New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-01-26

II Case anu OiItClS bndl hScofos bul
stody.
One Of the greatest questions IN
yolved in the controversy before a.
court was the power OF the PresideI
Of the United States 70 force upon WI
nesses before the grand jury 3 gener,
pardon for all offences against the feo
ersl laws in order to compel them
waive their constitutional privilege
declining TO answer questions which
their opinion might tend 70 incrimins
them
The decisions OF the Supreme Coz
we're unanimous, Justice Mcker
writing the opinions IN both cases. I
principal opinion il the Burdick c.
effectively obliterates eontentio
which boded i'll for tie freedom
speech and the liberty Of the press
7 The 10ls, ma rr.nSie'~. 'nvoi,
! In 1908 the Treasury Deparimc
adopted a regulation which prcyid
that making public official matter
discussing it with persons having n
official jurisdiction over il nor any O.
fetal connection with the oepartmcn
without authority OF the Secretary
, the Treasury, is absolutely prohibito a
A literal obedience TO the mandates q
this regulation would have made IL IL
possible for newspapers Of the Unit,
States to have published any news co
cerning the acts OF the Customs Depsr;
ment which had not been previous
censored by the Secretary OF q
Treasury in person. Other regulation
of the Customs Department were @
similar, tenor, and there was nothin-
probably, unless 1t be the vholeson.
respect for the sound public opiuio
which would have prevented the ado i
tion Of corresponding rogulsto
throughout the whole field of admin
trative activity in all Of the depart
ments of the government.
Inc government has made dctci
mined effort to compel The Tribune O.
disclose the sources OF its informstio
about certain matters pending befor
the customs authorities, concernin
which, believing them TO be matter. o
great public interest, it published a "a
account without first obtaining the pc
mission Of the Sec etsry OF the Trea
ury.
SIR. Burdick, who was then tho ct
editor OF The Tribune, and Mr. Cui
tin, one OF its city stat reporter
were summoned before tie grand jur
and asked from whence the informs
tion had been obtained. They refuse
to answer upon the ground tina
their evidence might tend 10 IN
criminate them. Obviously thci
testimony might have tended TO inyoly'
them in the crime OF having conspire,
with some one connected with the Gus
toms Department 20 violate the strin
gent regulation referred 10 above
Thereupon the President Of the Unite'
States was appealed TO, and from hin
was obtained what purported 10 be
pardon for offences which had not bee
proved, and which had not been sd
mitted nor even defined. The purpos
OF these pardons was frankly recited {,
be TO aid the United States Attorne,
in using the donee OF the psrdons a
witnesses "for the purpose of deter
mining whether any employe Of tn
Treasury Department at the Custom
House. New York City, had been betrsy
ing information that came 10 such per
son in an official capacity.
Not Issued in Exercise Of Ciemency.
These so-calied psrdons were not is
sued in the exercise Of clemency {,
persons who desired il, but. on tn,
contrary. the government attempted /,
thrust them into the unwilling hand,
of witnesses who might thereby, as the
governments counSellors thought, b,
put TO the choice OF either accepting
psrdons for crimes of which they wer,
innocent or suffering in Jail for rcfus
ing 20 betrsy condolences which the,
regarded as sacred. The psrdons cam,
to them loaded with the virus Of seem
ing confession, and were by both o
them Immediately refused and rejected
From the governments ALTERNATIVE
they took 50 appeal to the Supre@