davidaulloa/AmericanStories huggingface dataset:
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-01-26

articles were based was not through
the payment Of any money or anything
OF value. They also asserted that the
information had not come from any
onicial or employe Of the Department
of Justice.
Refuse 10 Disclose Identity.
Beyond that they refused to answer
any questions whatever, the replies to
which might have resulted in a dis
closure of the identity Of the in
tormants of The Tribune. pleading the
constitutional privilege shove referred
to.
II was clear that this constitutions al
privilege so asserted was complete
barrer to any success in the inouisi-
ton that the United States Attorney
was pursuing as matters then stood. In
TINS emergency the government author
ities resorted to the extraordinary ex-
pedlent, IN the endesvor TO compel
messrs. Burdick and Curtin 10 testify.
OF resorting to the President of the
United states and obtaining from him
Wnat purported TO be pardon.
armed with these "pardons," the
government authorities again caused
Messrs; burdick and Curtin to be sub
ppnaed before another session Of the
grand jury, and the so-cailed ;nstru0
ments OF pardon were thereupon ten
dered to them, and they were again
subjected to the same line of ou.st;on'
ing as before. Each Of them refuses
to accept the proffered pardon and each
OF them continued in his refusal To an
swer the questions asked. The grand
jury caused the witnesses to be nrsssnt.
ed to the court charged with contemnt
Power Of President in Question
The matter was argued before Unit.d
States District Judge Learned Hand
Upon the oral argument Judge Eand
expressed his belief that the case in
vowed question as to the constitu-
tionsl power OF the President OF the
United States which ought to be passed
upon oy the United States Supreme
Court. The decision rendered By him
was IN favor of the government and
sdJudged the witnesses to be in con-
tempt, but gave them an opportunitv
to purge themselves by appearing on
notice before the grand jury again and
testifying fully as TO the sources OF
their information.
Ihereupon the witnesses were aesin
summoned before the grand iurv and
again stoutly persisted in refusing TO
answer the questions. A formal order
was then entered By which each OF
them was adjudged to pay a fine Of
5000 and committed to the custody Of
the United States marshal for the
Southern District OF New York until
ne should purge himself OF the con-
tempt or until the further order OF
the court in the premises. Each OF
them thereupon appealed to the United
states Supreme Court, and q stay Of all
proceedings under the final order Of
Hand
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-01-26
TOO MUCH TALK,
SAYS LABOR MAN
c. F. u. Leader Wants the
Mayors Unemployment
Body TO Do Something.

Labor union members Of the Mayors
Committee on Unemployment said yes,
terdsy that, while they are IN accord
with the general aims OF the commit
tee, too much time is wasted IN dis.
cussing plans and too little practical
work is being done.
James Holland, OF the Central FED
Grated Union, who is a member OF the
committee, said last evening that "
was decided at a meeting OF repre-
sentatives OF the c. f. L. 70 call
labor congress, TO take up the question
of urging the committee to act FOR ne
relief of unemployed workers, either .!
furnishing work or otherwise.
thine is wasted in preliminsries, 10
said. The committee has sir SAP,
committees, all of which are supposed
TO be handling some phase OF the mat
ter. For anything they might know,
some of the subcommittee may be IN
consciously working against each other
The needs Of the unemployed are pres
ent needs, and the sooner action OF
definite kind is taken the better"
Unemployment Sunday" will be esls
brated throughout New York City .,
January 81. On that day ministers WIZ
discuss the unemployment ouesuc.,
from their pulpits and urge members o.
their congregations 70 pledge tnem
selves 10 hunt for Jobs for the worA
less. Many churches have sppointea
local committees on unemployment
and district organizations have oeen
perfected to which the unemployed nay
apply. The Inter-Church Unemplo!..
ment Committee has had printed III,
,of chores at which householders arc
business men can put some OF the lo''
Lass IN vrorl
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-01-26
COLUMBUS WAS A HOBO
SAYS JEFF IN SKETCH
Mine Host Of De Gnk Offers to Search Ranks Q
Wanderers to Find Lost Kin of Any One in
Crowd That Grees Him at Fammersteins

