The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-12-01
CHAP MAN MUST
SERVE SENTENCE
Decision of the Supreme
Court in a Celebrated
Case.
Penalty for Declining to Answer
the Questions of a Senate
Committee.
Other Contum acious Witnesses in the
Notorious Sugar Scandal Will
Be Tried.

unanimous decision to-day, announced
by Chief Justice Fuller, the Supreme
Court of the United States practically
affirmed the judgment OF the Court of APP
peals of the District of Columbia in the
case of Elvertou R. Chapman, the stock
broker who declines to answer certain
questions propounded by the Senate COM
mittee investigating the famous sugar
trust rumors in connection with the con-
sideration of the tariff bill in 1893
The effect of the decision is that Mr..
Chapman must surrender himself to serve
term of thirty days imprisonment, ad-
judged against him upon conviction in
the District Court, and pay fine of $100.
a collateral effect is that Messrs. Have
meyer and Searles of the su ar trust and
Messrs. Edward and Shriver, the newspa-
per correspondents, who also declined to
answer the questions propounded by the
Senate committe, will have to submit
themselves for trial in the District Courts
upon indictments similar TO that in the
Chapman case.
The history of the case is familiar, hav-
ing been frequently narrated in these dis
patches. CHAIRMAN was convicted under
section 102, Revised Statutes, which pro-
vides punlsl ment for failure to answer
questions asked by a committee of Con-
gress, the court oyerruiing all suggestions
that the section was unconstitutional. He
sued out writ OF error to have the case
reviewed by the United States Supreme
Court and the Government moved to dis
miss the writ on the ground that the SUI
preme Court had no Jurisdiction 10 review
the Judgment of the District Courts in
criminal cases.
The appellant, the Chief Justice said,
rested on an act of Congress and proper
construction OF the act of 1888 by the Dis
trict Court of Appeals was 10 be arrived
at in the light OF previous decisions upon
similar statutory provisions. In the case
of the Unied States VS.. Moore decided in
1S05), Chief Justice Marshall held that the
Supreme Court of the United States had
no jurisdiction.
Marshall said the words Sin dispute
seem appropriate to civil cases when the
subject in contest has a value by the sum
mentioned in the act But in criminal
cases the question is guilt or innocence of
the accused. And although he may be
fined upward of $780, yet that is, in the
eye of the law, a punishment for the
offense committed and not the particular
object OF the suit This construction of
the law was carried forward under subse-
quent legislation and was affirmed in sew
erai decisions as to laws OF March s, 1891,
and February g. 1889. The eighth section,
of February 8, 1898, and being the Court
OF Appeals for the District of Colum bia,
provides for the review by the Supreme
Court of the United States of any matter
in dispute exceeding 5000 under the same
regulation as heretofore provided for in
writs of error or appeals from DEGREES
rendered in the Supreme Court of the
District OF Columbia; and also in cases
without regard TO the sum IN dispute
wherein is involved the validity of any
patent or copyright, or OF a treaty or start
ute OF or an authority exercised by the
United States.
This act and that of 1885. the Chief JUS
tice said, the court regarded as the same
in their meaning and legal effect. The
suggestion that because fine of 500 was
involved the case could be reviewed by the
Supreme Court of the United States was
disposed of by the language OF Chief JUS
tice Marshall in the United States VS..
Moore. There was nothing, the opinion
continued in the eighth section quoted
to justify its expansion so as to m AXE the
provisions of the act of 1889, involving the
constitutionality of any statute of the
Unied States may be brought to the SUI
preme Court from any district or circuit
in the United States apply to the courts OF
the District of Colum bia. No mention was
made i'll that act of the District Court.
The conclusion was that the writ of error
must be dismissed, and it was SO ordered
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 will
then come up for review. He may file his
petition in the District Court, but, mas
much as that court has already practically
decided against him, he will be more
likely to go to the supreme Court of the
United States with an originai action.