Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-01-08
Testimony Resumed Later On-The;
Subpoena Served on MIR. Chap
man Judges Decision. ,


presses in the cases of Mr.. John S. Shriver,
Washington correspondent Of the New
York Mail and Express, Correspondent Ed
wards, MeSsrs Havemeyer and Searles OF
the sugar trust, and Broker Mccartney,
ell indicted for similar alleged offenses.
In addition to the interested parties, the
spectators In the court room today In
Guided many prominent local attorneys.
ngs, owing to the fact that the defense is
contesting to the extreme every point Of
law that arises. Probably never before
have District Attorney Birney and his as
sistants, Messrs. Taggart and Jeffords had
to be so keenly on the alert in a criminal
case as during the hearing now on for the
attorneys for Mr.. Chapman. Judge. Jere
Wilson. Judge Dlttenhoefer. ex-senator Ed
munds and Judge Shellabarger, are dis
playing marked activity.
Tilt Between Counsel.
The proceedings this morning were open
ed by Judge Wilson. who resumed his ar
gument discontinued when the adjourn-
rent was taken yesterday afternoon.
Judge Wilson was in the midst of the read
ing Of a number of propositions when the
first spirited tilt of the trial between OPP
posing counsel occurred.
Your honor" Interrupted Mr. Birney,
II object to the reading of those PROPOSE
items. for they have all been gone over and
ruled upon long ago. They were submit
ted to this court and to the Court of APP
in this very case"
THAT is the most extraordinary objection
L ever heard made in the presence of
court, responded Judge Wilson, warmly,
LAS loEg as a case Is before the court
counsel has a right to argue it,
Il have no power to override the opin-
ion Of the Court Of Appeals remarked
Judge Cole.
Il am fully aware of that" Judge VIII
son replied. II WAS going over these points
merely to lead up to another"
Judge Wilson went on to argue that where
an act is not shown to have been committed
willfully, it is not within the Jurisdiction of
court to determine the variance between
the Indictment and the evidence. A number
OF authorities were then quoted to show
that where an act Is not done with the in
tent to defraud OF otherwise commit an Of
tense, the party charged is not liable, for
bad purpose must be shown. The district
attorney Is seeking to establish the re-
verse continued Judge Wilson. When
citizen is placed in the position of Mr. Chap
man. charged with declining to answer
question. willfnlly. you cannot make the
party guilty except by showing that he de-
clined willfully.
In concluding his argument, Judge Will
son stated that under the statute the de-
PENDANT should be punished If he wllfully,
answer questions. I'VE are seeking to
show" he continued. that he did not de-
cline willfully Therefore, we desire to bring
out on the cross-examination of Stenog-
show that Mi. Chapman did not willfully
decline to answer
In reply Mr.. Birney declared that the
principle advanced by the defense was
the most dangerous ever presented in
court of justice. After reviewing the
cases cited by Judge Wilson Mr.. Brney
stated that not one of them could be ap-
piled to the cause on hearing. In this case
he held the defendant was in conscious
violation of the terms Of the statute.
Taking up the question of whether Mr.
Chapman was sincere in his violation of
the statute, believing that he was protect
ed in so doing by the terms of the Consti-
tuition, Mr.. Birney cited the famous voting
case of Susan B. Anthony, tried in New
York in 1873 the decision in that case, Mr.
Birney claimed, supporting his contention
THE question of evil intent has no place
In considering the statute" concluded Mr.
Birney: In my opinion the proposition Of
the other side has no standing whatso-
ever"
Judge Dittenhoefer closed the argument.
He contended that the indictment in the
case charges Mr.. Chapman with willful
declination, and therefore it must be proved
to- have been willful in accordance with
the terms of the Indictment He went on
to argue that the word 'wfllfur' In the
statute does not mean voluntary" but
full of intent"
The Ruling.
In ruling on the point Judge Cole stated
that the question to be disposed of was
whether Mr. Chapman was not guilty be-
cause he had no Intent to commit any Of
tense. He would dispose of the question on
the appearance and refusal to answer Ac-
cording to Judge Cole the signifi ,aace Com
gress intended to apply to the word will
fur in the statute Was voluntary and with
out any legal excuse that is the refusa /
to answer must have been voluntary and
without any reasonable legal excuse. Moral
turpltude, ruled Judge Cole, does not enter
into the case at bar. The court therefore
sustained the objection of the district at
torney to the admission Of the testimony
and an exception to the ruling was noted.
Testimony Resumed.
After recess the introduction of testimony
was resumed. Mr.. Birney reading from the
New York stock exchange list of November
D, 1888, to show that large sales of Sugar
Refining Company stock were made on that
GATE Objection was made to this by the
defense on the ground that the alleged sale
occurred a month before Congress met and
four months prior to the transactions en-
braced in the indictment, and, therefore.
mad no bearing on the case. The objection
was overruled.
Considerable discussion followed as to the
right Of the defense on cross-examination
to consider other stocks. in order to show
that such other stocks fiuctuated as did
sugar stock during the time in question
The court again sided with the district at
torney.
Stenographer Prentiss was next recalled
TO the stand for croSS-eXamination and he
was asked by Judge Wilson a number of
questions as to what transpired at the SEES
sion of the Senate investigating committee
during the examination of Mr. Chapman.
Mr.. Birney promptly objected to every
question Judge Cole sustained the obiec-
tons and Mr.. Prentiss was excused.
Mr.. Fields of the office of the secretary
of the Senate again took the stand to cor
rect his testimony of Tuesday insomuch as
1t concerned the subpoena served on Mr..
Chapman. He could not say as a certainty
that the subpoena offered in evidence was
the original or copy.
Henry H. Smith clerk of the Senate in
vestigating committee, in spite Of objection
on the part of the defense, testified tina
he prepared The original subpoena served
on Mr.. Chapman. He identified the copy
of the subpoena offered in evidence as pre-
pared by him at the direction of Senator
Gray for the use of Mr.. Prentiss the com
piler of the report of the proceedings before
the committee. The original subpoena was
left with Senator Gray, among other papers.
but dilSent search has failed to disclose its
whereabouts.
The district attorney attempted to show
by Mr. Smith the meaning of the expression
''Stock will rise 80 points in thirty days.'
but after spirited cross-examinationh he ad
mitted his ignorance on the subject.
MIR. w. B Hibbs, local stock broker.
was then called and explained the meaning
of he