Decided on the authority of Burdick v. United States,
p. 236 U. S. 79
The facts, which are similar to those involved in the preceding
case, are stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.
This writ of error was argued and submitted at the same time as
Burdick v. United States,
just decided, ante,
236 U. S. 79
purpose is to review a judgment for contempt against Curtin upon
presentment of the federal grand jury for refusing to answer
certain questions in the same proceeding considered in the
case in regard to a certain article published in
the New York Tribune. Curtin is a reporter on that paper. He
declined to answer the questions on the ground that the answers
would tend to incriminate him. At a subsequent hearing, a pardon
issued by the President was offered him (it was the same in
substance as that offered Burdick), and he was again questioned. He
declined to receive the pardon or to answer the questions, on the
same ground as before. He was, on presentment of the grand jury,
adjudged guilty of
Page 236 U. S. 97
contempt, fined as Burdick was, with the same leave to purge
himself of the contempt, the court deciding that the pardon was
valid and sufficient for immunity. Upon Curtin's again refusing to
answer, the judgment was made absolute and he was committed to the
custody of the United States Marshal.
It will be observed, therefore, the case is almost identical in
its 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 remanded with instruction to dismiss the
proceedings in contempt and discharge Curtin from custody.
MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS took no part in the consideration and
decision of this case.