Cot a brother, son, husband or any
other male relative that has not been
heard from in long time and who may
be hobo? II so, apply to the lost
and found bureau at the Hotel de Gink,
at Worth and Centre SITS.
There is just chance some OF the
BOYS there may know who and where
he is. They will help in finding him
if they can, provided the purpose Of
the search is not TO jail the missing
one if he is located.
jeff Davis, the King of Hoboes, told
of the latest departure in hotel enter
prise yesterday afternoon, when he
made his first appearance at Hammer
STEMS Theatre. The audience took
kindly to the smooth shaver hobo
leader and manifested by their ap-
plause that his address on the unem-
ployed problem got across
In response TO a curtain call, DAVIS
mentioned the relative reclamation
work which the ginks had undertaken.
IF there is a member of your family
missing who may be alive and 'boing
it, that you would like TO get in touch
with, write on a slip OF paper his name
and description and whatever particu-
lars you think are necessary and leave
il at the box Office" he said. I'VE Will
make inquiry among the $50 guests at
the Hotel de Gink, and IL they do not
know him they'll pass the word along.
Dressed in a creaseless blue suit,
brown sweater jacket and weather
worn cap, Davis looked nothing Ike
the tramp comedian OF the stage. And
his talk differed still further. It was
in good, everyday English, with enough
slang Of the road 20 make 1t pietu-
rescue.
For the benefit Of the audience Jef
differentiated between the hobo, the
tramp and the bum, CHASING the men
he represented as those who were Will
ing to work if opportunity presented;
the second as those who would not
work if they could, and last the buns
as men who could not work, however
ambitious their natures.
81 have 'boed it all over the world,
he declared, land in France / saw ad-
yertised the gowns made IN Paris, IN
Germany the toys made in that coun-
try. but I want to say to you that the
best slogan is Made in the u. ). A.
And the best product Of the country Is
the boys and girls. Yes, the American
babies.
"But what we ought to do when they
grow up is to give them chance to
Sork See that they get jobs. We
hoboes are not against the immigrants
who come TO this country to better
themselves. but the boys Of our nation
should get the first jobs
All Davis hoped 10 accomplish, he
said, by his appearance on the stage
was to enlist the public in the cause
fthe hobo. Christopher Columbus
was one Of the hobo clan.
He concluded his "act" with bit OF
advice to boys.
"Kids have funny ideas" he said.
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-01-26

lished unvtlcorns nsws concerning the
acts, even concerning the hsgrsnt mis-
feasanee OF public officers, would at al
times have been in hazard OF being
summoned at the instance OF iraie
official vrongdoers before the grand
jury. and compelled TO betray the con
hdential sources OF their information
or sent TO prison for refusing TO DO 90
There would have been no help FOR
them. sinc. the courts would have been
powerless 20 inquire into TIE rear
motive, Of the officials and prosecutor
Result Of Decision Momentous.
III. result Of this decision OF ire
spnrems Court is 10 avert danger OF
which the makers Of our Constitution
nrobshlv never dreamed. II ends once
and for all the idea that the e1eeut's
oAcer, Of this government can in pTsc-
teal effect. through the ostensi0le e@-
ercise Of the psrdonins power, he iur-
nished with the inquisitorisl and puni-
tive powers of criminal court Tor en-
forcing their own regulations relative
10 giving information to the pu0'''
about their own acts.
In its technical aspects the decision
hold. that "a pardon Is a deed 70 tne
validity Of which delivery is esSen''Sl
and delivery is not complete without
scc,n.snee." With great justice tne
court saws that circumstances may DC
made 20 bring innocence under the
penalties Of the law.
or so brought, escape By con'es-
sion Of guilt, implied in the acceptance
Of g nardon, may be rejected one SO
placed may prefer to be the victim OF
tho law rather than its acknowledged
tr.rsgr...or. It is IN this aspect OF
~. decision that It Is important also
- tho field OF private rights. But II Is
Gov u. connection with the freedom OF
.b. rress that It is chiefly notewortny'
In this field it is that 1t gives 'he
death blow 10 an evil that might nave
become portentous.
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-01-26

