New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-06-22
ALLEN J.. SEYMOUR ACQUITTED.
ANOTHER SUGAR WITNESS FOUND NOT GUILTY
BY ORDER OF JUDGE BRADLEY-MACART
NEY'S TRIAL BEGUN

NEY's TRIAL BEGUN
Washington. June H.-Judge Bradley this morn
ing instructed the jury to acquit Allen L. Seymour
on trial for alleged contempt OF the Senate Sugar
Trust Investigating Committee. The SPECIFIC ques-
ton Mr. Seymour declined to answer was: Have
YOU any knowledge of any purchase or sale through
the agency of your house otherwise of so-caled
Sugar stock by any United States Senators during
the last winter spring." lie also declined TO
answer a similar question as 10 whether he had
executed any order for the purchase or sale of
Sugar stock. directly or indirectly, Tor senator
Camden Of West Virginia.
Judge Wilson. Of this city. appeared for Mr. Sey-
mour The trial was conducted along the lines Of
the other cases II developed In the course Of the
testimony that Mr.. Seymour, ike Mr.. Edwards,
was summoned by telegraph. As soon as the prose-
cution closed Judge Wilson moved that an acquit-
tai be ordered on the ground that there was no evil
dence that the defendant had been legally sum-
moned Distrct-Attorney Davis pointed out that
there was difference between the case of Mr. Ed
wards and that OF Mr.. Seymour. Both accepted
summons by telegraph. but in the former case no
subpoena was issued. while in the latter one was
issued and placed in the hands OF the Sergeant-at-
Arms of the Senate for service.
before the motion was argued some OF inc VIZ
nesses were cross-exsmined. and it developed mat
The dav after Mr. Seymour's refusal IN answer the
committees questions he made statement IN
which he said that In justice TO al the 1enaIoI
sugar stock for any of them: The next day he
went before the committee and asked TO withdraw
hat testimony on account of errors which ne ne
cned TO point out. Thereupon. on motion OF sen
ator Davis he was certified 10 the Grand Jury TOT
contumacy After the motion had been argued
Jndec Bradley asked District-Atiorhey Davis II.
leaving the question OF service out OF consideration
there was anything in the case upon which the
iurv could he asked TO return II verdict Of guilty.
''Frankly." replied Nj. Davis, Il 90 not thhk
there is 800, =,
Judge BRADLEY then sustained the motion. and by
his direction the jury returned verdict OF not
guilty. ,,,,,...
broker and inc last Of the Witnesses indicted for
REFUSING ia testify before the Senate Sugar Trust
investigating Committee. opened In the afternoon.
Mr. Mccartney like Mr.. Seymour. was asked by
ihn committee whether any United States Senato tor
during the pendency Of the Tariff bill Of 1894 had
dealt in Sugar stock through his firm. He declined
10 answer. He was then asked whether any clerks
10 Senators had speculated through his firm Il
must decline to answer he replied, not because
they ever did. but because OF the principle in.
volved" The testimony showed that IN the case or
Mr. Mccartney unlike that OF Mr.. Seymour the
| defendant was subpn,naed and personally accepted
service and that tho examination OF Mr. Macar-
new was conducted by Senator Allen. When the
| Government rested It's case the defendants cOun-
sci moved for an acquittal on the ground that the
| questions asked individual not committee.
| Questions and that the committee did not insist on
replies to them. 49,,
At the close OF the arguments Judge Bradley took
| the motion under advsement and the court ad-
| journed until Tomorrow"