Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-01-10
MIR. Searles Refuses to Answer Oues-
tions in Sugar Case.
UPHELD BY The COURT
The Decision Caused an Abrupt
adjournment Today.
INTERESTING ARGUMENTS

4
Attorney Birney to a Star reporter this
morning just before the case of Mr.. Elver-
ton K Chapman, the alleged recalcitrant
sugar trust witness, was resumed before
Judge Cole in Criminal Court No. l. THE
presentation of my side of the case would
not occupy more than one day al the ut
! most If the defense would refrain from OBJ
1ecting to and arguing on every little point
mad thought We would conclude in two
days. but now We are beginning on the
/ fifth, with the end still in the dim dis
tance."
According to Judge Dittenhoeffer, Of
counsel for the defense, it would seem
| that the trial will not continue longer
| than Monday rext
Some surprise resulted at the beginning
OF the hearing today, when the district
| attorney announced that he would place
Mr john K Searles on the stand. Mr.
Searles is secretary of the alleged sugar
| trust, and is also under Indictment and
awaiting trial or charge identical to that
against Mr.. Chapman. He might be con-
s'oered a hostile witness, as his interests
are naturally the same are Mr. Chap
mans. Mr.. Searles was not in court at the
time, and, pending his arrival Judge Je-s
Nnsoh ei.ertaineo the newspaper men
with series of humorous anecdotes.
Refuses to Testify,
Mr. Searles, after a short delay reached
the court, and, after being placed under
| oath, stated. in answer to a question from
| Mr. Birney. that he is secretary and treas
urer OF the American Sugar Refining Com
| pany, holding those Offices since the or
ganization of the company in 1891.
Al this point ex-senator Edmunds arose
ana SAID: Does Mr.. Brney expect Mr..
Searies to furnish evidence to secure his
conviction when he is placed on trial
charged with a similar offense as is now on
hearing? AS his counsel, 1 advise him not
district attorney"
Under the advice of my counsel" ther
said Mr.. Searles, "in respect to my consti-
tutional rights, and with all respect to the
court decline to answer this Question and
all Others relating to the transactions of
| which / have knowledge, alleged in the in
dictment in this case, for the reason that i
am myself under indictment in this court
Tor an alleged misdemeanor growing out of
| these very transactions, and, therefore any,
thing 1 may testify to in this case relating
to those transactions might have a tendency
10 criminate myself if the Indictment
| against me is valid as this court has held n
to be. 1 have been guilty of no offense
| against either law or morals in my conduct
preceding my being called as witness be-
lore the Senate committee, but I am now
accused OF an offense in refusing to answer
certain questions which were as 1 thought.
and still think, an invasion of one of the
most sacred of the private rights of all Gift
zens. In this state of things feel il TO he a
DUTY to stand upon my personal, constitu-
uonal protection.
Mr.. Birney Insists.
Il insist that my questions be answered.
| said Mr.. Birney, land ask the court to re-
| quire the witr ess to make the necessary re-
| Plies l do not intend to ask him anything
concerning what occurred before the Senate
| investigating committee or touch on any
| ohense with which he may stand charged
l shall ask him only matters relating to the
business of the American Sugar Refining
| Company. But even if / should go into the
| anaIrs OF the committee. the witness would
be required to make answer IL so directed
| by the court, and he would be protected
under section $50 of the Revised Statutes of
| the United States. which provides that no
testimony given by witness in a court of
| justice could ever be used against him in a
criminal prosecution.
Mr. Birney then argued in support of his
| position and read authorities to confirm the
same.
The Other Side.
On the Other side of the question, ex-Sen-
| ator Edmunds stated that Mr.. Searles had
| testified under oath that he was under in
| dictment for criminal offense. This court
\ knows judicially, he continued, that every
count in the indictment in the case on trial
| is practically identical with those in the pre-
| sentiment against the witness. Mr.. Chap
man was asked by the Senate committee
|
| for Senat while in the case of Mr.. Searles
the inquiry was to the effect how much
| money he had contributed to the democratic
| campaign fund in the state of New York for
the preceding election.
| With this exception, declared ex-senator
| Edmunds, the two indictments are similar,
| and that is all / desire To say on that
point. A case under the interstate COM
| merce law, decided by the Supreme Court
| was cited by the ex-senator 20 show rnat a
witness could not be required to testify IL
/ such testimony tended to criminate him.
self.
Judge Dittenhoefer followed ex-senator
Edmunds. reviewing the well-known case
Of Taylor, the Cornell University student.
| "At banquet held by the sophomore
class at Cornell, said Judge Dittenhoefer,
chlorine gas was injected into the room
and the death of one person followed.
Taylor, one Of the students in chemistry,
| was summoned before the grand jury and
| asked, Who was your roommate? a more
l-innocent question than the one put to the
| witness how OH the stand. Taylor refused
| to make answer on the ground that it m :ght
| criminate himself He was adjudged guilty
! of contempt, the decision was affirmed by
| the appellate court, but was then carried
| to the court of appeals, and there in the
| higher tribunal, the decision was reversed"
| Mr.. Birney, at the request of the court
| repeated the questions he intended to ask
| Mr.. Searles, and declared further that
| nothing he would ask would tend to GRIM
mate the witness.
| Judge Cole Immediately devoted himself to
the reading Of authorities.
| The Arrangement.
The district attorney yesterday asked
Judge Edmunds whether he would not con-
sent to his reading in evidence. Mr. Searles'
| testimony before the Senate investigating
| committee, which would relieve him from
| putting Mr.. Searles on the stand. Judge
| Edmurds answered that he could not agree
| to il without consulting Judges Wilson and
| Ditterhaefer. There was a long conference
| or this point and the two latter insisted
| that if the district attorney wanted the
| testimony he must put Mr.. Searles or the
| stand, and he must take the responsibility
/, of answering or declining to answer. There
| fore, Judge Edmunds advised Mr.. Searles
| TO pursue the course he did today.
Not Required 10 Answer.
After recess. Judge Cole ruled on the ques-
| ton. fortunately, we are relieved from
| constituting the Constitution" he said. 'for
| that has been done FOR us by the Supreme
| Court OF the United States: that is binding.
| Undoubtedly counsel holds that section 500
| OF the Revised Statutes is not the equivalent
] OF the constitutional provision. That pro-