"rhey all At some time want TO get
out on the stretch, but don't you 60
it boys. | have travelled half a mill
ion miles, and IL is no easy job. The
best place TO keep your tootsies is On
the home plate. Stay at home with
the best friend you've got, your
mother"
While JEFF was entertaining the pub
lie the hotel was under the manage
ment of Leo Lippo, the chief Jungle
Bull.
Several contributions OF food and
clothing were received ard few Il
the men obtained temporary jobs. a
member of the quartet, a college boz,
who joined a show that disbsnded, and
who was down and out, obtained POSI-
ton in q travelling musical COMPANY.
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-01-26

and discharge Burdick from custody.
Mr.. Justice McReynolds took no part
In the consideration and decision Of
this case.
Opinion in Curtin Case.
This writ OF error was argued and
submitted at the same time as Bur-
dick VS.. United States, just decided.
It's purpose is TO review a judgment
for contempt against Curtin upon
presentment % the federal grand
jury for refusing TO answer certain
questions in the same proceeding con-
sldered in the Burdck case in regard
to a certain article published in TIE
New York Tribune. Curtin is a re-
porter on that paper. He declined 10
answer the questions on the ground
that the answers would tend TO in
criminste him. At subsequent hear
ing a pardon issued by the President
was offered him (it was the same in
substance az that offered Burdick) and
he was again questioned. He declined
to receive the pardon or 10 answer the
questions on the same ground as be-
fore. He was, on presentment Of the
grand jury, sdjudgcd guilty OF con-
tempt, fined as Burdick was, with the
same leave 10 purge himself OF the
contempt, the court deciding that the
pardon was valid and sufficient for i'm
munity. Upon Curtin again refusing
to answer the judgment was made abb
solute and he was committed TO the
custody of the United States Marshal.
II will be observed, therefore, the
case is almost identical in It's facts
with the Burdick case and exactly the
same in principle. On the authority
Of that case therefore. the judgment
is reversed and the case remandcd
with instruction to dismiss the pro-
cecdinss in contempt and discharge
Curtin from custody.
Mr.. Justice McReynolds took no part
in the consideration and decision Of
this case.
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-01-26

Court OF the United States, which has
now been decided.
Tn. appeals were argued before the
United States Supreme Court IN De
e.mber. upon briefs presented by So
licitor General Davis, for the govern
nent, and By former United States At
torney Henry A. Wise and Henry W.
ssekett, Of the firm OF Ssckett, Chap
man 4 Stevens, on bshsh Of Messrs'
Bvrdiek and Curtin. Tho arguments
upon beth sides we're fully published IN
The Tribune on December i.
The Tribune Sustained
III. decision OF the Supreme Court,
81 .lucldsted in It's unanimous OPINION
fully sustsins the contentious OF the
counsel for The Tribune writers. The
publie importance OF this matter lies in
h. fact that through the sinister eIer-
else o. th. psrdoning power under Ike
eircumstsnees the censorship Of the
press might be established, for which
there could be no remedy short OF an
amendment TO the Constitution OF the
United States. The First Amendment OF
the Constitution which forms part
OF the so-esiled bill % rights, con
tain,d provisions which are regarded
as fundamental in free institutions
provides that Congress shall make no
law abridgng the freedom OF speech
or Of the press" The liberty OF the
press means nothing unless 1t means
that liberty Of publication without
ID. previous permission Of the govern
m.nt which was obtained by the sboli-
ton Of the censorship" There could
b. no liberty OF the press in this coun-
try ~ newspapers we're free TO obtain
and publish only such information As
tn. members o. the Presidents Cab
tnst might desire 10 divulge. Yet that
il the state Of affairs which might have
resulted in time if the Supreme Court
had upheld the arguments OF the
United States Attorney in the buroieS
ard Curtin cases. Editors and report
or, throughout the country who pub
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-01-26

