The evening times., 1896-11-21
JAIL FOR SIX GENTLEMEN
Sugar Cases Soon to Be Passed on by
the United States Supreme Court.
CHAPMAN THE FIRST TO GO
Everything Points to Decision
Which VIII Open the Way TO
Prison for Messrs. Havemeyer,
Searle and the Others Who Re-
fused to Testify.

A Jail sentence for six gentlemen, no one
of whom admits for a moment that he has
been guilty of anything even the least dis
honorable, lies in a decision which vii
probably be handed down by the Supreme
Court OF the United States q week from
next Monday.
The law in the matter allows no eNchafgo
OF the imprisonment for fine. There is
nothing for it but for these wealthy and
well-to- do-for some are only well-paid
workingmen, while others are millionaire
capitalists leach To go down to the District
Jail and serve out a tliirty-day sentence.
by some chance five OF them may escape,
but one can only get away. IL the court de-
cides against him, by the ciemcncy OF the
President, and there isn't the least pros
pect that this will be exercised.
The case referred to is that of Elvertor
X. Chapman. the stock broker, against the
United States on an appeal from the decis-
ion in the District supreme court, as af-
firned by the District court of appeals.
Two years and Il half ago the Senate
was busy with a tariff bill, which finally
became law as the Wilson bill, revised
by Senator German and others. While
the discussion of this was gCiug on two
newspapers outside of Washington printed
report that IA lobby, representing the
American Sugar Refining Company. better
known as the Sugar trust, was using cor
rupt means to influence legislation. The
alleged plan Of the controlling votes was
to aid Senators to make very successful
turns as spectators In Sugar trust stock.
INVESTIGATION BEGUN.
As soon as the story became public "A
resolution for an inquiry was introduced
in the Senate, and committee was ap-
pointed, with Senator Gray as chairman,
to investigate the charges. A large num-
ber OF witnesses Were summoned and ex-
amiped, without revealing much 10 sup
port the charges. Among others were the
two correspondents who had sent out the
report j s. Shriver and l.. j. Edwards,
two brokers. who had been buying and SELL
ing sugar stock, and President Henry O.
Havemeyer and Secretary j. L. S.arle.
of the Refining Company. All refused 10
answer questions put To them by members Of
the committee.
The correspondents, as a point of honor,
refused To- tell where they got the inrur-
maticn upon which they based their state
ments as'pubshed: the brokers, as Il n at
ter cf business, declined to give the names
Of their customers or the transactions i'll
which they were engaged: the sugar trust
officials, for self protection and as a
privilege of every private citizen, de-
clned to answer several questions regard
ing the business Of the company. The ques-
tiuns We're apparently all aimed at the one
had been buying and selling options in
sugar trust stock and getting rich by it.
This was not shown.
As n last resort, all Senators were called
in turn 10 state under oath whether they
had been buying and selling sugar stock
Senators Quay, Cameron, and others ad-
Init.ed frankly that they had, and asked
what was wrong about it. They thought
they had a right to speculate in this as in
any other stock, and the committee was
quite unable to show the contrary. The
investigation was practically abandoned.
THE LAW STEPS IN.
But there was a law for the six wit
nessrs who refused to answer the COM
mittec's questions. This was section 1O2
OF the Revised Statutes, specially enacted
10 compel witnesses to answer under such
circumstances. The whole procedure under
this law is mapped out with unusual care,
and the committee at once, in accordance
with it's terms, referred the case to the
district attorney for criminal proceedings.
IL Is said that the Department of jus
tice took an unusual interest in them from
the very start. and while the Attorney
General did not conduct them in person. he
kept in close communication with Dis
trict Attorney Birncy and directed his
movements.
Indictments were found and the prisoners
were arraiGncd. Messrs. Havemcyer and
Searle had 10 come from New York
specially for the purpose. A long drawn
legal battle began. The plea Of not guilty
was Withdrawn and demurrer filed.
This alleged the unConstitutionality of the
| law. and n large number OF other grounds
against the validity of the statute, along
with defects in the Indictment. The de-
murrer was argued before Judge Cole and
overruled. Then by special permission an
appeal was granted. and the whole fight
was made again in the upper court. The
decision sustained the court below. Then
came II deal of IN maneuvering.
First of all the accused gave bail in a
large sums with gilt edged bondsmen.
Then there was delay i'll getting theiI
lawyers TO allow the case to be taken up.
1t was stated that nothing would be done
at one time. because Mr.. Havemey er wanted
TO go on a pleasure trip to Europe. Other
reasons, good and bad, were assigned
in gossip and in print for the delay. Fl
nally a year ago Mr.. Birney insisted that
there should be no more postponement. and
the question came to trial OH its merits.
The case selected for test was that of Mr..
Chapman.
THE FACTS ADMITTED.
The facts were practically admitted from
the first, and when on the stand Mr.. Chap
man said plainly that the questions were
asked of him by the committee and he de-
The principal reliance of the defense was
that whatever Mr.. Chapman had done was
not willful. He had consulted able counsel
and was advised that he had right to
refuse to answer. He had not intended to
violate any valid law and did not believe
that he had done so.
Judge Cole held that the matter of will.
fulness had nothing to do with it. If Mr..
Chapman was asked the questions by the
Senate committee, as alleged, and refused
| to answer, he was guilty under the law
and the conditions Of guilt set by the judge
thad been admitted by Mr.. Chapman. 1t
] looked as il there was nothing for the
| jury but to bring verdict of guilty. New.
| ertheless, there was quite division of
| opinion in the jury room and it was only
| after receiving further instructions from
Judge Cole on the point of willful viola
| ton that n verdict of guilty was reached
| The sentence imposed was thirty days in
jail and 500 fine.
| An appeal W as taken. but there as prac-
| tically nothing in this but a rehearSing o
| the old grounds. on April z last the court
| rendered a unanimous decision sust amin.
| the court below. Judge Morris wrote the
| opinion. An appeal was at once taken t.
|