The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1929-07-17
EDITOR GIVEN
3O-DAY TERM
IN Cleveland
Settlers Aid on Press Also
Is Sentenced on Con-
tempt Charge.
APPEALS ARE TAKEN
Two Men Also Fined $500
Each for Editorials on
Race Injunction,

& r~t-e ~.
CLEVELAND. Julv i7.-Contempt
of court charges against Louis B.
5eltzer. editor, and Carlton K. Mat
son. editorial writer Of the Cleveland
Press. we're carried 70 the court Of
appeals today after Common Pleas
Judge Frederick II. Walther had
found them guilty.
Bond of $1,000 was set b. Judge
willis Vickerv. of the court of ap-
peals. pending a hearing by his
court.
Judge Wslther had fined each Of
the newspaper men $500 and SEN
fenced them to thirty days in jail.
Judge Walther ruled them in con-
tempt for publishing editorials crit
cisinc his action in granting an
Injunction restraining the sheriff
from interfering with racing opera
tions at Thistledovn track if the
same he not in violation Of the laws
Of Ohio.
Hints for Apology
John A. Kline, especially ap-
pointed chief counsel for the prose
oution. in remarking on punishment
for the defendants after the court
l,ad erpctInced his decision. slg-
gested indirectly that the news
paper men apologize and restore
the dignity of the court
IF these gentlemen now found
guilty will come before the court
and make such amends 10 restore
the dignity of the court-no such
amends have been made-I would
suggest the punishment be COM
measurable with the dignity Of the
court. said Cline.
Seltzer and MatSon made the tol-
lowing statement today after they
we're found guilty,
Some times situations arise IN
fighting for g principle when haz-
ards must be taken.
This is a plain case of freedom
OF the press TO criticise court orders
il regards as lawless The order
which is the crux of this case was
an order which plTported to re-
strain an officer OF the law from
doing his sworn duty.
I'VE criticised that order We
knew when ne did it that there
vas a hazard. The courts citation
followed.
Thirty davs in Jail and $500
fine is a small price TO pay, if such
= price must be paid, in a contest
involving such principle.
"Ridicule or Court"
The newspaper men we're held &C
countable By the Judge for contempt
OF his own court because their paper
carried a. series of editorials crltlclz-
In gthe Judges action on granting
the owners Of ThiStledoWn race
track here an injunction restraining
the sheriff o. the county from inter-
fering with the race program.
Before handing down the decision
Judge Walther overruled the de-
tense motion that the charges be
dismissed.
Newton D. Baker. former secre-
tarv of war. argued in behalf OF the
defendants that the editorials IN
question we're not cOntemptuous be-
cause they criticized 2 past perform
snce Of the court.
He had defended paSsiOnately the
right of the press to crltlclse any
and all public officials as long as
such criticism did not lay in the
vav Of Justice.
Judge Walther. in announcing ms
decision. held that the editorials
which appeared in last THURSDAY
edition of the Press had not only OBJ
structed Justice, but had attempted
10 bring the court into ridicule and
disrepute
The court contended that the race
track case still was pending before
the court at the time the editorials
appeared and that even if the case
had not been pending the court had
perfect right TO punish for con-
tempt.
The Judge also held that the court
has the inherent power 10 deter
n,ins the character Of actions pun
fshahle by contempt and that such
acts only had to be construed as
obstructing justice.
Injunction Criticised
The editorial which Judge Walth-
er complained OF criticised the ac-
ton in issuing an injunction re-
s+rainine the sheriff from interfer-
tnc with racing operations al
Thistledovn track here If the same
be not in violation Of the laws OF
Ohio"
This injunction was characterized
BY P. L. A. Leighley. assistant
prosecutor, not worth the paper II
was written on"
Sheriff z. J. Hanratty proceeded
70 make arrests and close up the
track in spite of the injunction.
Walther cited numerous law cases
in proof OF his contention that con-
tempt proceedings such as he insti-
gated against the Pressmen could
be brought.
If the court we're not able 10 pun
ish said the Judge. 1T would have
no way 10 vindicate itself