New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-06-19
CORRESPONDENTS ACQUITTED
sHRIvER AND EDWARDS NOT GUILTY OF
CONTEMPT
THE CASE AGAINST BOTH THE ALLEGED REcu-
SAINT SUGAR WITNESSES DISMISSED by

| THE CASE AGAINST BOTH THE ALLEGED REcU-
SAINT SUGAR WITNESSES DISMISSED by
ORDER OF JUDGE BRADLEY.
Washington June 1s.-.Iohr s. shriver ard E. j.
Edwards correspondents Of 1.-THE New-Yorh Mail
and Express" and The Philadelphia Press, were
acquitted Of contempt Of the Senate Sugar lnvesti-
eating Committee to-day by order Of Judge Brad
| ley
Judge Bradley based his decision in the Shriver
on two points-frst. that the witness had not
been legally summoned. and second that the ques-
tons asked him were not pertinent The contention
of the defence. that communications TO newspaper
men privileged class. the Court refused to
sustain hut it declared that to ask the witness
the Of his informant not a pertinent
question The counsel for the defence now hold
that a precedent is established which virtually
brings newspaper witnesses within the privileged
class.
Mr.. Shrver accompanied to court. by his
counsel. Judge Dittenhoefer. OF New-York. and
Judge Wilson, Of Washington. Judge Bradley, on
ascending the bench. began at once 10 read his
opinion from typewriter copy. In reviewing the
various grounds upon which the defence asked FOR
an acquttal he called attention to the fact that
Mr. Shriver had received every opportunity TO con-
suit counsel and had deliberately refused to answer
certain questions. It only remained he said, to de-
termine whether the defendant privileged
witness, whether he had been legally summoned.
and whether the questions asked him were peril
nent to the inquiry. The common law. Judge Brad
ley said held confidential communications between
husband and wife and client and counsel TO be
privileged. and States by statute had in
cuded in this class physicians and spiritual ad-
visers Only one State. to the knowledge or the
Court had gone so far as TO include newspaper
editors. reporters and correspondents in the priv
ileged class In tho absence Of express legislation
by Congress TO support this view. he should de-
cline to entertain II himself
THE SUMMONS NOT LEGAL.
on the legality Of the summons the Court held
that n witness who voluntarily appeared before
court and after appearing refused to answer
pertinent questions put himself clearly in con-
tempt. In the present case however. there was a
specific criminal statute involving fine and i'm
prisonment and in such case he felt bound 10 con-
strue the strictly in accordance with the text.
The witness had not been legally summoned, and
was therefore not In contempt. Such contingencies
could he avoided by officially summonng every wit
ness whether willing to appear without such sum-
mons not.
Coming down 10 the pertrence or impertinence OF
the questions asked. Judge Bradley said the evil
dence was that the correspondent had been told by
a Congressman that the Congressman had been
told by wire manufacturer that the wire manu-
| facturer had overheard In the Arlington Hotel
conversation between certain persons which led
ect of Congress In framing the statute under which
| the prosecution brought TO give the committee
| the right to secure any real information in pos
session Of a witness IL was also plain that Con-
gress wished 10 protect the witness when the COM
mittee wandered off into the realm OF the coatera.
| and irrelevant. Had the correspondent given the
name OF the Congressman who was his informant.
| it doubtless might have been convenience TO the
| committee in enabling them to summon the Con-
rnig 9Th
| nshed the name Of the wire manufacturer. who
migbt have given some testimony as 10 what he
| had heard behind closed doors. But this devious
| method Of reaching witness three times removed
| did not constitute pertinent question. The de-
PENDANT was not guilty Of contempt, and the jury
was ordered return verdict Of acquittal The
verdict was rendered without the jury leaving the
| box.
| EDWARDS QUICKLY ACQUITTED.
Notwithstanding the loss OF the shriver case. Dis
| trict-AttoTney Davis this afternoon began the
prosecution of the OF f. ]. Edwards. the New
| York correspondent Of THE Philadelphia Press"
| likewise charged with refusal to give the Senate
| Sugar Trust Investigating Committee the OF
| his information. When the court opened Mr.. Ed
war1ss counsel waived The Formally Of an arragn-
| rnent and entered plea OF not guilty. Assistant
Disrici-Attornev Baker then went through the for
MALT Of readng large section Of The indictment
| mality he had observed In each OF the four pre-
| After the reading of the Indictment Frank s
| Bright assistant sergcant-at-arms OF the Senate
called TO establish the fact that subpoena 10
| the defendants. The subpoena itself had been lost
but after considerable contention between counsel
summoned at all It was by telegraph although wit
| ness could recollect positively.
| Senator Gray Of Delaware, chairman OF the In
vestigatng Committee was also called and after
seventeen minutes Of objection and interruption by
sncsecded IL liza getting citing before the court the
cammitfee's question az 10 who gave him the infor-
nation which his article In Tho Philadelphia
Press based.
could add nothing to the evidence OF Mr. Bright to
| the fact OF summons being served on Mr. I'D
| wards. Mr. Davis then announced that he had no
| further evidence TO Offer on this point. and sug-
eested that II in the opinion OF the Court this
| no. enough 10 establish the fact OF legal sum-
mons It would be economy Ct time and money TO
the question arose whether telegram such as bad
| been sent 10 Mr.. Edwards was legal summons,
d-nce to this effec; before the court copy OF the
telegraphic form which had been offered in evidence
read: you requested 10 aprear before the
| mi'tee. etc. DO you accept this az n legal sum
mons? Answer. This the Court held showed tha,
| even the Senate committee did rot consider II the
equivalent Of legal summons The Court would
| n verdict OF acquit.al. which was done. Judge
| Bradley moreover; voluntarily declared that If the
| ruling OF the subpoena he would have directed "A
verdict OF acquital the ground that the questions
asked Mr. Edwards were not pertinent 20 the In
uuiry.
| District-Attorney Davis gave notice before the
| court adjourned that he would call up the cases OF
Mccartney and Seymour. the Washington stock
| In speaking OF the decision In the Shriver case
| Judge Di'tenhoefer said: We consider It a great
| Judge held that. In the absence OF legislation by
| Congress granting 10 newspaper men the privilege
he was not prepared hold that such privilege ex-
isted. yet by hs decision that l. could not be pert-