Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-05-25
JUDGE DITTENHOEFER DEPENDS THEM
The Committee OverruIes Him
and Repeats the Cushions.
A F 1 N AL Flu S A L


Express was recalled a few minutes before
Mr.. d. ttenhoefers arrival, but only remain
ed with the committee long enough to re-
iterate his refusal to give the name Of his
authority, and to say that he had placed his
case in the hands of Judge Dittenhoefer.
Judge Dittenhoefer's Position.
When Dittenhoefer arrived he accom-
panied by Mr.. Edwards, and the two went
in the committee room together. In appear
ing before the committee Mr. Dittenhoefer
stated that he had advised Mr.. Edwards
not to reveal his authority for the allega-
tons in his letter to the Philadelphia Press
concerning Secretary Carhsle's alleged in
prevention with the hnance committee In
behalf of the sugar trust. He quoted the
decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases
of Charles Counseman and Hallet Kill
bourne, and contended that under these de-
| cisions his clients could not be compelled
! to disclose the source of their informa ton,
but even If the power existed to punish
them for a failure to comply with the de-
mandS of the committee, he still would ad-
wise the witness TO resist the demand. He
contended that in their profession OF
/ Journalism they necessarily received much
information in strict confidence, and that
10 betray this confidence would do violence
| to their sense of honor, and would be not
only breach of morals, but Of law as well.
| The Contention of the Committee.
| In the course of the controversy which en-
sued the position of the committee on this
! point was revealed. They contended that
the Senate, through committee, had the
right to take steps to preserve its own integ-
rity and to provide for the control of its own
affairs They held that the decisions OF the
/ Supreme Court in the kilbourne and Coun-
selman cases cid not apply in the present
] instance. as the decision in the kilbourne
case applied to the investigation of an &C.
cUrrence that did not affect the control and
4 sspN r.1p of oil Df
while that in the CounSelman case simply
absolved the witness from testifying III a
case which would incriminate himself. The
court, ii was declared, on the part of the
committee, had distinctly asserted in that
decision that Congress had jurisdiction of
cases involving the standing of its own
I members, and might punish witnesses for
contempt in such cases.
Judge Dittenhoefer occupied the attentio
of the committee more than an hour, and
he and Mr. Edwards were then excused to
allow the committee an opportunity for pri-
Nate consultation. Outside of the legal ar
Gument which he presented, Mr.. Often
hoeter contended that there were only three
exceptions 10 the rule he laid down-that a
man could not be compelled to reveal a
confidence. These exceptions he declared
to be in case Of knowledge of treason
against a mans own country, to save a
human life and to protect a woman's honor.
The Judges objection.
| Judge Dittenhoefer cited his objections as
follows to his client Edwards answering
the questions put to him: First, that the
questions relate to matters that We're not
referred to the committee for an nvestiga-
ton; that all the alega tions in the article
complained of are not embraced in the res
olUtion, but only as to whether the sugar
trust contributed to the democratic cam
paiSn fund, and whether Senators had been
specializing in sugar stocks. and the ques-
lions asked had no relevancy to those two
/ matters.
Second-That the questions required the
witness to give the name of his informant
To obtain that information is utterly I'M
necessary. lmlnaterial and Irrelevant. 1t
would merely amount to this That Mr.
Edwards would say that somebody told
/ him that Mr.. Carlisle said so and So which
would be the worst form Of hearsay testi-
/ mony- II they wanted TO get at the fact
whether Mr.. Carlisle did say so and So the
most competent and the easiest way is to
summon Mr.. Carlisle and the members of
the hnance committee. II they admit it,
the name Of the lnfOrmer is unnecessary: IL
tney deny 1t, II is equally unnecessary I'M
less this committee disbelieVes the denial
Third-That under the Hallett Kllbourne
decision either house of Congress has power
10 compel witness to answer Cnly II the
! inquiry relates to one of the following suh-
Jects: To punish a member for disorderly
conduct; to compel the attendance of a
member; IN case involving a question as
| 10 the election or qualification of a .uernh her
ana in matter of impeachment
me question propounded to the witness
had no relation to any of these cases He
cohtenCed that while in the Kilbourne cae
the inquiry ostensibly was for the purpose
OF ascettaining whether Jay Cooke was a
member or the real estate pool for the pur-
pose OF determining the rights Of the United
States as a creditor. its real purpose was 10
fish out evidence concerning the unfounda5
report that President Grant was a men,bar
OF the pool or used his official position To
5ehent the pool Mr.. kilbourne. he said.
I md h.
OF the United States sustained him
Fourth. The resolution under which the
committee was acting did not show on it's
face that the evidence was wanted for an,,
legislative purpose or for any purpose with
IN the jurisdiction of the Senate and one
OF the grounds mentioned in the Kibourne
case Tor III decision was that that resolu-
tOn was silent as to the object for which
the information was then wanted
Fifth. That the information required
might nave tendency to bring on criminal
prosecutions against Mr.. Edwards or his in
informant II his name were disclosed It's
only purpose could be to punish the person
who gave the information. for the facts
whether true or false, could be shown bv
the other parties.
Sixth. That it would have a tendency to
degrade Mr.. Edwards as a newspaper man
as. from the nature of his business he is
obliged TO receive communications given in
confidence. If he promises that he will re-
spect the confidence he is in honor bound
no matter what may be the penalty, not to
violate those obligations of honor. If he
violates ii he would become an outlaw and
lose deServedly the respect of all honora BILE
men and be driven from his profession He
then added that in his opinion there were
only three contingencies under which a man
[ could be justified in betraying confidence
one was that in charge of treason against
ones country, where to save the life of a
nation ii becomes necessary: another where
information given in confidence will save a
human being from Imprisonment or the gal
lows. and, lastly, to save the honor of
woman. which to her is her life.
He further argued that, the information
concerning the facts alleged in the article
can be obtained elsewhere il would be I'M
juSt-even if the committee has the legal
pOwtr-lt would be unjust to compel Mr.
Edwards to violate the confidence repoSed
in him in a case which does not fall within
this category. All these gentlemen who
have been illuminated if any have BEEN
have ample remedy in a criminal court for
criminal libel and in a civil court in an ac-
ton for damages, and in such tribunal there
can be orderly investigation, guided by
the rules of evidence.
Edwards Again Declines to Answer.
The committee oveTrued Judge Often
hoefer's objections and again called Mr.
Edwards in and repeated its dem and that
he give the names requested in the first IN
stance, and received his final decision not to
comply with the demand He was then OK
cusei and the committee again went into
executive session.