Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1883-12-22
EX-SENATOR SPENCER.
HE IS DISCHARGED FROM CONTEMPT.
Judge Vylic's Decision.
THE sUBrdsSA NOT PROPER WRIT AND not
LEGALLY SERVED.

LEGALLY SERVED.
Ex-senator Spencer and his counsel, ex-secretary
Boutwell, and Mr.. Mayer. appeared before Judge
Wylie at eleven O'clock this morning to hear the
decision of the court In the contempt proceedings
pending against Mr. Spencer for having, it is
alleged, refused to obey subpoena issued for him
in the first star route trial. Mr. Merrick was pres
ent to represent the government
Judge Wyie said that some days agoMr. Spencer
was brought into court by the marshal Of the Dis
| trict under an attachment issued from the court
July 18th, 1882. This attachment was adj
dressed to the marshal of this District and
ordered him to arrest George Z. Spencer
Immediately. Attached to the writ now was
what purported to be return by the marshal of
the district OF Nevada showing that the arrest was
made November 10. 1883. SO under an attachment
addressed to the marshal of this District Mr.. Spen-
Ger was arrested by the marshal OF Nevada. Such
an arrest was wholly unauthorized The marshal
| OF Nevada had no authority from this court, and
from no other source, that the court was aware Of
But. with or without authority. the arrest was
made, ana MrSpencer was brought mere ana turned
over TO the marshal Of this District, who returned
| "Cepi," November 26, 1881. Having been brought
here In this way on charge OF contempt OF court
he was now within the jurisdiction Of the court.
TIE SPENCER SUBPOENA.
The court said that before reverting to the char
acter Of the interrogatories and answers in the
case he proposed to refer to some other matters i'm
porant in this connection. The trial in which Mr.
Spencer was summoned as witness began June l.,
| 1882. The opening Of the case took several days
After the opening was heard the prosecution began
the introduction OF It's evidence, and went on with
the presentation of evidence until on the Sd Of June
the subpoena In this case was Issued He referred
! TO the form Of subpoena which was issued to "Geo
E. spencer. OF New York." and commanded him
to appear June Goth. 1t was what was called sub
p0ana, though not technical subpoena, for such
subpoena implied penalty In OF failure to ap-
pear. This was an order for him to appear on a
certain day witness for the United States. It
Wa ddeaSed @ TO SPeneer alone Non 1t was not writ writ
was made by u. A. NewcoIne, and certified that he
Newcome) had served the writ on the 10Th of June
Who NewcOme was the court had no knowledge
He had no authority from the court to serve sub
pHna. That was
| RETURN MADE BY A WHOLLY UNAUTHORIZED PER-
son.
The court does not even know that 1t was In the
writing of Mr.. Newcome. The paper, however, ap-
peared to have been served June 10, and required
him to appear On June 20. No penalty was at
tached and no order for him to stay from Gay to
day, or remain until released. 1t was simply an
instruction to him to appear on certain day.
Speaking or the practice regarding the service OF
subpoena in the District. Judge Wylie said that the
court would certainly require good evidence Of
service outside of the District as IL it had been
served in the District.
Judge Wyle referred to copies of various sub
poenaS one dating back to 1880 showing that the
subpoena up to 1856 was directed to the marshal
He found this form was sometimes barred by being
addressed to the person summoned commanding
him to appear and mot depart without leave" The
usual form though was addressed to the marshal.
