Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1894-10-16
THOSE SUGAR WITNESSES.
Grounds on Which The Different Arguments
Are Based.

WASHINGTON, Oct l5.-Assistant Attor-
ney General Conrad opened the argument
today for the government in the eases
against Messrs. Chapman and Mccartney,
the indicted sugar witnesses. Mr.. Conrad
held that the indictment need not and prop
erly should not recite the performance of
those requirements of the statute which re-
late TO the duties of the president of the
Senate and of the district attorney; that the
office of the indictment is to state ade
quately the material facts of the offense
charged and to show it was committed
within the jurisdiction of the court :;
that the resolution need not state what
the particular purpose of the Senate was in
directing the investigation, butt was enough
to show that the committee was required to
report the results 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 competent to the Senate to
this end to require through its committee
the knowledge of such facts as might be
needed in framing formal charges or articles
of impeachment. When the witness refused
TO answer the question to elicit such facts III
was the right and duty of such committee
to report such conduct TO the Senate; that
it vas the right and duty of the Senate to
compel the attendance and examination OF
such witnesses, 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 case
of Burnham and Morrissey. II Grey, 10
which the court held: 1.-The House of
Representatives has many duties to per
form, which necess ariy require it 10 per-
ceive evidence and examine witnesses. 1t
has power to decide upon the expulsion of
its members, has often occasion to acquire
certain knowledge of facts in order to o
proper performance of legislative
duties. We therefore think it clear that it
has a constitutional right to take evidence,
summons witnesses and compel them to at
teLd and testify. This power to summon
and examine witnesses it may exercise by
means of committees"
This is ALL, said Mr.. Conrad "claimed d
for the Senate committee in this case.
Without such power Congress would be
he lpless. 1t must above all
things preserve its organic integrity.
1t must have power to deter
mine the qualifications of those claiming TO
be its members, and expurgate itself of all
who, being admitted, show themselves un-
worthy of ms mbership.
at must have power in order TO the eff
cient discharge of its duty, to secure for
itself honest and pure official conduct by its
members. The courts cannot extend to it
Al. =. r.,
hampered or restricted" MIR. J re Wilson
re piled on behalf Of the defendants.
Judge Wilson's remarks were devoted
principally to his contention that the prose-
cution of Mccartney and Chapman was an
other attempt on the part of Congress to in
wade the sacred rights of private citizens
He was positive the courts would in this
case, first under the law relat-
ing to contumaCious witnesses before
congressional committees, again come
to the citizens support. The statute
under W which the indictments were found was
the result of scheme of a part of Congress
TO compel private citizens to diyulge matters
which the constitution gave them right to
refuse to divulge. Investigation of the
Sugar Trust by the Senate committee was
secretly conducted and not even the ever
present and enterprising gentlemen of
the press could publish the facts. Nowhere
was it alleged that the defendants
wilfully refused TO answer material
questions. 1t was not sufficient for the
purposes of the present case, as contended
by the government, if the court could infer
the questions asked were pertinent and the
Investigate n to be followed by leg
islative or Judicial action by Sen
ate. More inference would not do.
The purpose on the paIt of the Senate to go
forward must be clearly shown, both in
order to make its investigation lawful and
to compel answers to inquiries propounded.
Judge Cole took took the application for
demurrer under advisement. He said ii
would be two days or two weeks before he
would render decision.