The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1895-01-18
THEY MUST STAND TRIAL
Judge Cole 0yerruIes the Sugar
Case Demurrers.
REPORTERS MUST TESTIFY.
The Case of Shrivers and Edwards,
Newspaper Correspondents,
Who Refused to Testify Be-
fore the Senate Sugar
Trust Inquiry.
BY Southern Associa.ed press.

y
Cole this morning delivered his de-
cision in the case of II. O.. Have
myer and John f. Searls, president
and treasurer Of the American
Sugar Refining Company; j. S.
Shrivers and E. j. Edwards, nows.
paper correspondents, aud Allen l.
Seymour, stockbroker, indicted for
eefuslng to answer questions asked
by the Senate committee appointed
90 investigate the relations of the
Sugar Trust to Senators and legisla
zion. Judge Cole held that the de.
murrers filed by tho defendants to
'he indictments against them were
~old. They must stand trial for the
ollense charged.
Judge Cole, III his decision, hold
fhnt newspaper men had no right to
claim that communications made to
them were privileged, and therefore
absolved them from letting the
source of their Information. They
Lad no rights, he said, such as those
conceded To priests and lawyers who
had received COMMUNICATIONS in the
confessional or from clients.
Judge Cole overruled the demnr-
rer to the indictment agninst stock
broker Seymour without extended
comment, of the ground that the
case was exactly the same rs that of
ftockbrokers MaCartney and Gimp
man. AS to the cases of correspon
dents Shriver and Edwards, Judge
Cole said that the general questions
Involved were the same AS those in
the MaCartney and Chapman iu
dictments, that is, as to the general
jurisdiction OF the Senate to proceed
with the Sugar Trust inquiry, bur
several questions were also involved
that had not been disposed of, first
ss to relevancy OF the questions
asked and, second, that their answers
might tend to make them liable to
criminal prosecution.
AS tn the relevancy of the uues-
slons. the correspondents were asked
as to the sources OF Information
which they lncoruotated in news
paper articles. They were exam
ined, said Judge Cole, 80 far rs TO
develop that they did not have
personal knowledge Of the iniorma
ton. but 1t was developed what
fheir sources Of Information were.
One OF them obtained their kuowl.
edge from member of Congress.
and the question was US to the luen
sity OF that member.
The question put to the other cor.
respondent WAS substantially the
came although the person furnish
Ing the information was not a Con.
Gressman. 1hls correspondent de
clIned to give the source of his In
formation on the ground that 1t was
not pertinent.
Judge Cole said there was but one
answer to that contentlon-lt must
have been pertinent. The grand
Jury could compel person TO dis
close tile basis for lls Information
whether the person has personal
knowledge Or not.
The Senate Committee, be saII
mad perfect right TO compel a Der.
son to disclose the sources of his i'm
formation, unless the correspondents
had the right to be excused on tho
ground that their answers womb
make them liable tn prosecution or
fLat the communication was priyi.
teged one.
1T did not appear, Judge Cole
maintained, that either OF these
correspondents claimed that his an
eWers might lncrimInnte him. 1T
they had claimed that the court
would have been Obliged TO look
into the basis tor the claim. If
they did claim that privilege, the IN.
dlctments did not show 1t and the
question could be raised only after
the defendants bad entered their
pleas to the indictments.
Ihat newspaper correspondents
should claim the right to refuse to
answer questions az 10 the sources
OF Information. on the ground that
tne communication was privileged
was now contention, said Judge
Co!e. That any editor or other
newspaper man WAS to be prlv-
iieged person III this respect did not
hold as 1t did III the case Of priest.
confessor or. OF u lawyer. Some
court had yet to rule that 1t did
hold.
1t seemed TO Judge Cole that
mere could be no more dangerous
doctrine than that newspaper cor
sespohdent should publish some
tn'ne deTogatory TO n party or body
anu then, when brought before u
court claim that it was privileged
COMMUNICATION which be hod
printed. That rule would bo very
demoraiizing and have dangerous
tendency. There was no precsdent
ana no basis for it. The demurrer.
An these cases wero therefore over
asled' end the defendants. said