Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-07-17
TWO EDITORS WIN
JAIL TERM STAY.
Appellate Judge 0verruIes
Jurist Who Denied Delay
in Contempt Sentence.
By tn. Associated Press.

BY the Associated Press.
CLEVELAND, July 17.-Louis B.
Seltzer, editor Of the Cleveland Press.
and Carlton K. Matson. chief editorial
writer. were given stay of execution
today by Appellate Judge Willis Vickery
P. Walther had held them in contempt
Of court, and ordered them to serve 80
days in the county jail and pay fines
Of $500 each.
Judge Vicke-y, reached at his home
by Newton D. Baker, former Secretary
Of War and counsel for the newspaper
men, ordered their release under 81 900
bond each. pending an appeal.
.-- Roth Had Been In Hail -
The appeal. filed by Baker on grounds
Of error, viii not be heard for six or
seven months, unless motion is made
to advance 1t ahead Of the regular or
der. Judge Vickery said.
SeltZer and Matson were permitted
to leave the jail. where they had been
formally booked as prisoners.
Judge Walther. who heard the charges
brought by himself as a result of an
editorial in the Press criticizing his
granting of an injunction to racing in
the sentence.
The jurist denied a motion for a stay
Of execution. saying there was no
statute to support it.
Arrest at Once Is Ordered.
In spite Of Bakers announcement
that he would appeal at once to the
appellate court, Judge Walther issued
call for Sheriff Hanratty to take the two
men into custody at once.
The injunction involved was granted
by Judge Walther to operators of the
Thistledown race track, restraining
Sheriff Hanratty from interfering with
use of the contribution" system OF
betting. provided it is legal. The sheriff
took the T'snd that the system is illegal
and that .ierefore the order was not
binding, and closed the track.
Pictured Judge as Racers Dupe.
The Press, in an editorial published
the same day the injunction was grant,
ed, and twice revised In later editions,
declared the injunction either mon
strous" or ridiculous, and accused Judge
walther OF having been made the dupe
of racing interests.
The iudse instituted contempt proceed
ings, charging the editorial was libelous
and contemptuous. He asserted that II
the papers statements were true, he Is
mot flt to sit upon the bench"
Baker argued Strenuously for freedom
of the press, in the hearing, which was
concluded this morning, when Judge
Walther refused his motion to dismiss
the charges. Baker also denied that the
editorial was in contempt.
Equalizing Penalty Is Urged.
Judge walther pronounced his sem
tence after Baker when his motion for
dismissal was denied, rested the defend
ants case without calMng witnesses or
offering evidence. The jurist then de-
clared Seltzer and Matson guilty. He
asserted that Ohio Supreme Court de-
cisions had shown that lower courts
have the inherent right to convict and
punish contempt of court, even in cases
not pending. The Judge said, however,
that the present case regarding his In
junction StiIl Is pending, a point which
Baker denied.
recommendations of punishment
were asked by the judge OF Baker and
John A. Cline, former county prosecu-
tor and past president of the Ohio
state Bar Association, who served as
prosecutor.
Cline pointed out that the newspaper
men had made no attempt at apology
or offered testimony. He said that,
therefore. the punishment should be
commensurate with the harm done.
Statement Of Editors.
Seltzer and Matson issued the fol-
lowing formal statement:
Sometimes situations arise in hght-
ing for a principle when hazards must
be taken.
This is plain case of freedom Of
the press to criticize court orders 1t
regards as lawless. The order, which
Is the crux of this case, was an order
which purported to restrain an officer
Of the law from doing his sworn duty
1--WE criticized that order. We knew
when we did It that there was hazard.
The courts citation followed.
$500 Is q small price to pay, II such
price must be paid, in the contempt
i,,unluinn such q Yarincinle :"