The Portland daily press., 1894-10-16
Opening Of the Case Against Re-
bellious Witnesses.
REPORTS FROM SEVERAL NON
PAYING CUSTOM HOUSES.
Expenditures of the Government Far
Ahead of the Receipts7A Half Million
of Gold is Engaged for Export-Other
News of Interest from the Capital.

News of Interest from the Capital.
Washington, October 15-Assistant Attor-
neys General Conrad opened the argument
today for the government in the cases
against Messrs. Chapman and sMartney. the
indicted sugar witnesses. Mr.. Conrad held
that the indictment had not, and properly
should not recite the perfoI nance of these
requirements or statute which relate to the
duties of the President of the Senate and of
the district attorney. That the Office of the
Indictment is to state adequately the
material acts of the offense charged and to
show it was committed within the jurisdic-
tion of the court. That the resolution need
not state what the particular purpose of the
Senate was in directing an investigation,
but it was enough of it to show that the
committee was required to report the re-
suits of such investigation. That it may
appear that the action of the committee
was not to be final. That it was within the
power and dignity Of the Senate to expel
any Senator whom it might find guilty of
bribery or corruption. That it was COM
petent for the Senate to this end to require
through it's committee, knowledge of such
acts as might be needed in framing the
formal char ges for articles of impeachm
When the witnesses refused to answer the
question to elicit such acts, it was the right
and duty Of such committee to report such
conduct to the Senate. That it was the
right and duty of the Senate to compel the
attendance and examination of such wit
nesses, and also under the revised statutes
to. cause the recusancy of such witnesses to
be brought to the attention of the grand
jury.
Mr.. Conrad, in concluding, cited the cas-
of Burnham and MoIrissy, IA Grey, in which
the court held: 'That the House of Repre-
sentatives has many duties to perform,
which necessarily require it TO reserve the
evidence ard examine the witnesses. 1t
has power to decide upon the expulsion of
it's members. has.often occasion to acquire
certain knowledge of facts in order to the
proper performance of legislative duties.
We therefore think it clear that 1t has
constitutional right to take evidence, to
summon witnesses and to compel them to
attend and testify.
THIS POWER TO SUMMON
and examine witnesses 1t may exercise by
means of committees
This is all, said Mr.. Conrad, claimed for
the Senate committee, in this case. With
out such power Congress would be helpless.
l must, above all things, preserve is organic
integrity. 1t must have the power to deter
inmate the qualifications of those claiming
to be it's members, and expurgate itself of
all who being admitted, show themselves
unworthy of membership. 1t must have the
power in order to the efficient discharge of
It's duty to secure for itself the honest and
pure official conduct by its members. The
courts cannot extend to it any relief in this
direction; nor can it be hampered or re-
stricted.'' aaM ~
Mr.. Jere Wilson replied on behalf of the
| defendants.
Judge Wilson's remarks We're devoted
principally to his contention that the prose-
cution OF Mccartney and Chapman was an
other attempt ION the part of Congress to
| invade the sacred rights of private citizens.
| He was positive the courts would in this
case, first under the law relating to con-
| tumacious witnesses, before congressional
committees. again come to the citizens
support. The statute under which the in
dictments were found was the result of the
scheme on the part of Congress to compel
private citizens to divulge matters that the
constitution gave them the right to refuse
to diyulge. The investigation of the sugar
trust by the Senate committee was SO
secretly conducted that not even the
EvER-PRESENT AND ENTERPhISING
gentlemen of the press could publish the
facts. Now here was it alleged that the
defendants wilfully refused to answer
material questions. 1t is not sufficient for
| the purposes of the PRESENT case, rs con-
tended by the government, if the court
| could infer the questions asked were peril
nent and the investigation to be followed
by legislative or judicial action by the
Senate. The merest inference would not do
The purpose on the. part of the Senate to go
| forward must he clearly shown, both In or
der to make its investigation lawful and to
be able to compel the answers to Inquiries
| propounded.
Judge Cole took the application for de-
murrer under advisement. He said it would
| be ten days or two weeks before he would
| render decision.
NO TRANSACTIONS.
| A List of Custom Houses that are Not Prof