Evening star., 1897-05-28

, gestion by the committee. was there, sena-
tor. that the committee required anything
further from Mr.. Searles when he finally
| left the witness stand?"
Senator Gray-"None that am now
| aware Of and see that the report does
rot suggest anything to the contrary"
Mr. JohDson-"That Is all, senator; I
| tn ank you"
Senator Gray was then excused from the
witness stand, when District Attorney
| ments case. Mr.. Johnson, On behalf Of
| Mr. Searles. promptly moved the court to
| instruct the jury to return a verdict of
not guilty.
Arguing the Motion.
Mr.. johnson explained that he based the
motion on three grounds: First. the cause
| of the questions. as put to the defendant.
were relevant to nothing concerning which
| the committee could be supposed to be au-
| thorized to inquire; second. because there
| is no evidence of contempt of the commit
| tee. but simply contempt, possibly, of Sen
ator Allen, and, third, because the Senate
hau no power whatever to put the Ques-
tfons. even If the resolution directing the
investigation authorized the putting Of
them.
In support of the motion for verdict of
| not guilty. Mr.. Johnson reported his forci-
Bile and eloquent argument made in the
Havemeyer case, He submitted that there
could be absolutely no doubt that the
questions asked Mr. Searles by Senator
Allen We're improper and impertinent. The
committee had no right to assume, in the
| first place, that the defendant knew how
the democratic party used the contribu-
| tions alleged to have been made by his
company. Why" exclaimed Mr.. Johnson,
the Tammany people have a fund, I am
told. used for pensioning their wounded
braves"
My objections may be technical said
the Philadelphia lawyer. but 1 would
them than to have applied to them the
term which Senator Aliens questions de-
served"
Mr. Johnson laid great stress what
he insisted was a fatal defect in the pros
ecution of Mr.. Searles in the committees
failure to subpoena him as an officer of the
American Sugar Refining Company. He
was. said Mr.. Johnson, summoned as 4
private citizen, and not as an officer of the
company.
Therefore he could not be compelled to
answer in full as to what the company did.
mo doubt. remarked Mr.. johnson. 1.-THE
hcad-no. 1 should not say great head
from the great Train of Senator Allen were
thought by him to be very shrewd and
captivating, but it was not. being neither
stands indicted really not for contempt of
the Senate or It's committee, but for con-
tempt Of Senator Allen"
Before Mr.. johnson concluded Judge
Il
| at J2:15 until 1 o'clock.
| MIR. Johr son. In resuming his argument
! after recess. dwelt at some length upon
! the failure of the committee to inform Mr..
| Sea rles that the questions asked him by
ser ators were the questions Of the commit
| tee. anc that ar swers to them would be
| irsisted upon by the committee. No such
| thing. said Mr.. johnson. occurred in the
case OF the defendant. and then he con-
| trasted the proceedings before the commit
| tee when Mr.. Chapman and Correspondent
! Edwards declined to answer the commit
tees QI eStionS.
| was informed that answers would be in
| sisted upon. and that they would not be
| excused from answering, Notwithstanding
| the advice given them by their counsel.
| But even if that had been done in Mr..
] Searles case. submitted Nj. johnson. the
| defendant would not have been bound to
| reply. for the questions put to him were
| not in the power of the Senate to ask.
| Those questions, ne remarked. might be
| permissible under the provisions of the
| Constitution and the laws of the country.
| as the Constitution and laws are under
| stood by senators of the United States. but
1 rot as understood by incorruptible judges.
Reading the decision Of the United States
Supreme Court in the Chapman ans case, Sc MI MI
| case that the Senate could only inquire into
| matters affecting its own members. AID he
| submitted, therefore, that even If 1t had
| been true that the American Sugar Refin-
| ing Company had made contributions to
| state ard local campaign purposes. the
| Senate would not have hal the right tC
| punish any one, even If the contributions
| had been made for corrupt purposes Only
! the states of the municipalities offended
/ against couli punish such thing.
But" exclaimed Mr.. johnson. "it is
claimed that the Senate can punish those
| offerding against it's dignity. The Letter
| way would to protect its dignity by
| acting at all times in dignified way. The
| contribution OF funds for campaign pur.
| poses is not Illegal. ana when Mr.. Searles
| no bargain made in the mater the righ
| of the committee to further interrosatt
| MIN in the matter ceased
The Other Side.
Mr.. johnson was followed by District At
| torney Davis, who explained that he mar
rowed the whole case down to one point
the standing mute by the defendant wher
| questioned by Senator Allen, who, said Mr.
| Davis, represented the whole committee
Il decline to answer" were the defend
ants words. and in that he was clearly. be
yond all doubt, guilty of contempt, not o.
Senator Allen, as Mr.. johnson contended
hut of the committee of which he was
| part.
| Mr.. Davis said he regretted very much
that one of his profession. even in consid
| Grafton of princely retainer, had ever
| suggested that when a member of the Sen
ate is elected through corrupt methods anC
means that body is powerless to inquire
into that matter. and cannot punish the
offender Offenders.
Mr. Davis was still speaking when thi.
| report closed, with the probability that tht
argument would continue throughout thu
day.