Evening star., 1897-05-27


the whole case.
MIR. Johnson briefly replied to Mr.. Davis.
going over the matters advanced by him
yesterday. and taunting the district attor-
ney with having avoided. as he asserted,
the remaining grounds on which the mo-
tion for an acquittal was based MI. john
son reasserted that the question at issue
was not committee one. and that Mr..
Havemeyer was never advised that 1t was
put to him as committee question Not
even the rattlesnake bites. he exclaimed,
until Ii first warns its victim, and the de-
fendant was entitled to no less considera-
ton at the hands of the Senate's commit
tee.
1t was expected that Judge Bradley
he ordered a recess. In order to allow him
TO more fully consider the matter and at
11:20 a recess was taken until 1 o'clock.
Judge Bradley Decides.
1t was some time after l O'Clock when
Judge Bradley assembled the bench and di-
rected a resumption Of the trial Meantime
an immense crowd had gathered in the
court room in anticipation of his decision
OF the motion TO direc: a verdict of acquit-
tai. and while awaiting the arrival OF the
judge pretty little girl or eight or ten
years. who was accompanied by her
mother. entered the court room. and. much
to tue amusement of the spectators, made
her way to Mr. Havemeyer. She reminded
him that she had met him in New York,
where she lives. and then. in pretty
,.
he would not be sent to the horrid jail.
The American sugar king took the H.tle
one in his arms, Kissed her. and thanked
her for her good wishes. The little one
declined to give her name. and hurried TO
her mother as Judge Bradley took his seat
and proceeded to dispose of the motion.
In disposng of the motion Judge Brad
ley said that the questions Involved In It's
support were most important and should
not be disposed of without the greatest
consideration and thought. particularly the
sraver one. that respecting the right or
power of the Senate to make the invcsti-
CATION. Unfortunately. the short time al
lowed him had not been sufficient to per-
nit him to consider all of the reasons ad-
vanced in support of the motion as he
would have liked, but he would never
theless, dispose of the motion.
The judge recited the resolution Of the
Senate authorizing the investigation, and
also compared the case of Chapman with
that against Mr.. Havemeyer, holding that
they are not precisely alike. The court
also read the testimony Of Mr.. Havemeyer,
including the question of Senator Allen and
the subsequent proctcdings. as well as the
answer of the defendant. That testimony,
remarked Judge Bradley. substantially
agreed with the allegations IN the indict-
Elents. and the questions for the court to
determine were was .he Senat"s inquiry a
proper exercise of it's jurisdiction. and was
the question set out in the indictment
pertinent and proper one. A negative all
swer to either would, Of course justify the
court in granting the motion for verdict
oil not guilty.
Motion Granted.
Judge Bradley next referred to the law
alleged to have been violated, saying that
If a person lawfully summoned a wit
ness by either house of Congress refused
to obey the subpoena, or IT, when so sub
refused to answer pertinent ana
proper question. then. in either event. that
person would be guilty of violating the
statute
The defendant. said the court. was law
fully summoned. and testified at great
lei. 9Th. when he was asked to so into de-
tails. That required the acquisition by
him of d. ia from the books of his COM
pany The subpoena was not a subpoena
duces tecum and he did not, therefore.
Lring the company's books In TACT, he
was not required to do more than to testify
as to material pertinent matters within
his own knowledge. That is. all that he
v. as required TO do was to give competent
tes tinlony, impromptu, wholly within mis-
own Knowledge. and it was not, therefore.
his duty to acquaint himself beforehand
under such circumstances.
If he had brought the companyS 8 DOCKS
with him and had them with MIN at the
time he was questioned as TO the deslred
data he would undoubtedly have been in
if he had refused then to give the
data they contained
Senator Aliens question. said Judge Brad
ley was an indefinite request to obtain GER
strued as a subphoena duces tie cum. Then.
again. there is no affirmative evidence that
the books could have refused dormant
Further. said the judge. there is no
proef that the defendant refused to an
swer any question. the most that can be
sd Id being that he declined to furnish GER
tain desired data. which ne did not nave.
the books containir 6 it. those of the Amer
lean Sugar Refining Company. being In
New York.
While there were other important rea-
sons advanced in support of the motion
fer an acquittal. 1t was enough to hold
that the first was sufficient. On the whole
said Judge Bradley. no court in Christen-
dem would hold that witness under such
guilty of contempt
That being SO. it mattered not whether
any corporation or Individual had contrib
uted to state or local compaign purposes.
That question would be disposed of when 1t
properly arose. For the reason stated. said
the Judge. in conclusion, the motion would
he granted. and the jury wouli be directed
to return a verdict of not guilty.
That was done. and after the found YER
diet of not guilty had been returned, and
it had been duly entered by the clerk OF
the court, MIR. Havemeyer was formally
discharged from custody, when he was
at ttorneys.
Senrl4s to Follow.
The decision rendered by Judge Bradley
of the members of the bar and others who
had followed the case. But as the Judge
proceeded with his decision it became evil
dent, of course, that he would direct YER
dict of not guilty. and his final announce
T,ent Was. therefore. received as a matter
of course.
District Attorney Davis was a greatly
man. and not little surprised
one. he having confidently expected that
the motion would be overruied. He, how
ever. Immediately notified Messrs. John
son, Wilson and Parsons, counsel for John
L. Searles. the Indicted secretary of the
American Sugar Refining Company, thai he
will proceed with his trial tomorrow. Mr.
Seafles will also be tried before Judge
Bradley.
He is charged with having, June 13, 1894,
refused to state the amount contributed by
The American Sugar Refining Company in
the political campaign OF 1892 to the demo-
cratic party in New York state
Mr. Davis explained to a Star reporter
that Mr.. Searles absolutely refused 20 an
swer. and that his case differs widely from
that OF Mr.. Havemeyer.
Therefore. Mr.. Davis does not fear a like
decision in the Searles case py the court,
and expressed himself as being confident
OF securing his conviction.
The cases against Newspaper Correspon-
dents Shriver and Edwards, Mr. Davis ex-
poets to try before Judge Bradley next
" ednesday.