The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-01-18
Demurrer TO the Indictment TO Answer
the Senate Committee Not Sustained.
MUST TELL ABOUT CAMPAIGN FUNDS.
This Was Judge Coles Decision Yeste'.
day - Communications to Newspaper
Men Not Necessarily Sacred, He Says.
Must Divulge to the Committee.

mour, stock broker. indicted for refusing
to answer questions asked by the Senate
committee appointed TO investigate the
relations of the Sugar Trust to senator's
and legislation. Judge Cole held the de-
murrers filed by defendants to the in
dictments AGAINST them void; they must
stand trial for the offence charged.
Judge Cole, In his decision, held that
Newspaper men nad no rsht 10 cla.h
that communications made TO them were
privileged and, therefore. absolVed them
from telling The source of their informa-
ton. They had no rights, ne SAID, sueh
as those conceded priests and lawyers, VINO
had received communicatons IN COLI
fessonal or from clients. =,
Judge Cole OVerrued the demurrer TO
the indictment against Stock Broker Sey
mour without extended comment, on the
same as that Of Stock Brokers Macart-
ey and ChaDman. AS to the cases OF
correspondents Shriver and Edwards,
Judge Cole said that the genr6l 1u%sIohs
involved were the same as those IN tne
Mccartney and Chapman indictments,
thatfs, as 10 the general jurisdiction OF
the Senate to proceed with the sugar
Trust inquiry, but several qnesuons NelS
also involved that had not been disposeu
Of First. as to relevancy or the ques-
tIOns asked and, second, that their
answers might tend to make them liable
to criminal prosecution.
RELEVANCY OF QUESTIONS,
As TO the relevancy of the queStlois'
these CORRESPONDENTS were asked as 10 the
sources of information Whlch lhey im-
corporated in newspaper articles. IHey
were examined. said Judge Cole, so lat
as TO develop that they did not nave
personal knowledge of the iniornlatloI,
but il was developed Whal lHeH sOutNSn
of the information were. one or them
obtained his knowledge from a member or
Congress. and the question was as 10 me
identity of that member. ne queSt,gi 80
nut to the other correspondent vac 49, -.
stantially the same. althouSh lhS pel S'ti
furnishing the Information was Ho'
congressman This cOrreSpohleul ue-
clined to give the source or MS lIioi t liiet-
tion on the ground that IL was n4t P'or, a,,a
mont Judge Cole said there was bul one
answer 10 that conteuuon-ii must haET
been nertlnent The grand jury co9lu
cownei a person to disclose the basis LOT
his Information whether the perSoi u
am!ned his personal knowleuse VI "o''
THE RIGHTS or CORRESPONDENCE
nh Senate committee he said, had
perfect right 10 cOmpel Pcnn,1tion mn
-, tbe CORRESPONDENTS had the ilsut ~
he excused on the grouhu t't"' 20, ,,rnse-
answers would make them Ii, IiapiJi i,,c w Vas a
ii,tion or that the communication VIZ ~Maa "
Nut.V'', Nutt..'ti,,,sd one II did not apped's
fT,Icn cole maintained, tnat eiuhet ~
tTcse correspondents claliheu H1S nc tba,,
ansysrs might incriminate MN. bavs
90 S~t,{r1pd that .he Court Woulu nav
ion obiioed TO took into the DAslo lVt
~ claim If they did claim that PIhi
iege the indictments did not SHOW II, Siar e.,
fhe duestion could be faIsed Unls - o. "a
III defendants had entered thelr Ple"S ~
the indictments. ,.,., sboutd
claim the right TO retuse 20 1,''tio,n 1iam - on
tions as to the sources OF llIyi ll.i'to' a - o,'
IN Ground that the communication was
nriviieeed was a new contention, salu
Judge cole. That any edltoi OF Othci
newspaper man was To De pIih ~
uerson I'm this respect dld nor hoiu 40 ~
diI iu the case Of "A priest St-cOilItsHOI OF u
- LAWYER Some court had yet TO ruIe
that il did hold. II seemed 10 Juuse
cole that there could be no more udN-
gtrous doctrine than mat Il ht"Sp1pel
correspondent should puDllSh soihetuuiS
daragatOrv 10 a party and then when
brought before a court, claim that II
was "A privileged communication which lie
had printed. ,,.,..
and have dangerous tendency. There
was no precedent ana no basis FOR H.
The demurrers in these cases were there
fore Oyerruled and the defendants sald
Judge cole. would be given the oppor-
tunity to show privilege when they
pleased to the indictments.
HAvEMEyER AND sEARLEs.
As to Messrs. Havemeyer and Searles.
Judge cole said that the only question
left open for him 10 decide with reference
TO The other cases, was whether the
questions asked these witnesses were
pertinpht Ii was claimed In behalf ot
Alr Hevemcyer. that the pertinent queS
tons were asked by Senator Allen and
not by the chairman, in behalf Of the
committee The indictment Of Mr.. Have
meyer showed, however, said the Court
that Senator Allen put the questions
Tor and in behalf Of the committee
and, therefore. the indictment held in this
respect.
II is further contended that these de-
PENDANTS declired to answer because
they did not have the requisite know
ledge TO do SO.
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.
All that was asked was as TO the con-
tributions to the Democratic campaign
fund Of 1899. and as TO the amount given
witness could not be prosecuted for re-
fusng To answer questions Of which he
had no knowledge. III that point had
been raised before the committee II
would have been g. cd point. But both
Havemeyer and Searles did not say that
they had no knowledge of these cOntri-
buttons ana they did say that the books
of the American sugar Refining Com
pany would show the amount eOntri-
buted
They had. moreover refused to produce
these books and declined to answer on
the ground that the questions asked We're
not pertinent TO the inquiry. 1t was a
very different question. said Judge Cole
when il came 10 whether the cOntribu-
ton Of a large sum Of money to a cam
paign fund had influenced legislation. II
had been publicly charged that the con
tribution was for the purpose of pre-
venting legislation adverse to the interest
OF the corporation giving IT, and also
that senators had been Influenced I'm
their votes by that contribution. The
Senate started out TO investigate these
reports. ana II had a perfect right to do
so. The question, therefore. came down
10 one OF pertinency The amount OF
money contributed certainly was a very
important thing 10 ascertain the circum-
stances. The newspapers had charged
.nat the sum contributed was immense
Dut Havemeyer and Searles had refused
to tell what the amount was The ques-
tlon was perfectly pertinent and should
nave been answered.
THs Mat OF THE INQUIRY.
Continuing. Judge Cole said Il was a,so
claimed that the questions about the
amount contributed were not pertinent
because the contribution was Tor local
and not for national campaign purposes
IL was perfectly clear, and everybody
knew. that contributions made TO national
campaign committees OF political parties
went to State and local committees for
parcell.ng out. just as money given 10
State and local committees In cam
paign where national issues were in
volved, went as much 10 help the ma
t.onal as the local candidate of the party
receiving the contribution. The question
was whether this money was used in the
national campaign for the purpose OF in
fiuenclng legislation Havemeyer and
sssarles refused 10 show whether II WAS
or was not. Their demurrers were. there
fore. overruled. and the indictments were
good.
II AMOUNTS TO THr sAME THING