Granting. then. that the pardon was
legally issued. and was sufficient for I'M
munity. il was Burdick's right TO refuse
IL. as We have seen, and Il, therefore,
not becoming effective. his right under
the Constitution 20 decline to testify re-
manned 10 be asserted; and the reasons
for his action were personal. II is true
We have said Brown V. Walker, 16l u
S., sol. 605), that the law regards only
mere penal consequences, and not tine
personal disgrace or opprobrum at
tsching to the exposure OF crime but
certainly such consequence may inhu-
ence the assertion or relinquishmcnt OF
a right. This consideration is not out
Of place in the case at bar. II 1t be
objected that the sensitiveness OF Bur
dick was extreme, because his refusal
TO answer was itself an implication OF
crime. we answer not necessarily, IN
fact. not at all in theory OF law. II
supposed only a possibility OF charg.
OF crime, and interposed protection
against the charge, and reaching be-
yond Il, against furnishing what might
be urged or used as evidence TO sup
port It. This brings us to the diner
ences between legislative immunity and
, psrdon. They are substantial. The
latter carries an imputation OF guilty
acceptance, confession OF T. The
former has no such imputation or con-
Tension. Il Is tantamount to the silence
OF the witness. 1t is non-committal. IL
is the unobtrusive act OF the law CIV
Ing protection against a sinister use OF
his testimony. not like pardon requir-
ing him TO confess his guilt In order
TO avoid q conviction Of It.
II 4, o. little service to ssert or
deny an analogy between amnesty ana
pardon. Mr.. Justice Field, in Knox '.
United States, 90 U. s., 14s, loo' saiu
TIN. eth. distinction between them Is
on. rather OF pathological interest than
OF legal importance" This is SAID a.
~ their ultimate effect, but there are
incidental differences o. importance.
They are OF different character ana
have different purposes. The one over
looL, offence; the other RENTS punish
ment. The first is usually ADDRESSED
10 crimes against tho sovereignty OF
M. state. 10 political offences. forgive
ness being deemed more e1pedient Tor
the public welfare than prosecution ana
punishment. The second condones IN
fractions o. the peace OF the state. Am
nesty is usually general, addressed 70
classes or even communities, a legIs-
lative act, or under legislation, consti-
,utionsl or statutory, the act OF the
supreme magistrate. There may or
may not be distinct acts OF acceptance.
II other rights are dependent upon II,
and are asserted, there is Affirmative
evidence OF acceptance. Examples are
afforded in United States V. Klein, 13
Wall, 1913; Armstrong; foundry,
Wall, 1865; Carlisle Y. United States, Is
Wall, 147. See also, Knox V. United
States, supra. IL there be no other
rights, its only purpose Is TO stay the
movement OF the law. It's function is
exercised wehn it overlooks the offence
and the offender, leaving both in
oblivion.
Judgments reversed. with directions
TO dismiss the proceedings IN contempt
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-01-26

every daily paper in the United States,
have. CT necessity, sources Of Informs
ton which must be held inviolabls.
II this we're not the case many actions
Of government officials which the publ,
should know about would be kept gu.
OF print. To-dsy's decision means TO
them that confidential relations can b.
maintained without fear OF a public
official using his power OF the govern.
ment to compel the writer Of story
70 disclose its source.
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-01-26
Golfers;
THE NATIONAL wEEKLr

and discharge Burdick from custody.
Mr.. Justice McReynolds took no part
In the consideration and decision OF
fhia casa
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-01-26

far as newspaper men are concerned,
was the most important and fsr-resch-
ing that the court has handed down in
many day.
The effect Of the opinion, II is be-
lieved here, will be to broaden the
freedom OF the press. especially since
the "pitiless publicity" motto Of the
administration has been turned to the
wall
Washington newspaper men, who
comprise representatives Of practically
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-01-26

tn. following IL the full opinion az
Mr. Justjce MeK.nns IN the Burdles
case. in which all the other judges con-
cur. except that Mr.. Justice NC
Reynolds. who was Attorney Genera Oh
Oh. United States when the paraOns
v,r. issued. did not participate;
Error 10 review judgment Tor con-
TEMPT against Burdick upon present
nent OF Federal Grand Jury for re-
fusinr TO answer certain questions
mt 70 him in an investigation then
psnding before the grand jury INTO
ALLEGED customs frauds in violation o.
sections 81 snd SO Of the Criminal
code OF the United States.
Burdick fret appeared before the
grand Jury and refused 70 answer
ou.,tiops as TO the directions he gave
and the sources o. his information
concerning certain articles in The New
York Tribune regarding the frauds
under investigation. lie is the city
editor Of that paper. He declined TO
answer. claiming upon his oath. that
n. answers might tend TO criminste
him. Thereupon he was remsnded 10
sppesr 81 later dag and upon so sp-
nearing he was handed pardon which
he was told had been obtained for him
upon the strength Of his testimony be-
fore the other grand jury. The fol
lowing IL copy Of Il:
Te1t of Presidents Pardon.
Woodrow Wilson, President OF the
United States Of America. TO all to
whom these presents shall come,
greeting:
Whereas George Burdick, an editor
Of the New York Tribune, has declined
10 testify before federal grand jury
now in session in the Southern District
Of New York. in 6 proceeding entitled
United States Y. John Doe and Rich
ard Roe, as TO the sources Of the in
formation which he had in The New
York Tribune Office, or IN his posses
sion. or under his control a. the time
he sent Henry d. Kingsbury, a report
or on the said New York Tribune, TO
write an article which appeared in the
said New York Tribune. in its issue
% December 81, 1918. headed Glove
Makers Gem May Be Customs Size
on ths ground that it would tend
20 inoriminste him 10 answer the ques-
ton; and
Whereas, the United States Attcr-
ney for the Southern District OF New
York desires 70 use the said George
Burdick as a witness before the said
grand jury in the said proceeding for
the purpose OF determining whether
any employee Of the Treasury Depart
ment at the Custom House, New York
City, has been betraying information
that came 20 such person in an official
capacity; and,
where's. II is believed that the said
George Burdies will again refuse TO
testify in nc said proceeding on the
ground that his testimony might tend
10 incriminste himself;
"Now. therefore, be II Known, that
!. Woodrow Wilson, President OF the
United States OF America, in considers-
ton o. the premises, divers other
good and sufficient reasons me there
unto moving, do hereby grant unto the
ssid George Burdick full and uncon-
ditionsi pardon FOR all offences against
the United States which ne, the ssid
George Burdick. has committed or may
have committed, or taken part in, In
connection with the securing. writing
about, or assisting in the publication
Of the information so incorporated In
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-01-26
RULING PLEASES
NEWSPAPER MEN
Washington Correspondents Be.
lieve Decision Broadens
Freedom of the Press.
From The Tribune Bureau. ]

