The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1897-05-28


Newspaper Men.
Washington, May 81" Certainly l am
satisfied with the verdict" said Henry
O. Havemeyer to an Associated Press re.
porter a few minutes after the jury had
returned a verdict of not guilty this after
noon. "The verdict" he said, fought to
be satisfactory to every decent man in
this and every other community" That
was the only expression the president of
the American Sugar Refining company
would make upon the result of his trial
which had been in progress for three days
before Judge Bradley. The verdict was
the elimination of long legal battle
which began three years ago when Mr..
Hayemeyer declined as witness before
the Senate sugar investigating committee
to furnish the committee with data as to
the political contributions made by the
company of which he is president to the
local and state campaigns of 1899 and
1898. Broker Chapman around whom the
preliminary battle waged was found
guilty and is now serving 80 days
sentence in the district Jail. The conclu-
sion of the trial was abrupt. The defense
produced no witnesses. When the govern
ment rested its case yesterday the defense
moved that the court instruct the jury to
order an acQui6tal on six grounds, the
principal one of which was that the COM
mittee did not have jurisdiction and that
the question asked was not pertinent.
The district attorney made valiant at
tempt to induce the presiding judge to
override the motion, but the court after
taking an hour and a half to weigh the
arguments sustained the motion.
In rendering his decision Judge Bradley
declined to rule on the main question as
to the jurisdiction of the Senate commit
tee and said the questions involved in
that proposition were of such grave ine
portance that he would not rule on that
point without further and more careful
examination. But he held it was I'M
necessary to rule on the main question.
Practically he sustained the motion upon
the single ground that the question (call-
ing for data to state and local contribu-
tions, demanded information not within
the knowledge of the witness which he
testified he had no personal knowledge
of, and which if given at all, must have
been procured from books and of which
books themselves were the best testi-
mony) Although the verdict of not
guilty was returned by the jury lit was
verdict returned under the court direc-
Judges throwing the case out OF court.
The case of John E. Searles, secretary
of the sugar trust, who was indicted with
Mr.. Hayemeyer for recusancy will be
called tomorrow.
Washington, May 27.-Interest in the
trial of Henry o. Hayemeyer, president
of the American Sugar Refining COM
pany, was greatly intensified this morn
ing by the pending motion of the defense
to instruct the jury to bring in verdict
of not guilty. 1t was understood of
course that if the court should order an
acquittal the case would come to an alb
rupt close, and that the indictments
against John E. Searles, secretary of the
refining company, and Messrs. Edwards
and Shriever, the newspaper men, would
probably be quashed.
AS soon as the court convened ATTORNEY
Davis entered upon his reply to the
motion of the defence to order an acquit-
tai, which Mr.. Havemeyer's counsel
argued yesterday. Mr.. Davis took up
the propositions upon which the defence
based the motion and met them seriatim,
the defence.
With regard to the proposition that it
was not Mr.. Havemeyer's duty to consult
books and records in order to give testi-
mony which was beyond his recollection,
Mr.. Davis pointed out that when the
question was first propounded Mr.. Have
meyer expressed his willingness to pro,
AZ
question was committee or an individual
question was one of fact for the Jury to
decide. In this view the court apparently
conceded.
AS to the pertinancy of the questions re-
lating to local and state political contri-
buttons, Mr.. Davis pointed out how a
United States Senator; hard pressed in
his local elections, might have appealed
to the sugar refining company for funds
with the understanding that if he
triumphed his vote and influence would
be at the disposal of the sugar trust
g That may be brutally blunt" said the
district attorney. "but it is possibili-
ty."
As to the contention of the defence that
Mr.. Havemeyer should have been warned
that the question he declined to answer
was committee question, Mr. Davis
pointed out that Mr.. Havemeyer was duly
warned that he was making himself
recusant The question put to Mr..
Havemeyer Mr.. Davis insisted, was per-
tinent to the inquiry. 1t had been alleged
by the newspaper articles, the truth of
which, the committee was investigating,
that a director of the sugar trust had
stated that the trust feared nothing from
the Senate. He was quoted as having
said: We own the United States Senate
soul and body, boots and breeches,
brains morals and ALL In the face of
such allegations was it not the duty Of
HE committee, he asked to find out
whether the trust had contributed to local
elections upon the result of which hung
the fate of a United States Senator.
Mr.. Davis scored the sugar trust by
yelled hypothesis and Mr.. Havemeyer
twirled his umbrella unconcernedly and
seemed to be the least interested spectator
in the court room. Mr.. Davis described
the trust as constituencies OCTOPUS, -
reaching from coast to coast, using its
power in politics by the admission of
its president as a Republican in Republi-
~,