New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-01-26
TRIBUNE ARTICLES ON
WHICH CASE WAS BASED

The articles out Of which the cases
against Mcssrs. Curtin and Burdick
arose were published in The Tribune
last winter. The first of them related
TO the circumstances which led to
charges OF smuggling of jewels into
the United States against Robert T
Hetmyer, the wealthy leather manu-
facturer OF Hoboken, and Mrs. l.. NJ
Alexander, who accompanied him to
this country on the French liner France
But apparently much more impor-
tant. in the view Of the government
officials. was what they called the pre-
mature" publication in The Tribune OF
the story of Lucius n. Littauer, glove
manufacturer and for many years a
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 were libel
lous on their face, and exposed the
writers a. well as Ths Tribune to
prosecution for criminal libel under
the New York law. Subsequently Alr
Littauer was indicted for smuggling
and pleaded guilty and sentenced to
serve term in the penitentiary at At
lants, but stay of execution was
granted almost Immediately, and he
has never been confined in prison. In
the Heitmyer cases fines we're imposed
and paid.
These publications, and particularly
that in the Littsuer case, aroused the
ire of the officials Of the Treasury De-
partment. An investigation was at
once begun TO 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 he tell him such sources, and
when this was politely refused he
threatened to bring the matter before
the United States Grand Jury.
This threat was carried out, and
Messrs. Burdick and Curtin we're sum-
moned before the grand jury, and II
was demanded Of them tina tthey re-
veal such sources Of information. The
nature of the proceedings that followed
and in particular the language of the
pardon Of the President that was after
ward granted, very frankly reveal the
real object of the action taken, which
was for the purpose OF determining
whether any employe OF the Treasury
Department at the Custom House, New
York City, had been betraying informa-
ton that came TO such person in an
official capacity.
BY regulation promulgated by the
Secretary of the Treasury, any subor-
dinate was forbidden, without the su-
thority of the Secretary. making pub
lie official matter" and il was his mani
fest purpose, il through these grand
jury proceedings he could compel The
Tribune men TO connect any subordi-
nate with the publication, TO discipline
him under such regulation.
Messrs. Burdick and Curtin declined
20 answer all questions put TO them
before the United State grand jury
upon these points, giving as the reason
that 20 do so might tend 10 crimnate
them. IL did not appear whether this
was under the law relating TO criminal
libel or other New York laws or under
the federal statutes. But IL did appear
from statements OF the Assistant
United States Attorney that questions
might arise of the possible completely
of these witnesses under Section 81 or
Section 80 of the Criminal Code OF the
United States.
The first of these makes it a crims
for two or more persons TO conspire to
commit any offence or 70 defraud the
United States, and Section 80 makes II
criminal offence for any person ito
promise or offer any money or other
thing Of value 20 any person acting in
behalf Of the Uaited States with intent
TO induce him 20 do any act in viola
ton OF mis- lawful duty" Messrs. Bur
dick and Curtin each stated under oath
before the grand jury that the obtain
ing Of the information on which the