The morning call., 1895-01-18
RIGHTS OF REPORTERS
Must Answer the Questions
Of Senator's.
NOT PRIVILEGED MATTER.
They Have No Right to Shield Their
InfOrmaRtS.
DISCOMFORT COMING FOR SOMEBODY.
Judge Cole Makes an Important Ruling in
the Case of the Sugar Trust
Witnesses.

WASHINGTON, Jan. T7.-All demurrers
offered by defendants to the indictments
against President Havemeyer and Secre-
tary Searles of the American Sugar Re
tinery Company, Broker Seymour and
Correspondents J. J. Edwards and j. o.
Shriever, were overruled to-day by Judge
Cole in the Criminal Court and defendants
required to plead to the indictments.
The cases will now probably go direct to
the United States Supreme Court on writ
of habeas corpus following a plea OF not
guilty by the defendants. In the two cases
against Edwards and Schriever, the news
paper correspondents, the court said that
the only additional features to the stock
brokers cases were, first, as to the rele-
vancy of the particular questions put to the
newspaper correspondents, and second,
whether they should be excused from
answering on the ground of privi-
legged communications. As to rele-
vancv, Judge Cole stated that both
witnesses testified that they did not
have personal knowledge of the matter
specially published, but claimed to have
information from persons understood to
have personal knowledge, and the other
was question pertinent to the inquiry as
to their informant's name. The court
ruled that it was pertinent as to the infOr-
NATION being a privileged communication.
The court said it does not appear that
either correspondent refused to answer on
the ground that it might incriminate, a
question which the court might have con-
sidered. 1t has never been contended be-
fore in a court of justice, said the court,
that a newspaper editor, reporter or CORE
spondent, or any one engaged in the news
paper business, is to be considered per-
son with whom a confidential communica-
ton may be lodged and protected as be-
tween attorney and client or priest and
confessor. There could be no more danger
Gus doctrine than that a newspaper might
obtain information whose effect might
work great injury and detract from the
reputation or character of party or body,
and that the claim of privileged commune
cation might then be made. That rule
would be very demoralizing. There being
no law TO that effect which the court could
follow, the demurrer in both cases must
be therefore overruled and the defendants
must answer by pleading to the indict-
ment.
The court then took up the cases of the
sugar trust officials, Messrs. Havemeyer
and Searles. and held that the questions as
10 the amount contributed by the corpora
ton to campaign funds were pertinent and
proper. The question was, said the court,
whether pending legislation had been
affected by the fact that the sugar trust,
so called, had made large contribution to
the campaign. AS a general proposition it
is undoubtedly true that Congress has not
the right to inquire as to contributions
made by a corporation. But the influence
on legislation by such contributions was
another question. Now, If the action of
the Senate and of particular Senators had
been controlled by contribution, then Con-
gress had the right to inquire into it, and
the amount of the contribution was of very
grave importance. These witnesses had
answered everything up, to the question of
amount About this Congress had the
right to inquire and these gentlemen
should have answered. AS to the conten-
ton that the Senate committee had no
right to inquire because the contribution
appeared to be local and not national, it
was declared to be immaterial.
1t is said to be probable that the defend
ants will now be surrendered by their
bondsmen, pleading guilty, and be placed
technically in JAIL being under the custody
of the United States Marshal, and that the
next procedure will be to apply to the
United States Supreme Court for writ OF
habeas corpus.