New-York tribune., 1896-12-01
CHAPMAN MUST GO TO JAIL.

~ u
THE SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO IN
TERFERE IN THE SUGAR CASE
THE RECAIcITRANT WITNESS WILL. GIVE HIMSELF
IT AND IMMEDIATELY APPLY FOR WRIT
OF HABEAs CORPUS TO TEST THE CON
sTrTUTIoNAIITY OF THE LAW
Washington. Nov Boy rs unanimous derlson
announced to-day by Chief Justice Fuller. the sn
preme Court OF the United States practically ahrined
the judgment OF the Court o; Appeals Of the District
OF Columbia In the OF Everton X Chapihd"' tue
stock broker who declined 20 answer certain qies'ons
propounded by the Senate Committee investigating
the famous Sugar Trust rumors in connection win
The confederation Of the Tariff bill In lSi The erect
Of the decision Is that Mr.. Chapman must surrender
himself 10 serve the term OF Imprisonment o. 'Hf'!
days adjudged against him upon conviction IN me
District Court. and pay a fine OF *ioo. coHa.ei''
effect Is that Messrs. Havemeyer ana SeaTes OF '"c
Sugar Trust and Messrs Edwards and ShrVer the
newspaper correspondents who also declined 10
answer the questions propounded by the senate O'''
miee VIII have 10 subni; themselves iot tria IN we
District upon indictments similar to that III Inc
Chapman case.
The history OF the case is familiar. having been IRE
ouen,y narrated in these dispatches. Chapman was
convicted under Sec o2. Revised Statutes when pro-
vides punishment for failure answer ques'onshsked
10y committee o: Congress, the Court oFei"i''s a.
suggestions that the section was unconstltutOha ne
sued on, "A writ OF error 10 have the case reviewed
by the Supreme Court of the United States and the
Government moved TO dismiss the W.T.; on the ground
that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction 10 TeVe"
the Judgment OF the District courts in criminal cases
The appellate jurisdiction OF the Supreme court OF
the United States the Chief Justice said. rested on
the acts OF Congress- and the proper construction OF
the act lS93 establishing the Disirc, OF Coumoia
Cour OF Appeals 10 be arrived ut In the iish' OF
previous decisions upon similar statutory PROVISIONS
In the case OF the United States against More (de-
c,ded in 1869 Chief Justice Marshall held that the
Supreme Court of the United States had no Jufisdic-
tion under the Of 1901 over judgments OF Inc p'
trict courts in criminal cases. Marshall sad; IN
words matter In dispute seem appropriated to ciVi!
cases when the subject in contest has vaIe DeEonl
the sum mentioned in the act. But in criminal cases
the question is the guilt or Innocence OF the accused
And although he may be fined upward OF slVo. He'
that is. in the eye of the law punishment 10Y '"e
offence committed and not the particular op1ect OF
the suit"
This construction OF the law carried forward
under subsequent legislation. and It was affrinea
IN several decisions TO the laws OF March s. l@'-'
and of February 1859 TIE eshh ssS0n ,S or Hi 's %
Appeals for the District of Columbia. provided ior
he review by & ai 6prs suPrsmg q" the Dsrc Court in
which the matter OF dispute exceeded $.VW III we
mannS provdsa aha or in cases Of wr Of
appeals from DEGREES rendered in the supreme o4ub h
the validity OF any patent or eopyr'st. s.rcIsed % bv
Tbs act and tha, Of 1895 the Chief Justice said
me Court regarded as the same in their meaning
and legal Effect The suggestion hat beeanse hhs ne
The Supreme Court of the United states Was SaT
posed q by the language OF Enier 1@sse s wa noh
,ng. the opinion continued. in the eighth section
quoted to justify Its Expansion so scS a. csSs m
yoivng the consipt9nay Of any sante o. or inS
United States may be brought 70 ,ne tsa ned
states apply the courts Of the pls'fic, o, no 10
umbia 30 mention was made IN ,ha aba ac the e' wr
Of error must be dismissed and it was so ordered
-rer emno aowed 10 Wilkes O. Pra,her convicted in
the Dis,rc, Court OF violating the oieomarsar'ne
There yet remains TO Chapman however. the
right to apply for MS release after ne sna maze naeT
the sentence OF the District Court. upon Trit OF
hsbeas corpus ana m the NAV wnqe ben fns s hs w petition
in the district Court but inasmuch as that Sou.a
has already practically DECIDED % be Cou, of
the United States direct
Elver,on r. Chapman said yesterday afternoon
AT the office of Moore & Schey stock brokers' NO
~ broadway of which firm he Is a member:
"As soon as the decision is trar smitted TO the
Court of Appe als of the District OF Coirmpa sh'
deliver myself into custody. shall propapiE 20
N Washington tomorrow. When In arrest snail
writ of habeas corpus have the constitutiohai-
ity of the law under which was tried ana con-
yicted passed upon. Any Judge OF the supreme
Court can Issue the writ II the writ Is ,hs gran'Cg la
the question Of the constitutionality CT the law
be decided in wes prosTTs S1tv davs al IN nTi ai
and s,CS fine. ] shall be obliged TO go 10 Jan 4,
cannot get the writ Of habeas corpus, or II ge'N@ng @
The writ the decision on Il Is against me; "" s
tried on the trial have the consututiohaiity Vi
Tho law nsssad upon but unable TO DO so:
The Supreme Court decision is that the decsion OF
the Court of Appeals of the Distr,ct oi 'o'"i"''-
IN criminal matters Is final 49,.
Mr. CHAPMAN is known az man OF great NC
mination and If he has TO TO jail he VIII 90 ~
without a murmur. His counsel are ex-Congress-
man Jeremiah Wilson, OF Washington; ex-senator
George F. Edmunds of Vermont, and cx-Judge a.
/ Dittenhoefer OF New-York. Others indicieu LOT
the same offence as Mr.. Chapman are John W NC
Cartney of Corson & Mccartney. stock brokers oi
Washington: +. J. Edwards. Newly ork correspond
ent of THE philadelphia Press: John S Schriyer
Washington correspondent Of THE New-l ork Man
and Express" and III. o. Havemeyer, president
and John f.. Searles treasurer OF the American
Sugar Refining Company Sugar Trusi,. All tnese
nersons are entitled TO a separate trial. out II Mi
Chapman is compelled TO 80 10 jan IL Is presuheu
that they will also have to 60