Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-06-21
MR.. MACARrNEY.s TRIAL.


poned until O'Clock this afternoon.
MR.. MACARTNEY's TRIAL.
He In ArraiGned Before Justice Brad
ley This Afternoon.
The trial of Mr. John W. Mccartney. in
dicted June 2o and October l. 1894. for re-
fusing to answer inquiries propounded to
him in June. 1894. by the committee of the
Senate appointed to investigate the al
legged bribery of senator's by the sugar trust
in connection with the Wilson tariff bill,
was proceeded with this afternoon before
Judge Bradley. in Criminal Court No. 2
Mr.. Mccartney being the last of the al
legged sugar trust contumacious witnesses
to he placed on trial. Mr.. Mccartney was
represented by Mr.. Jere NJ. Wilson. District
Attorney Davis. assisted by Mr.. d. w
Baker. conducting the prosecution
The same jury. with one exception. SerV-
Eng in the seymour case. were sworn IN
Mr.. Macartney's case. Talesman Geo w.
Marin taking the place of Lawrence u.
Fletcher. Mr.. Baker explained the gov
ernment's case to the jury, stating that
Mr.. Mccartney was asked If any United
States senator or the clerk of any senator
had speculated through his firm (Corson 4
Mccartney in the stocks or certificates OF
the American Sugar Refining Company on
the New York stock exchange between
February /. 1891. and the time of the in
vestigation. and that he declined to answ er
the questions the ground that his bust
ness being a private one the committee had
no right to require an answer.
First Witness Called.
The defense reserved its opening, and
Mr.. Davis called as his first witness Har-
nv H. Smith. the clerk of the committee.
who testified as to the issuance of the sub
poena. summoniDs Mr.. Mccartney a
witness before the committee. Mr.. Smith
also stated that Mr.. Mccartney appeared
and testified before the investigating COM
mittee. r. w. Layton. deputy in the
office of the sergeant-at-arms of the SEN
ate. testified that he personally served the
summons upon Mr.. Mccartney at the lat
ters place of business in this city.
Mr. W. c. Prentiss. who took the testi-
mony of Mr. Mccartney before the COM
mittee. was next called to the witness
stand by Mr.. Davis. He produced his orig
inai notes. and from them read the testi-
mony of the defendant.
Witness Cross-Exnmined
On cross-examination MIR. Wilson asked
MIR. Prentiss if, previous to the testimony
Of Mr. Mccartney. every senator, with the
exception of Senators Quay and McPher-
son. had not testified that they had not
dealt in sugar stocks. Mr.. Davis objected
TO the question. when Mr.. Wilson explain
Ell that he desired to show that the ques-
tons asked Mr.. Mccartney were those
simply of Senator Allen. and that the COM
mittee really did not desire that the de-
PENDANT should answer the questions men,
toned in the Indictment
Judge Bradley. however sustained the
district attorneys objection, Mr. Wilson
noting an exception.
Mr. Davis Their announced the close of
the governments case. when Mr.. Wilson
moved the court to direct a verdict of not
guilty He based the motion on three
grounds First. tina: the questions (which
Mt Mccartney declined to answer were
asked not by the committee, but by Sen
s.tor Allen. second. that the committee did
not insist upon answers to them. and third
that the committee did not inform Mr..
mccartney that answers were required by
the committee. nor did the committee ad-
wise him that his refusal to answer the
questions would subject him to punish
ment-
Was Merely ~ C0liOauy.
Mr.. Wilson proceeded to argue the mo-
tion. contending that the examination OF
Mr.. Mccartney really amounted to a col
loquy between him and Senator Allen. and
that 1t Was Senator Allen and not the COM
mittee who made the inquiries and who
desired that they be answered.
Mr.. Baker Replies.
Mr. Wilson was replied to by Mr.. Baker
and Mr.. Davis. the former remarking that
the only real ground urged In support of
tilt iI'tioii lUF Il NtFulct OF not guilty was
the contention of Mr.. Wilson, that the
questions which the defendant refused 10
answer Were not committee questions.
Mr. Baker submitted that Senator Allen,
d member of the committee represented
the committee in asking the questions
Mr. Baker referred to the fact that Sena-
tor N4ien warned Mr.. Mccartney of the
consequences of his refusal to answer and
that the latter stated in reply that he was
willing TO bear them. The fact that the
C mmittee did not object to the questions
aslkel the defendant by Senator Allen was,
said Mr. Baker. sufficient answer to the
contention of Mr.. Wilson that they were
nor committee inquiries.
Mr. Wilson having claimed that the cues
tons asked MIR. Mccartney were not peril
rert. MI. Davis submitted that they were
Clearly responsive to investigation. as Gi-
rncted by the Senate.
Mr.. Davis also submitted that the defend
ant cannot justify his refusal on the ground
that the inquiries were directed to his
private affairs, for the Supreme Court in
the Chapman case decided that such an
Inquiry can be made.
At ) o'clock court adjourned until to-
morrow morning at 10 O'Clock.