Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-01-17
JUDGE COLE RENDERS Els DECISION
Information to Newspaper Men Not
Privileged Communications.
CAMP AIGN CONTRIBUTIONS

Sugar Rehn1ng Company, ana Broker Allen
l.. Seymour, indicted last summer for re-
fusing to answer certain questions asked
them by Senator Gray's sugar trust 1nves-
tigating committee. AS in the case OF
Brokers John w. Mccartney and Eiverton
X. Chapman. Judge Cole overruled the de-
murre rs. holding that the questions asked
were proper and pertinent. and directing
the defendants to further answer the in
dictments returned against them. But one
Of the defendants, Mr.. Shriver, was present
in court, and OF the counsel for the de-
PENDANTS but ex-Judge Shellabarger and
Mr.. Nathaniel Wilson appeared. the prose-
cution being represented by Assistant Dis
trict Attorney Hugh L. Taggart.
Judge Coles Opinion.
In delivering his brief opinion in the re-
naming cases, Judge Cole said that since
the disposition of the cases of Mccartney
and Chapman by the Court of Appeals he
had considered the cases Of Messrs. Ed
wards, Shriver Havemeyer, Searles and
Seymour. He found that in the case Of the
last named defendants the points raised
were precisely similar to those coming UP
in the case of MesSrs. Mccartney and
Chapman, and the demurrer would there
fore be overruled, and the defendant re-
Quired to plead.
In the cases of Edwards and Shriver, the
newspaper correspondents, the general
questions were the same as in the case of
Mccartney and Chapman, but there had
been two additional points raised. viz.
Were the particular questions relevant
and Whether they should be held to have
been excused from answering on the
ground that their answers would render
them liable to criminal prosecution?
They were asked. explained Judge Cole,
as to the source Of their information in
the articles published and 1t was developed
W hat those sources were, one of them say
ing that he obtained the information from
a member Of Congress. The defendant re-
fused to state who the member was, said
the court, and the other correspondent.
while not exactly saying that he received
the information from such a person. init
mated as much. The question. therefore,
was, Was the inquiry as to who those per-
sons were pertinent? There could be, said
Judge Cole. but one answer to the inquiry.
grand Jury had asked the questions. and
the defendants We're, therefore, absolutely
required to answer. They could, however,
said Judge Cole. have been excused only
ON two grounds-that their answers would
incriminate them or because the informa-
ton obtained by them, and upon which the
published articles were based, was a priv
ileged communication. 1t did not appear.
said Judge Cole. that the defendants had
asked to be excused on the first ground,
but merely on tbs ground that the COM
munication was privileged one.
Information to Newspaper Men.
The contention. remarked Judge Cole.
that information communicated to a news
paper man was privileged one was some
thing new. He had never found such a
contention sustained by law or precedent.
and the proposition that information
lodged with newspaper man cannot be
wrested from him, placing him in the po-
sttion OF priest or attorney he could not
assent to. for. said the court, the argu-
ment Is not sound one. TO sustain such
proposition. said Judge Cole, would be a
most dangerous doctrine, demoralizing and
unreasonable. To sustain 1t, remarked the
court, would be to hold that a newspaper
man might make ard publish deroyatory
statements against person and then be
exempted from disclosing the name of his
cedent for holding that communications to
a newspaper man are privileged ones.
Judge Cole stated that he must hold that
the defendants (Shriver and Edwards) had
questions put to them, and the demurrer
filed by them would, therefore, be over
ruled and they would be required to plead
to the indictments.
Havemeycr and Senrles.
Discussing the cases of Havemeyer and
Searles, the only question left for him by
the decision of the Court of Appeals, ex-
planned Judge Cole. was were the ques-
tions properly put to the defendants? 1t
seemed that Senator Allen. one Of the in
vestigating committee, had asked the ques-
tions. While it is customary for the chair
man to put the questions, member of the
committee had the right to interrogat te,
said Judge Cole. Besides. the questions
were subsequently asked by the chairman,
Senator Gray.
1t had been contended by those defend
ants that they were not compelled to give
the information because the answer could
have been obtained from the books of the
Thnv 1any ha how
were able to answer. If they had done So.
said Judge Cole, it would have been, Of
course, a good and valid excuse. While no
man or corporation was bound to disclose
how much he or it had contributed for
campaign purposes yet, said Judge Cole,
If it were charged openly that such q con-
tribution was made for the purpose Of in
fluencing or controlling legislation 1t was
proper to inquire into the matter, for the
first question then was, whether contri-
button had been made, and then the amount
Of It, and to whom and for what purpose.
There w1s nothing in the contention Of
the defendants that the contribution was
made to n local or state campaign commit
tee, explained the court, for the question
still remained how much was contributed,
to whom and for what purpose. Neither,
said Judge Cole, was there anything in the
contention Of the defendants that by an
swering they would lay themselves liable
tc q criminal prosecution, for they had not
refused to answer on that ground. The
had refused to give the information asked
for, ard on their trial they could show,if pos
sible, that they were not able to give 1t
and that it could have been obtained from
the books of the company. The demurrers
in their case said Judge Cole in conclusion.
would also be overruled, and the defend
ants required to plead.
To Invoke the United States Supreme
Court.
Mr. Taggart stated that the district at
torney would notify the defendants when to
come In to plead to the Indictments, but
ex-Judge Shellabarger explained that. as
the result of conference with Mr.. Birney,
no further action would be taken In that
matter until after the United States Su-
preme Court had been heard from. In a
few days, he intimated, one of the defend
ants would surrender himself to the Gus
tody Of the court, when decision of the
Supreme Court would be sought by the de-
fendant applying for his release by writ
Of habeas corpus. The Court Of Appeals
having affirmed Judge Coles action in sus-
tanning the indictments returned against