Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-01-15
THE DEFENSE OPENS
Other Side Of the Sugar Witness
Case.
Mf. Chapman Takes the Stand-Evi.
dcnce Presented I'm the
Affair Today.

The eighth day Of the trial Of Mr.. Elver-
ton r. Chapman. the alleged recalcitrant
sugar trust witness, which opened this
morning before Judge Cole in Criminal
Court No. 1. was marked by the beginning
of the case for the defense.
The proceedings were opened by Mr.. Will
son, who offered in evidence a copy Of the
journal Of The Senate of the second session
Of the Fiftythird Congress, to show what
action was taken by the Senate in respect
to the report of the Senate investigating
committee.
According to Mr.. Wilson, the Senate took
no action whatsoever on the report of the
committee. Mr.. Birney objected to the ad-
mission of the copy in evidence on the
ground that 1t was immaterial and irrele-
want, and the objection was sustained.
Fluctuating Stock.
Mr.. w. B. Hibbs, the local stock broker,
who testified for. the prosecution. was
called by Mr.. Wilson. and stated that he
had been familiar with the prices Of sugar
stock during the past four years. through
en- examination of the manual prepared
from the official sheets of the stock ex-
change. In 1891 the lowest price of sugar
StCCA was 81 LIZ, luC hSuCSts OO o-Cp III
1892, the lowest 70 IL, the highest, lis 3-s;
in 1893, the lowest 81 3D.. the highest,
134 81, which was the highest price ever
brought by sugar; In 1904, the lowest Is 5-S
the highest. ia 7-S: in 1895. the lowest
SO 10. and the highest, 121 49, A number
Mr. Hibbs to show that the prices were not
Influenced by the tariff legislation in 1894.
The witness explained the causes Of f1uc-
trations in stock to be the character of
demand. Expected adverse legislation, &C
cording to the witness. does not always
have the effect on stock that Is generally
supposed will follow. Mr.. Hibbs replied in
the price Of sugar would decline when the
bill passed the House putting sugar on the
free list, but admitted that it was one of
the influences that affected the price.
Dealings of Senator's.
Mr.. William c. Prentiss. the stenographer
of the Senate investigating committee, was
the next witness, and he was asked if any
Senator appeared before the committee and
was examined to learn If such Senator had
dealt in sugar stock during the tendency
of the tariff legislation. The district at
torney objected to the question, and after
argument by Mr.. Dittenhoefer, the court
sustained the objection.
The remainder Of the morning session was
devoted to an examination of Mr.. Prentiss
by the defense, to show that the questions
alleged in the indictment to have been pro-
pounded to Mr.. Chapman were actually
never asked
After recess Mr.. Wilson created some
surprise by placing his law partner, Sam
uel Shellaharger, on the stand. Mr.. Shella-
barger was asked whether or not Mr..
Chapman sought his professional advice in
regard to answering the questions of the
Senate investigating committee, but Mr..
Birney objected, and Judge Cole ruled in
favor Of the district attorney. Other Ques-
tons of the same nature were asked, OBJ
5ections entered and similar rulings made
Mr.. Dittenhoeffer, of counsel for the de-
tense, was also sworn as q witness. He
was asked the same questions as were put
to Mr.. Shellabarger. but they were all OBJ
jected to, and the objections were sus-
tanned.
Mr.. Chapman Testifes.
The defendant, Mr.. Elverton r. Chap
man, was next placed on the stand Mr.
Wilson stated to the court that he desired
to prove by Mr.. Chapman that the latter
when under examination by the Senate
committee made answer as has heretofore
been published. His testimony before the
committee was read to Mr. Chapman and
he declared 1t to be substantially correct.
On cross-examination Mr.. Chapman ad-
mitted that he had read the statute under
which he was indicted, and thereupon the
defense was permitted to show by the wit
gard to answering the questions of the Sem
ate committee. He was then examined in
detail By MIR. Birney as to the questions
and answers set forth in the printed testi-
mony before the committee.
Reasons for Refusing.
Mr.. Chapman further testified that he de-
clined to answer the questions of the COM
mittee in good faith and in pursuance of the
advice of Messrs. Shellabarger and Often
hoefer and with no intention to defy the
committee. but to discharge his duty and to
maintain his rights under the Constitution
of the United States.
The defense sought to prove by Mr.. Harry
Smith, a Senate committee clerk, that the
Senate did not authorize the use of its seal
in the transmission Of the papers in the case
to the district attorney, but objection was
entered.
The case of the defense was then an
nounced as closed and Mr.. Dittenhoefer
asked that the jury be directed to acquit
the defendant on the ground that there had
been no evidence presented in the case to
sustain the allegations set forth in the in
dictment.
Mr.. Dittenhoefer argued at length in sup
Fort of his motion.
At 3 o'clock tie court adjourned until to-
morrow morning at 10 o'clock, when the
district attorney will argue against the
court directing the return Of a verdict of
not guilty.