
l@l 70 90 - might tend crimis ate
hem. y did not appear whether this
i1 under the Law relating 10 criminal
iDe' OF other New York laws or under
s teoeral statutes. But IL did appear
ION statements Of the Assistant
nn.sd states Attorney that question:
aossEei arse Of the possible completely
Nps,e witnesses under Section 81 OF
u