The evening times., 1896-01-17
MR.. BIRNEI's ONE PRAYER
Il Startled the Counsel for
Broker Chapman.
GRANTED BY JUDGE COLE
The District Attorney Thinks He Has
"Clincher" Cause.-The Defense
Then Submitted About Forty Pray
ers for instructions and Proceeded
TO Argue Upon Them.

TO Argue Upon Them.
District Attorney Birney stirred up the
counsel for the defense in the case against
| EivertOn X. Chapman this morning by the
brevity and pointedness or the single pra yer
| which lie presented for the consideration
of the court IN instructing the jury
| why" said Judge Jere Wilson, catch
| Ing his breath, "thire is asking instruction
| to convict"
Judge Dtienboerer looked agnast
We'll, yes" answered MIR. Biruey, lit
does amount TO something like that; and
If 1t were not for the dictum OF the su-
preme Court In u case last winter, would
ask Tor Just that Instruction"
Mr.. Chapman looked about the room q
| little ruefully at this point, as il he
wished little he had just wered
those questions some way and gone abodt
his business.
| You were not here yesterday" contin
ued Mr. Eirney, addressing Judge Wilson.
'or you would know that the court held
that the only ayerments material in this
case, and 10 be proved, are those contained
In the prayer ] have just read
MIR BIRNEY Y's PRAYER.
The prayer was that If the jury find that
| the resolution was passed by the SEN
| ate, the committee organized under it, Mr..
Chapman called before il, asked the ques-
tioDs and he refused to ans swer, the Jury
shall convict.
The defense quickly recovered its COM
poSufe ami turned loose upon the jury such
d fog OF pra yers for instructions as has sell
dom been seen. There were more than forty
when all counted up. and stated some of the
propositions in half n dozen different ways.
The chief reliance appeared to be in the
word '-willrully-" 1t is In the statute. and
Judge Wilson. in argument, insisted strenu-
ou>ly that the jury must find that Mr..
Chapman's refusal was willful disobedi-
ence, in the face OF the fact that he used
every means to determine his rights.
FOR THE DEFENSE.
The prayers for the defense were i'll sub
stance: That the sole charges against Mr..
Chapman relate 10 bis dealing H. stocks for
Senators: that it was lawful for Senators
20 do any legitimate business. that trading
i'll American Sugar Refining stocks was
legitimate business, that the jury must find
from the evidence that the defendant was
within constitutional rights; that If
the validity and scope OF the act
of Congress requiring tie respondent to
answer had never been settled and he took
due precautions, he should be held blame
less. that the respondent cannot be con-
victed unless the report OF the committee
was approved by the Senate; that the evil
dence must show that the papers in the
case were duly transmitted under seal OF
the Senate 10 the district attorney; that
the jury must find that sugar stocks rose
in value in consequence OF the legislat ton
in question; that while the constitutional
power OF the Senate to inquire into the
actions OF its members Is clear the courts
cannot be called upon to force witnesses TO
answer questions.
Then six prayers were directed to compel
the jury TO determine squarely and fully
whether Mr.. Chapman's refusal was a will
full violation OF the law, several TO oblige
them To consider materially the avcrments
OF the Indictment, which Judge Cole yes
terday ruled need not be proved, num-
ber TO ask them to determine whether the
statements in the articles published in the
newspapers mean what the indictment
says they mean.
Three or four of the pra yers asked for in
struction that there was no evidence that
.'sugar" stocks Were enhanced in value by
the Legislation involved This Judge Cole
has said he is willing say.
THE CLOSING PRAYERS.
One of the closing prayers is that the
NNSNn
market known as sugar stock
Judge Wilson opened the argument for
the prayers by referring to Lord Erskine's
famous criticism Of the ruling in the libel
case of the dean of st. Asaphs, two hun
dred years ago The Judge did then ex-
actly what Mr.. Birney had now sked Judge
do. Erskine esoScathingly demo unced
the ruling that new libel law was passed.
affirming plainly the rights and duties of
sttri it,th th.. of
arbitrary ruling from the bench.
He argued at length on the point that
Mr.. Chapman's offeuse must be found to be
wiilful, and Judge Ditteuhoefer followed,
urging this aud other matters upon the
attention OF the Judge. Both cited authori-
ties.
Mr.. Birney replied briefly that it was not
necessary to prove specifically that Mr..
Chapman course was wiliful nd malicious,
and Judge Cole in a five-minute statement
of his view of the case coincided very CLOSELY
with Mr.. Birney add granted his prayer.
He refused every prayer of the defense
severally and granted an exception upon
each.
Then counsel for the defense offered few
more prayers, more lengthy and labOriously
worded than those overruled, and Judge
Dittenhoefer concluded the list with
prayer couched in Judge Coles words, he
said, as nearly as he could remember. 1t
was that Mr.. Chapman must be found to
have refused to answer without any rea-
sonable excuse"
Il ovcrrule that, too" said Judge Cole,
orf-hand. Additional exceptions were noted
and Judge Cole asked if counsel wished to
address the jury, and Judge DittenhOefer
said, in view of the turn the case had taken,
Counsel W would need TO consult beforeanswer-
ing, and recess was taken.
Upon reconvening Of court at O'Clock
Mr.. Birney spent fifteen minutes in read
ing the testimony of Mr.. Chapman himself
to the jury and showing that upon his own
statements he must be convicted.
Judge Wilson followed with an argu-
ment that 1t had not been proved that Sen
ator Davis asked the questions on behalf
of the committee, as charged. and that the
exact words of the questions and answers
had not been proved.
rs.lS