Washington, Jan. 25.-The Supreme
Court decision ordering the release
from custody Of George Burdick and
William L. Curtin, the Tribune men
who were held for contempt for de-
clining to disclose their sources Of in
formation relative 10 articles published
in The Tribune, was received with un-
mitigated satisfaction by newspaper
men OF Washington to-day. II was de-
clared on all sides that the opinion, so
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-01-26
FILL TEXT OF JUSTICE
MKENNA'S OPINION

IN, aforementioned article, and IN con-
neetion With any other article, matter
or thing, concerning which ne may be
interropated in the said grand jury
proceeding, thereby sbsolvins MIN
from the consequences Of every such
criminal act.
ain testimony whereof have mere
unto signed my name and caused me
seal o. the Department Of Justice TO
be affixed.
Done a. IN. City OF Wash
jngton this l4th day Of February In
the wear o. our Lord, One Thousand
Nine Hundred and Fourteen, and Of the
independence Of the United States the
One Hundred and Thirty eighth
Presidents Pardon Declined.
He decined to accept the pardon or
answer questions as 10 the sources OF
his information, or whether he fur-
nished to certain reporters informs-
ton, giving the reason, as before, that
the answers might tend 70 criminste
him. He was presented by the grand
jury to the District Court for contempt
and adjudged guilty thereof and 10
pay a fine Of $500, with leave, however,
10 purge himself By testifying fully
as 10 the sources OF the information
sought OF him, land in event Of his
refusal or failure TO so answer, com
mitment may issue in addition until
he shall so comply" the court deciding
that the President has power to pardon
for a crime OF which the individual
has not been convicted and which he
does not admit, and that acceptance is
not necessary to toll the privilege
against determination.
Burdick again appeared before the
grand jury, again was questioned as
before, again refused to accept the
pardon and again refused TO answer on
the same grounds as before. A final
order OF commitment was then made
and entered, and he was committed TO
the custody OF the United States
Marshal until ne should purge him
self OF contempt or until the further
order OF the court. This writ OF error
was then allowed.
Opposing Contentious Stated.
r.. zv..s4.z 4. e.. r... a. -. -
feet OF the unacceptsd pardon. The
Solicitor General, in his discussion Of
the question following the division Of
the District Court, contends % the
President has power to pardon an
offence before admission or conviction
Of II, and ~ the acceptance Of the
pardon is not necessary 10 its complete
exeulpsting effect. The conclusion is
hence deduced that tn. pardon re
moved from Burdick all danger Of
accusation or conviction Of crime. and
that therefore Tn. answers 20 III. ques-
ton put 20 him could No. tend 10
or accomplish his determination.
Plaintiff in error controverts this
contention and conclusion with direct
ly opposing ones, and makes other
contentious which attack the sufi-
cheney Of the pardon as immunity and
the power Of the President to grant 8
pardon for an offence not precedontly
established nor confessed nor defined.
The discussion Of counsel is as broad
as their contentious. Our consideration
may be more limited. In our view OF
the case it is not material TO decide
whether the psrdoning power may be
exercised before conviction. We may,
however, refer TO some aspects Of the
contention Of plaintiff in error, al
though the case may be brought TO