The times., 1897-05-27
MR. WILSON.

troll Of prices of refined sugar, the de-
struction OF rival companies, the profits OF
the company, $4,000 900 in three years;
his contributions to Republicans and Demo
Gratis alike in local matters.
Stenographer W c. Miller, who ad mis-
placed some of his notes, was put on the
stand. He had found his notes, and was
asked TO read certain parts OF them in the
original, and specifically as to the ques-
ton by MI Allen if Mr Havemeyer would
submit an account of money contributed by
hin for campaign purposes
Mr. johnson here offered TO read other
parts Of Havcmeyer's testimony not quoted
in the Indictment, and specifically the letter
of Holland in the Philadelphia newspaper.
He said that tie whole conversation should
lave been given.
Mr. Davis said that the newspaper az
ticle was not relevant
Judge Bradley sustained the point that all
of the con versation Of Mr.. Havemeyer was
admissible.
Nr johnson created good deal of amusc
rItent by the serious manner in which he
readthe specula latiUns of the newspaper man
relating To the meeting between Mr. Have
meyer and Mr Benedict and Mr. Cleveland
on a yacht 10 talk over the sugar trust in
tcrests. all of which Mr. Havemeyer denied
point blank as to a yacht or any place.
In fact. he had never seen Mr. Cleveland in
his life. but he might know him from his
pictures
This testimony amused Gen. Grosvenor,
OF Ohio, who was sitting directly behind
,Ir johnson Mr.. Hayemeyer was also
incidentally amused at the sDenogTaphic
phonogrpph OF what he said
Mr.. Havemeyer laughed outright at the
reading OF the account OF the alleged
meeting between him and Senator CAT
fiery. Mr.. Terrell and others at the Cap
itoI on one Sunday morning, when they
were fixing up sugar schedule all
OF which Mr.. Havemeyer denied. Mr. John
son also read parts of the testimony in
which Mr. Havemeyer denied contribu-
tions TO the national campaign funds
This was regarded as an important part
Of the case, because 1t will doubtless be
sought TO be shown that Mr.. HavemeyeT
did answer the things for which he had
been accused of recusancy.
Mr.. johnson also read those parts of
the testimony, III which Mr.. Hayemeyer
denied that he knew of any Senator who
speculated in stocks, or OF any one who
made u combination to affect legislation,
that there was no suggestion OF obliga-
tion to the trust made to any member of the
Finance Committee.
A recess was taken until 1 p n.
After the recess Mr.. Johnson concluded
the reading of Mr.. Havemeyer's testimony.
Mr. Davis then read extracts from the
printed testimony of Mr. Haveme yer.
which went to show what effect pro-
posed legislation W ould have on the
prices of sugar.
Mr.. johnson replied with such parts
of the testimony as showed the forma-
ton Of the trust, and he laid stress On
the statement of Mr.. Havemeyer that after
the formatio of the trust the price of sugar
to the consumer had decreased. Mr.. Have
meyer in this part OF his testimony stated
that no Senator occupied the place of an
attorney for the American Sugar Refining
Company.
The defense waived objection to the
introduction of the journals of the assem-
blies of New York and New Jersey, it be-
ing admitted that there were elections,
State, county and municipal, in those
States at the times alleged
Mr Davis offered in evidence, without
objection, the files Of the New York Sun
and Philadelphia Press for the month Of
May, 1894. This, he said, closed his case.
MIR Johnson moved for an acquittal on
the following grounds:
First. That there was no rightin the SEN
ate Of the United States to make any In
quiry concerning the contributions local or
State, by the American Sugar Refining
Company.
Second, That there was no duty on behalf
OF the witness tHavemeyerl to examine the
books of the refining companyin order that
he might thereby answer questions which
he could not answer from his memory
Third That the question in reply to
which the defendant is averred to have been
recusant is a question which demanded
him to produce data from books, and that
the proper method of obtaining information
contained in books was by the production
Of the books and not by a demand that the
witness should take figures therefrom.
Fourth. That the question as 1t was rut
to the witness was too broad; that it
involved matters concerning which there
can be no possible right to demand an
witness to answer the question as whole
as it was put. and that it was not his
duty to take out OF the question the
parts which he might answer (even IL
did not ans wer all he was obliged to- and
to specify those to which he should not
reply.
Fifth. That before the defendant can