The rule OF the court provided that
PROCESSES SHOULD BE SERVED BY THE MARSHAL OR
HIS DEPUTY,
or some other person specially authorized by the
court. The forms OF subpoena now In use. and In
when the subppn in question was issued, provided
one form for civil and another for criminal cases. 1t
happens in this case that the counsel for the gov
ernment got mold OF form used IN civil cases The
form in the criminal cases is addressed to the wit
ness, commands him to appear, "and not depart
the court without leave OF the court or district
attorney"
| Upon the face OF the subpoena there was no duty
enlolned by Spencer except that he should appear
June 2Oth ne was not required to remain until
| cedlng that the service in New York was au-
thorized service, Mr.. Spencer obeyed the writ and
! did appear. He came to Washington on the 14th
or 10Th OF June and stopped at the Arlington hotel
In room adjoining that OF Mr.. Bliss, one OF the
counsel for the government. Mr.. Spencer appeared
he says, in court and not called the Goth or
any subsequent day. He says he sought interviews
with MIR. Bliss and
| MIR. BLISS AVOIDED HIM.
He says further in his answer that the principal fact
to which he would be called to testify to was that
he was witness himself Of payment by Dorsey
| to Brady OF considerable sum OF money. He says
| under oath that he did not witness such thing
He says he communicated this state OF facts to Mr.
! Bliss through Mr.. Chandler. He remained here
from the 1ith or 18th OF June until the 1st Of July
when the court took recess. On the 1st of July
!
on account, as he claims, OF urgent business. The
court went receiving evidence, and the next oc-
currence of Mr. Spencer's name in the case was the
| affidavit by MIR. Bliss, made July 18th, upon
which the attachment was asked and issued
| The court thought 1t ought not to have been
issued upon that adavit because 1t failed to state
| that the party was material witness in the case
II the attention OF the court had been called to this
| failure the attachment would not have gone Why
| the attachment should have been issued to the
marshal of this District it was difficult to under
| stand, as it was well known that Spencer was not
| here. The marshal OF Nevada said he had received
the warrant October -, 1892, after the trial was
over, and the term ended. 1t appears from the in
| terrogatorieS that the government attempted to
make out that Spencer was evading the process
OF the court, and that was the reason service was
not made earlier. Still
THE GOVERNMENT KNEW WHERE SPENCER HAD
when he left Washington, and he had been tele-
graphed by Mr. Bliss. The marshal Of Nevada did
nothing with the attachment for a year and one
month after he received it, and then made the ar
rest, which he had no authority to make, and
brought him here The court had no information
| that any second subpoena was issued for
THE SECOND STAR ROUTE TRIAL.
| The second subpoena was dead with the end of the
term. 1t was plain that the government officers
were determined to have Mr. Spencer They issued nc
subpoena, but the old attachment was kept alive
The court followed Mr.. Spencer in his travels,
| which Spencer claimed was not for the purpose OF
eyading the court alone, but because his business
abroad was urgent. The court did not doubt that
one purpose in his going abroad was to avoid at
tendance at the trial 1t could not be doubted that
he sought to avoid arrest under the attachment.
He was not here, however, arra1gned for eVading
| the service OF the attachment but for diSObeying
| the subpoena OF the court In order that witness
may be brought into contempt for diSobeying sub
pOena 1t must appear that there valid sub
p9na and valid service.
| LAW WHICH DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS DISTRICT.
The court again reviewed the facts concerning
the subpoena and its SERVICE and read sections ST
and ST. of the Revised Statutes, which were taken
from law enacted before the District OF Columbia
had any existence, and provided that subp9nas is
sued In one judicial district might run into another
This law, he held, did not apply to the District
Columbia.
The court devoted some time to the discussion OF
the status and powers OF the Supreme Court OF ths
District as a United States court. He concluded
for the purposes OF this case, this district
the United States, and that process OF subpoena Ol
execution might run into any other judicial distric
OF the United States. Referring again to the char
acter Of the subpoena, Judge Wylie characterized
itaS
"NAKED, STARVED KIND OF WRIT"
II the subpoena had commanded Spencer to at
tend court and 'not depart without leave" then
he held, it would have been sufficient to hol6
Spencer here. When. however, he came here fou
or five days before the writ summoned him to ap
pear, and remained ten days afterwards, witness
would naturally assume that he had done all thai
was required Of him. When the witness wa:
| brought here months afterwards from Neyadf