Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-12-01
ELVERTON CHAPMAN.
THE BROKER WHO DECLINED TO
ANSWER SENATE QUESTIONS.
HE MUST GO TO PRISON.
Members Of the Sugar Trust, ana the
Newspaper Men, Who AIS" De-
cr,ped to Answer, Must Submit tn
Trial.

WASHINGTON, November 3O.-By us
unanimous decision to-day. announceu
by Chief-Justice Fuller. the supreme
Court of the United States affirmed the
Judgment of the Court of Appeals of the
District Of Columbia in the case oil FL
verton Y. L. Chapman. the stock-oroNe''
who declined TO answer certain questions
propounded by the Senate committee III
vestigating the famous Sugar-Irust ru-
mors in connection with the considera-
ton of the tariff bill. in 1888 The ei-
feet of the decision is that Mr.. Chapman
must surrender himself TO serve the term
OF Imprisonment of thirty days, adjuise1
against him upon conviction in the DIS
trict Court, and pay fine OF 500. n
collateral effect is that Messrs. have
meyer and Searles of the sugar trust
and Messrs. Edwards and Shriver, the
newspaper correspondents, who also ue-
clined TO answer the questions PROFOUND
ed by the Senate committee. will have to
submit themselves for trial In the DIS
trict courts upon indictments similar 10
the one In the Chapman case.
There yet remains to Chapman how
ever, the right TO apply for his release
after he shall have been placed IN the
custody OF the marshal under the sem
tence Of the District Court. upon writ
of habeas corpus, and the whole case VIII
then come up for review. lie may Tile
his petition in the District Court but IN
asmuch as that court has already pract-
cally decided against him he VIII oe
more likely 10 60 to the supreme court
Of the United States direct, with an
original action.
1'hirty-elght cases IN all were disposed
Of BY the Supreme Court to-day. AIhoHs
them were the following:
The claim Of W. 4 Wright, Comptroller
Of Georgia, VS. the Central Railroad ana
Banking Company of that state. Tor GER
tain taxes assessed against the roads
property for 1871. was sustained, In ac-
cordance with the judgment OF the SUI
preme Court of the State. The court
held that while a tax on the property
OF railroad company may be a tax on
its capital stock In some Instances, II
was not such a tax when the distinction
between the two was made by the statute.
as was done In the charter Of the railroad
in this case.
4 decision adverse 10 the claims OF
the New Orleans Water-Vorks Company
was rendered in the case OF the com
pany VS.. the city of New Orleans, sus-
tanning the action OF the Circuit Court
of the Eastern District of Louisiana.
The corporation asked for decree an
nuling the licenses granted by the Coun-
ell of New Orleans TO certain persons 10
Law water-mains In the streets of the
city in violation Of the company's al
legged exclusive right thereto. and also
directing the Council not 10 issue such
Licenses i'm the future Such DEGREES. II
was pointed out, even If granted. would
be imperative against persons not
brought into court
The Citizens Bank OF Louisiana brought
suit I'm the United States Court for
the Western District of Louisiana 10
prevent the Sheriff Of certain parishes IN
that State from Selling and selling GER
tain property of the bank I'm their seve-
raj parishes for taxes alleged 10 be que.
To give the court jurisdiction Of the
case the bank aggregated the various
sums claimed TO be due. but this, tho
court said. could not be done and II dis
missed the bill. The Supreme Court OF
the United States said that view or the
law was correct. but reversed the judg-
ment Of the District Court, for the rea-
son that. not having jurisdiction, the
lower court gave Judgment for costs ana
made certain allowances Of percentages
10 attorneys and others. The cause was
remanded without instructions.
The constitutionality OF the laws Of
Alabama regulating the conduct OF
the insurance business in that state
was sustained by a decision Of
the Supreme Court Of the United
states. affirming the judgment Of
the Supreme Court Of the State in the
case Of Noble & Ware vs.. S. NJ. Mitchell.