Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-04-16
T H E CHAP MAN c. .ASE
Endeavor to Get 1t Before the Supreme
Court
Motions Made Today by the Different
COunscI-Tbe Other Sugar
Trust Witnesses.

Counsel for Mr.. Elverton r. Chapman,
whose conviction as contuma cous wit
ness was recently affirmed by the Court
of Appeals, applied to that court this morn
ing for the allowance of an appeal, by writ
of error, to the United States Supreme
Court. District Attorney Brney opposed
the motion, contending that a writ of error
does not lie In the case. Ex-senator George
+. Edmunds and Mr.. Jere NJ. Wilson briefly
supported the application, and the court re-
served its decision.
Mr.. Wilson called the attention of the
court to the case. stating that, believing a
great fundamental and constitutional ques-
ton is at issue, they wished to carry the
case 10 the United States Supreme Court.
When such question is at issue, even
though the case be a criminal one, he be-
lieved a writ of error lies to the Supreme
Court.
Mr. Chief Justice Alvey called Mr.. Will
sons attention to the ross case decided
in 1892 in which the Supreme Court ap-
peared to have held that a writ of error
lies from the District Supreme Court to
that tribunal only where the question at
issue is the right to a thing of value ex-
ceeding 5000.
Ex-senator Edmunds stated in reply that
the act establishing the Court of Appeals
OF the District placed it in the position oc-
cupied by the United States circuit courts.
From thos. courts, argued Senator Ed
r1unds, a writ of error undoubtedly lies to
the Supreme Court where there is consti-
tutional question involved.
Mr.. Brney read several decisions rem
dered by the Supreme Court in the FARMS
worth, Cross and Heath cases. in which
the court he claimed, expressly he'd that
in criminal case writ of error does not
lie, even though there be a constitutional
question at issue.
Mr.. Chief Justice Alvey instructed Mr..
Chapmans counsel to put their applica-
ton in writing, which was done, and the
chief justice announced that the court
would take the matter into consideration.
We will endeavor to shortly dispose of the
matter he explained, "and II we have
any doubt about it, We viii give Mr.. Chap
man the benefit of it, and allow the writ
of error. But we may conclude that the
Supreme Court has, the district attorney
contends, expressly declared shat the de-
fendant has no such riglt. Then he can
Court for the allowance of the writ, and,
if that be denied, he can petition for a writ
of habeaS corpus
From the Court of Appeals the party
| went to Criminal Court No. 1. where Sena-
tor Edmunds, Mr.. Wilson and MI Ma
thaniel Wilson opposed the request of
District Attorney Birney that the cases
against the remaining alleged contumacious
witnesses, ,Messrs. Edwards, Shrlver. .Macart-
ney, Havemeyer Searles and seymour, be
set for trial on the 9th of this month.
No public demand or necessity, asserted
counsel, exists for a trial OF the cases at
such an early date, and they also thought
that in view of the fact hat there is "A
strong probability of the case getting be-
fore the Supreme Court, even admitting
that the Court of Appeals will refuse to al
low a writ of error there should he no
| more trials until after The Supreme Court
disposes of the matter finally.
MIR. Blrney remarked that if, it became
necessary for the Supreme Court to pass
upon the question, final disposition of the
matter could not be secured for several
months. Perhaps not for nearly a year
Ihe cases have already been delayed about
Two years, and as the other defendants de-
| chned to abide by the decision in the Chap
man case, the remaining cases. should be
tired before the summer recess.
Judge Cole finally disposed of the matter
by postponing it until. Tuesday next, In
order that the decision of the Court of Ap-
peals in the matter Of the application for
the writ of error might first be ascertained