Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-11-13

WINTER RESORTS. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Page 8
cording to the n lture Of the facts and cir
cumstances; whether the reporting OF the
proposed amendments to the sugar sched-
ule were Influenced by the facts recited in
the fourth and fifth subdivisions would be
important Information for the Senate to aid
1t In the exercise of Its legislative functions
on the question Of the adoption or rejection
OF the amendments. 1t would also be i'm
portant and ma terial information to aid the
Senate in the exercise Of its judicial func-
tons in deciding whether any Senator had
been guilty Of conduct Justifying his CEN
sure or expulsion, Of which the Senate is
the sole judge. AS legal use Of the in
formation sought by the investigation was
possible, the court is bound to presume, in
the absence of anything In the resolutions
to the contrary, that the Senate intended to
make use Of it when and If obtained.
The Pertinency of the Question.
1.-The next point for consideration is
whether the questions put to the defendants
by the Senate committee were pertinent to
the subject of inquiry before it. The object
ana tendency of them was to develop
whether any Senator, and, II so, who, had
been dealing in sugar stocks during the
tendency of the tariff bill in the Senate.
That was directly in point upon the fourth
subject Of inquiry, and might have had a
circumstantial or collateral bearing upon
the first. fifth and sixth. If Issues had been
Joined in any court upon the first, fourth.
fifth and sixth subjects of investigation. 1t
cannot be doubted that the court would
have ruled the questions set forth in the
Indictments propoun1ed to the defendants
relevant, material and pertinent upon each
ISSUE But 1t Is said that the committee
had no jurisdiction upon the two questions
embraced in the second resolution, because
the record does not show that any charges
had been filed against any individual Sena-
&0r yhoxh A-, I.I t. ol~.l~l
a jurisdictional question, but one of regu-
larity of proceedings In control of the COM
nlittee or the Senate. But, whether this be
so or net, 1t is not material to decide, as
and fourth subdivisions which require no
charges to be filed other than those con-
tained In the preamble
Were the Defendants Entitled to Be
Excused3
1.-THE next question Is whether the de-
PENDANTS were entitled to be excused from
answering the questions upon grounds per-
sonal to themselves. This was not directly
claimed In argument, except so far as 1t
was insisted that they could not be COM
PEELED to disclose their private business,
md the case of the United States agt.
Bo, ID, 116 United States. and similar cases
were cited and insisted Upon as applying to
this case. But in the United States agt.
dant to make d disclosure Of evidence to be
useu in proving and enforcing a forfeiture
against him. The Supreme Court held that
this could not be done And it Is also well
established that witness cannot be re-
quired to make any disclosures that will
tend to crimir ate him or bring him into
public scandal or disgrace. But 1t is not
contended that the defendants would, by
answering, make disclosures having such
tendency. The nature of the subject Of in
quiry is such as to negative any such sup
Position. Their business was and Is a Ger
fectly legitimate one. and they were as
much at liberty TO deal with Senators as
any one else. If there were any such deal
ings. and any improperly in them. that i'm
propriety was not on the part of the broker.
The sole objection Is that they cannot be
compelled to disclose their private affairs
except in regular judicial proceedings in a
court of competent Jurisdiction. But this
objection is squs rely met by the emphatic
language of the Supreme Court in the case
of the interstate commerce commission agt.
Brinscn, herenbefore quoted.
THE conclusion from the foregoing con-
siderations is that the Senat committee
had Jurisdiction of the subject matter Of
the Investigation, and that the questions
put to the defendants were pertinent and
material thereto, and that, In failing to
answer Them If they did so. as charged
in the indictments, they are guilty Of a
violation of section one hundred and two
Of the Revised Statutes of the. United
States.
1.-The only remaining question is whether
the report Of the committee to the Senate
and the certificate of the President of that
body to the attorney of the United States
for the District of Columbia, mentioned
in section one hundred and four of the Re
vised Statutes, should be set forth In the
Indictments.
The Demurrers Overruled.
1T is claimed in behalf Of the defendants
that these are jurisdictional facts and
therefore should be averred in the indict-
ment. and authorities to the point that
where a new offense is created by statute
and a mode of prosecution provided
no other mode can be adopted are cited.
But section one hundred and four does not
point out a mode Of prosecution. but only
a mode In which the fact Of the commits
sion of the oftense shall be called to the
attention of the district attorney and the
grand jury. There are several other SINH
lar provisions in the statutes requiring
particular officers of the government, whose
duties give them peculiar opportunities
Of knowledge of certain offenses, to call
them to the attention Of the proper dis
trict attorney, and Ii has never been held
that such requirements are constituent
parts of the offense or OF the methods Of
their prosecution. Section one hundred and
two makes refusal to answer a pertinent
question a misdemeanor. The occurrence
Of the facts mentioned in this section con-
fers jurisdiction on the grand jury to in
diet and on the court to try the delin-
quent party. Neither the report of the
committee nor the certificate Of the Pres
ident of the Senate is necessary to COM
plete the offense or the jurisdiction. They
are simply convenient methods of infor-
nation to the district attorney and grand
Jury, and not indispensable prerequisites to
prosecution. and were doubtless provided as
means to insure a prosecution. as, other
wise. the facts might not come to the
knowledge Of the district attorney and
grand jury, the proceedings before such
committees frequently being conducted with
some degree of secrecy. But there seems
to be nothing in the two sections to indi-
cate any intent on the part Of Congress
that there should be no prosecution until
and unless the report and certificate men,
toned were made.
'It follows that the demurrers to the in
dictments should be overruled."
An Appeal VIII BE Made.
Upon the conclusion Of Judge Coles de-
cision, Mr.. Jere NJ. Wilson, of counsel for
the defendants, arose and stated that he
,,,,rbad 70 amman of record that the con-