Birmingham age-herald., 1895-01-18
MUST 60 TO TRIAL.
Judge Cole Holds That the Indict-
 ments Are Good
AND DENIES DEMURRERS
The Senate Sugar Investigating Committee Upheld-lmpor-
 tant Newspaper Decision.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 17.--Judge Cole this morning delivered his decision in the cases | of II. o. Havemeyer and John E. Searles, | president and treasurer of the American Sugar Refining mpanyi John s. Shriver and E. J. Edwards newspaper correspond- ents, and Allen L. Seymour, stock broker, indicted for refusing to answer qu estions | asked by the senate committee appointed | to investigate the relations of the sugar trust to senators and legislation. Judge Cole held that the demurrers filed by the de- fendants to indictments against them are void and they must stand trial for the of- fense charged.
 Judge Cole overruled the demurrer to the indictment against Stock Broker Seymour without extended comment on the ground that the case was exactly the same as that of Stock Brokers Mccartney and Chapman. As to the case of Correspondents Shriver and Edwards Judgo Cole said that the chief questions involved were the same as those in the Mccartney and Chapman in- dictments, that is as to the general juris- oictioE of the senate to proceed with the sugar trust inquiry, but several questions were also involved that had not been dis | posed of. First, as to the relevency of the question asked, and second, that their an- swers might tend to make them liable to criminal prosecution.
 As to the relevancy of the questions these correspondents were assured as to the sources of information which they incor- porated in newspaper articles. They were examined, said Judge Cole, so far as to de- velop that they did not have personal knowledge of the information, but it was developed what were their sources of in- formation. One of them obtained his knowledge from a mem Der of congress, and the question was as to the identity of that member. The question put to the other correspondent was substa ntially the same, although the person furnishing the in formation was not a congressman. This correspondent declined to give the source of his information on the ground that it was not pertinent.
 Judge Cole said there was but one an.
 swer 10 that contention-it must have been pertinent. The grand jury could compel a person to disclose the basis for his in for- nation whether the person examined has personal Knowledge or not The senate committee, he said, had perfect right to compel a person to disclose the sources of his information, unless the correspondents had the right to be excused on the ground that their answers would make them liable 10 prosecution CT ti1stethe ceinmaiiic lion was privileged one. It did not appear, Judge Cole main- tained, that either ot these correspond ents claimed that his answer might in- criminate him. If they had claimed that |
 into the basis for the claim, If they did
 claim that privilege the indictment did not
 show it, and the question could be raised
 only after the defendants had entered their
 pleas 10 the indictments.
 That newspaper correspondents should claim the right to refuse to answer ques-
 tions as to the sources of information on
 the ground that the communication was privileged was new contention, said Judge Cole. That any editor or other
 n
 in this respect did not hold as il did in the case of priest cou lessor or of a lawyer. Some court had yet to rule that it did
 hold 1t seemed to Judge Cole that there could be no more dangerous doctrine than that newspaper correspondent should
 publish something derogatory to party or
 body and then go before the court claim ing that 1t was privileged communication
 which he had printed. That rule would be very demoralizing and have a dangerous tendency. There was DO precedent and no
 basis for it. The demurrers h these cases were therefore overruled, and the defend- ants, said Judge Cole, would be given the option to show privilege when they pleaded to the indictments.
 As 10 Messrs. Havemeyer and Searles, Judge Cole said that the only question left opeu for him 10 decide with reference to the other cases was whether the questions asked these witnesses were pertinent. It was claimed in behalf of MT. Havemeyer that the pertinent questiong were asked by Senator Allen and not by the chairman in behalf of the committee. The indictment of MT. Havemeyer showed, however, said the court, that Senator Allen put the ques- ton 'for aud in behalf of the committee, ' and therefore the indictment held in this respect.
 It was further contended that these de- fendants declined to answer, but they did lot have the requisite knowledge to do so. All that was asked was to the contribution, to the democratic campaign fund of 1892 and as to the amount given. A witness could not be prosecuted for refusing to answer questions of which he had no Knowledge. 1T 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 of these contributions, and they did say that the books Of the American Sugar Refining company would show the amount con triouted. They had, moreover, refused to produce these books and declined to answer on the grounds that the questions asked were not pertinent 10 the inquiry It was a different question, said Judge Cole, when it came 10 whether the contribution of large sum of money to campaign fund had influenced legislation. It has been publicly charged that the contribution was for the purpose of preventing legislation adverse to the interest of the corporation giving it, and also that senators had been influenced in their votes by that contribu. ton. The senate started out to investi
 
 right to do So. The question, therefore, came down to one of pertinency. The money contributed was certainly very im portant thing to ascertain under the circum stances. The newspapers had charged that the sum contributed was immense, but Messrs. Havemeyer and Seares had re- fused to tell what the amount was. The question was perfectly pertinenta and should have been answer d.
 In continuing Judge Cole said it YVES also claimed that the questions about the amount contributed were not pertinent be- cause the contribution was for local and not national campaign purposes. It was perfectly clear and all know that contri- buttons made to national campaign com mittees of political parties went to national and local committees for parceling out, just as money given to state and focal com -lpittees in a campaign where national is- sueB>fersDA javoived--as much to help the national as the local candidates of the party receiving the contribution. The question was whether this money was used Tn the national campaign for the purposs