The times., 1897-05-27

be convicted ii must be shown, in a way
that th.sTcportdoes not show that the COM
rnittee. OF which he alone can be recusant,
advised him that the question which was
put TO him wasa question, not ola member
OF the committee, but of the committee
itself
Sixth That the Indictment does not
disclose the cause or action by reason OF
its failure to make certain averments that
were necessary.
Mr. johnson proceeded to argue the
points made oneof the strong points made
was that contributions to State elections
as in New York and New Jersey, were not
an offense against the Senate of the United
States He said that Mr.. Havemeyer had
admitted coz triirutions 70 municipal cam
paign purposes. but that when the CON-
Inittee asked him how much, Mr. Have
meyer ought 10 have told the interrogator
it was none OF his business
It was an important question. What was
there in the question that could have been
legally insisted on by the Senate in Its
arrogation OF dominion over private rights"
II would be a miserable thing if modern
star chambers could exercise the right
over private affairs claimed by the Sen
ate Committee of Inquiry. Mr.. johnson
quoted Judge Miller in the Kilbourne case,
20 show that II was the function OF the
courts TO determine the question OF per-
sonal rights involved.
he made the point that two OF the five
of the commit tee declared that the question
was, to Mr.. Hayemeyer, impertinent-
On the second point he said that Mr.
Havemeyer admitted that the special
amounts contributed in certain States
could be aScertained from the books OF
the company. Hehad declined TO examine
the books and refresh his memory from
theTn, which was a most extraordinary
proposition This was the contempt for
which he was to he condemned, forsooth,
by jary of twelve men
The third proposition. he said, was allied
to the second, because it demanded the
production Of data from books not even
kept by Mr. Havemeyer. He was asked to
go to New York and come back with fig
ures. but that would be hearsay testimony
as the books could have been produced
There could have been nothing in such
d proposition, but malice hissed Mr..
johnson.
The committee had the right to send for
persons and papers, and the books if they
wanted them Havemeyer was summoned
personally, and not with a subpoena and
tecum duces The committee failed TO do
its duty or exercise its rights. but that
could not be charged to Mr.. Havemeyer
As TO the fourth proposition, Mr.. John
son said that the crucial question put 10y
Senator Allen was too broad The indIct-
ment was also too broad, and full of
lii,elous innuendoeS; and, so far as the
matter of contribution was concerned, it
was evidently the idea to convey the i'm
preston that moneys for Democratic State
campaigns in S92 might have been used
to elect legislatures to elect United States
Senators, for instance, in New York or
New Jersey, when Mr. Murphy and Mr.
Smith were elected Senators. Mr.. John
son stated this proposition with great
energy: mo man can put his question
in such way as TO experiment with
witness with q view of forcing him into
recusancy."
The question put to Mr.. Havemeyer vas
hpgger-nIugger, piling of 2 elan on Ossa.
d tri-harrel, multipIe-barrel interrogatory,
and it was lot the duty of the witness to
select the good and reject the bad.
You can't say to Iayman on
the stand in such a case, without coun-
sci, to answer as he would be entitled 10
answer, OF detnur il he had such counsel
to separate the good from the bad
On the point as to whether it was the
question of Senator Alien Or of the COM
mittee, Mr.. johnson said that there was a
discussion among the members Of the COM
Inittee after the question was first put, and
it was alleged that three agreed to adopt
it as the question OF the committee andnot
OF Senator Allen, two members dissenting
But even Mr. Allen himself putting the ques-
tion says: 81 request that full data, ETC.
Therefore it was the individual question or
the interlocutor and not OF the committee.
Then the committee adjourned, Mr.. Have
meyer being only recusant to Mr.. Alien At
the next meeting the witness was not told
that the committee had come to a secret
understa nding, and he desired to answer
then the question put on the previous day
by Senator Allen. He had not then and
never mas had any Information that it had
been adopted as the question OF the COM
nittee Mr.. Johnson held that it was The
duty OF the committee to show that the
status of the question had been changed
After celebrating this point Mr.. johnson
moved that the court direct the jury to
acauit the defendant.
3 . m had arrived, which was taken until
today at 10 a. m Mr. Davis will be
heard in opposition to the motion an prob
ably others On either side