The record-union., 1896-12-01
For Refusing to Answer Questions Pro-
pounded by the Senate Committee
Investigating the Famous Sugar Trust
Rumors
In Connection With the Consideration
of the Tariff Bill in 1898, When 1t
of Congress Were Indirectly Inter-
ested by Proposed Legislation.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 30.-The Su-
preme Court of the United States re-
convened to-day and disposed of thir-
ty-eight cases. The most important,
aside from the Chapman case, was that
of the appeal of the Missouri Pacific
Railway Company from the decree of
the Supreme Court of Nebraska, direct
ing the railway company, at the re-
quest of the State Board of Transpor-
tation, to permit a party of farmers to
erect a grain elevator on its right of
way, and itself to construct a switch
thereto. The case was docketed in the
Supreme Court of the United States Oc
tober 3, 1890, and was argued at the
last term. Disposing of the case, the
opinion said it was not a question af-
fecting rates of transportation, not an
order compelling the railroad company
to erect an elevator, nor a matter af-
fecting equal rights of access to the
property from the outside, but a de-
mand simply for the convenience of the
petitioners that they be permitted to
build the elevator on the property of
the railway company This" says the
opinion, sis the taking of private prop
rty for private use without the due pro-
cess of law, and therefore in vain Of
the plain terms Of the Constitution"
The judgment of the State court was re-
versed, and the case remanded with in
structions to proceed in conformity
with the opinion.
In the case of Pleasant Draper vs. the
United States it was decided that the
words in the Act admitting Montana
to the Union, "and said Indian lands
shall remain under the absolute juris-
diction and control of the Congress of
the United States" do not give to the
courts Of the United States in that State
jurisdiction over offenses committed Oh
said Indian lands. Draper was con-
victed in the Federal Court of murder,
committed on the Crow Reservation,
and will now go back to the State court
for trial.
By its unanimous decision to-day,
announced by Chief Justice Fuiser,g the
Supreme Court practically affirmed the
judgment of the Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia in the case OF
Elverton Chapman, the stockbroker,
who declined to answer questions pro-
pounded by the Senate Committee in
vestigating the famous sugar trust ru-
mors in connection with the considera-
ton of the tariff bill in 1893. The effect
OF this decision is that Mr.. Chapman
must surrender himself to serve a term
of thirty days adjudged against him
upon conviction in the District Court.
and pay a fine of 500.
A collateral effect is that Messrs.
Havemeyer and Searls of the supar
trust and Messrs. Edwards and Shriver
the newspaper correspondents, who also
declined to answer the questions pro-
pounded by the same committee. 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
having been frequently narrated in
these dispatches. Chapman was con-
victed under Section 102, Revised Stat
utes, which provision is punishment for
failure to answer questions asked by
any committee of Congress, the court
overruling all suggestions that the seq
ton was unconstitutional. He sued ont
a writ of error to have the case reviewed
by the United States Supreme Court
and the Government moved TO dismiss
the writ on the ground that the Sunreme
Court had no jurisdiction to review tba
judgment of the District Courts in
criminal cases
The appellate jurisdiction of the Sill,
preme Court the Justice said. rested on
the Act of Congress and the provision
contained in the Act. In the case of
the United States VS.. Moore decided in
1909. Chief Justice Marshall held that
the Supreme Court of the United States
had no jurisdiction under the Act of
1901 over judgments of the District
Courts in criminal cases. Marshall
said The words matter in dispute
seem appropriate to civil cases when
the subject in contest has a value be-
yond 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 upwards
of 500, yet that is. in the eve of the
law, punishment for the offense COM
mitted, and not the particular object
of the suit"
This construction of the law was car
ried forward until subsequent legisla-
ton, and was affirmed in several de-
cisions as to laws of March 3. 1891.
and of February 6, 1889 The eighth
section of February 8, 1893, establish
ing the Court of Appeals for the Dis
trict of Columbia, provided for the re-
view by the Supreme Court of the
United States of any final decree of the
District Court In which the matter of
dispute exceeded $1,000, in the same
manner and under the same regulations
as heretofore provided for in cases of
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
statute of or an authority exercised by
the United States.
This Act, and that of 1885. the Chief
Justice said. the court regarded as the
same in their meaning and legal effect,
while the suggestion that because a 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 Justice Marshall in
the case of the United States VS.. Moore;
there was nothing in the opinion of the