The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-01-18
RlD FOR NEWSPAPER MEN.
r-trnlliOn Furnished Them Not a
PRIVILEGED Communication.


-.s1ndss Pays Especial Attention to
-. claim of the Newspaper Core
.-ordents.
,,...-.---or. Jan. E-Judge Cole this
..--- f-hvered a decision in the sases
.aa 1-.-myer. John z. Sartes. presi-
.-4 treasurer of the American
-,- refining Company; John L. Shri-
.-5 E L. Edwards. newspaper cor
..-.-ss--z. and Allen L. Seymour. a
. .---s-r. indicted for refusing to an
.ass-i5ns asked by the Senate COM
-...s appointed TO investigate the re-
,..-- Of the sugar trust to senator's and
Il. -.--5r. Judge Cole held that the de-
--.----- fled by the defendants to the in
-.~sr-= against them were void. They
inner stand trial for the offense charged.
rrs-e cole. in his decision. held that
4 .-. --v.-raper men had no right to claim
. ..-- rho communications made them were
--.,-re-si. and therefore absolved them
s---- telling the source of their informa
.-- They had no right, he said such IS
n -r7=e conceded priests and lawyers, who
rs5 received communications in the con-
.-ss.1nal or from clients.
r-5rs cole overruled the demurrer to
4 .-- ,r5iotment against Stock Broker Sey-
----r without extended comment, on the
Ground that the case was exactly the
same as that of Stock Brokers Mccartney
and chapman.
As 10 the cases of Correspondents
srr,v4r and Edwards. Judge Cole said
-hst the general questions involved were
-,a same as those in the Mccartney and
rrarman indictments as to the general
,r-i45iction of the proceedings with the
sugar trust inquiry, but several questions
were also involved that had not been dis
ro-74 of. first. as TO the relevancy of the
questions asked. and second, that their
answers might tend to make them liable
~ criminal prosecution. As to the rele-
vancv of the questions, these correspOn-
dents were asked as to the sources of in
formation which they incorporated in
newspaper articles. They were examined,
said Judge Cole, so far as to develop that
they did not have personal knowledge of
The Information, but it was developed
what their sources of information We're.
one of them obtained his knowledge from
a member of congress. and the question
was as TO the identity of that member.
The question put to the other correspon-
dent wa, substantially the same, although
the person furnishing the information was
not 1T congressman. This correspondent de-
,ined TO give the source of his Informal
tIon on the ground that it was not per-
tneut Judge Cole said there was but one
answer to that contention-it must have
been pertinent The grand jury could
compel person to disclose the basis for
his information, whether the person eX-
amued has personal knowledge or not.
The Senate committee, he said, had per
feet right to compel a person to disclose
the sources Of his information, unless the
correspondents had the right TO be eX-
cusel on the ground that their answers
would make them liable to prosecution,
or that the communication was privi-
lecsd one. 1t did not appear. Judge Cole
maintained, that either of these CORE
i sno0dents claimed that his answers might
Wrimnate him. If they had claimed
ihat The court would have been obliged to
lock INTO the basis for the claim If they
claim that privilege the indictments
Did not show it, and the question could be
raised only after the defendants had en-
tered their pleas to the indictments.
That newspaper correspondents did
claim the right to refuse to answer ques-
tons as to the source of information, on
the ground that the communication was
privileged. was a new contention, said
Judge Cole. That any editor or other
newspaper man was to be privileged per-
son in this respect did not hold it did
lawyer. Some court had yet to rule that
II did hold.
u seemed TO Judge Cole that there could
be no more dangerous doctrine than that
a newspaper correspondent should publish
something derogatory to a party or body,
ana then, when brought before court,
claim that it was a privileged communica-
ton which he had printed. That rule
would be very demoralizing and have
s. r-e VA NJ
cent and no basis for it. The demurrers
I'm these cases were therefore overruled
and the defendants, said Judge Cole. would
be given the chance to show privilege
when they pleaded to the indictments.
As to NIessrs. Havemeyer and Searles,
Judge Cole said that the only question
left open for him to decide with reference
10 the other cases, was whether the ques-
tiOn asked these witnesses were per-
tinent. 1t was claimed, in behalf of Mr.
HaVemeyer, that the pertinent questions
were asked by Senator Allen and not by
the chairman in behalf of the committee
The Indictment Of Mr.. Havemeyer showed,
however. said the court, that Senator Al
len put the questions: For and in behalf
OF the committee" and therefore the in
dotment held in this respect. 1t was fur
ther contended that these defendants de-
cAned 10 answer, because they did not have
the requisite knowledge to do so. All that
was asked was to the contributions to the
democratic campaign fund of 1892 and as
"a the amount given. a witness could
not be prosecuted for refusing to answer
q1esuons of which he had no knowledge.
i that point had been raised before the
committee it would have been good point.
But both Messrs. Havemeyer and Searles
did not say that they had no knowledge
ot these contributions, and they did say
that the books of the American Sugar Re
ming Company would show the amount
contributed. They had, moreover, refused
10 produce these books and declined to
nsWer, on the ground that the questions
ASKED were not pertinent to the inquiry.
I was a very different question, said
Judge Cole, when it came to whether the
Contribution of large sum of money to a
campaign fund had influenced legislation
IL had been publicly charged that the con-
lN6ution was for the purpose of prevent
iS legislation adverse to the interests OF
me corporation giving it, and also that
senator's had been influenced in their votes
h that contribution. The Senate started
ef to investigate these reports, and it
had perfect right to do so. The question
therefore,, came down to one of pertinency
ne amount of money contributed Ger
'dlnly was very important thing TO as
certain, under the circumstances. The
newspapers had charged that the sun