The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-01-18

Washington, Jan. 17.-Au demurrers
by tine defendants to the indictments
against President Hayemeyer and Sec,
rotary Searles, of the American Sugar
Refinery company, Broker Seymour
and Correspondents ]. J. Edwards and
j. o. Schriver were overruled today by
Judge Cole in the criminal court and
the defendants required to plead TO
the indictments.
The cases will now probably go di-
rect to the United States Supreme
court on a writ of habeas corpus fol-
lowing a plea of not guilty by the de-
PENDANTS. In the two cases against
Edwards and Schriver, the newspaper
correspondents, the court said the only
additional features to the stock brok-
ers' cases were, first, as to the relev-
ancy of the particular question put
to the newspaper correspondents; and,
second, whether they Should be excus-
ed from answering on the ground Of
privileged communications. AS to re-
levancy Judge Cole stated that both
witnesses testified they did not have
personal knowledge of the matter pub
Nshed but claimed to have infOrna>
personal knowledge of the matter, and
the other was a question pertinent TO
the inquiry as to their informants
rame The court ruled that 1T was
pertinent ais to the information being
a privileged communication. The
court said it does not appear that
either correspondent refused to an
swer on the ground that it might in
criminaite, a question which the court
might have considered. 1t has never
been contended before in a court Of
justice, said the court, that news
paper editor, reporter, or correspond
emit, or any one engaged in the news
paper business, is to be considered q
person with whom a confidential COM
munication may be lodged and pro
tected as between attorney and client
or priest and cOnfessor. There could
be no more dangerous doctrine than
that a. newspaper might obtain infor-
nation whose effect might work great
injury and detra>ct from the reputation
of character of a party or body and
that the claim of privileged conmu'
nication might then be made. That
rule would be very demoralizing.
There being no law to that effect
which the court could follow the de-
1nurrer in both cases must be there
fore overruled and the defendants
must answer by pleading 20 the in
dictment.
The court then took up the cases Of
: the Sugar trust officials, Messrs. Have
never and SearleS, and it held thai
the questions as TO the amount con-
tTibuted by the corporation ITO cam
paign funds were pertinent and pro-
per. The question was, said the court
whether pending legislation had been
affected by the fact that. the Sugar
trust, so-called, mad made a large con
: tribution to the campaign. As q gen
eral proposition it is undoubtedly true
:: that Congress has not the right to in.
=. quire as to contributions made by &
corporation. But the influence on leg
islation by such contributions is an.
other question. Now if the action OF
the Senate and of particular senator:
had been controlled by contribution
: then Congress had the right to inquire
into it and the amount of the contri
i, button was of very grave Importance
. These witnesses answered everything
up to the question OF amount Abou
this Congress had the right to inqufr
: and these gentlemen should have an
swered. AS TO the contention that tn,
Senate committee had no right to in
: Quire because the contribution appear
ed to be local and not national, wa
declared to be inmaterial
1t is said to be probable that tn
defendants viii now be surrendered b.
their bondSnen, pleading guilty AM
5 be placed technically in Jail. being I'm
, der the custody of the United State
l marshal and that the next proc4dur
will be to apply to the United State
for writ of ha'beaS corpus.