The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-05-25
HAVENEYBR ON TRIAL.
The Sugar Millionaire Ar
raigned for Refusing to
Answer the Senate's
Enquiries.
POLITICS BEFORE THE JURY
Effects Of Tariff Change on The
Trusts Profits -Great Crowd
in Court.

WASHINGTON May 25, 1S97-The trial
of H. 0. .Havemeyer, President of the
American Sugar Refining Company, for
refusing to answer the questions of the
Senate Sugar Investigating Committee in
the spring of 1894, began in Criminal
Court No 1, at the City Hall, this morn
ing. Elverton R. Chapman, the first of
the five contumacious witnesses indicted
under Article 102 of the revised statutes,
after having appealed to the Supreme
Court Of the United States, is now serving
thirty-day sentence in the District jail
John e. Searles, Secretary of the Sugar
Trust; e. ]. Edwards and John S. Shriver,
the newspaper men, the Others will be
tried probably in the order named. Have
meyer and Searles Were indicted October
l, 1894
There was a very large crowd in at
tendance this morning to witness the un-
usual spectacle of millionaire on trial
Among them were many distinguished
personages, including Senators Gray
Lodge, Lindsay and Davis; Congressman
Richardson, John E. Searles. Judge
Bradley presided.
District Attorney Davis conducted the
case on behalf of the United States. The
defendant was represented by a brilliant
array of counsel, including Nathaniel
Wilson of this city, John S. Johnson of
Philadelphia and John E. Parson of New
York. Mr.. Wilson said the defendant was
ready for trial when the case was called
and the work of impanelling jury be-
gan. Little trouble was experienced in
securing a jury The District Attorney
asked each of the proposed jurymen
whether he had any interest, direct or
Indirect in the American Sugar Refining
Company. OF the first twelve men Mr..
Wilson made three peremptory chal-
lenges. The next three called were salts
factory to the defence, and in less than
half an hour after the Court convened
District Attorney Davis opened the case
with his statement to the jury.
Mr. Davis called attention to the great
length of the indictment and the record
in the Chapman case. In the latter case
he said that Court (Judge Cole) had held
that the question as to the pertinency of
the questions propounded by the Senate
Committee was not in issue, the issue be-
ing as to whether the Senate Committee
was properly constituted and answers to
questions propounded refused. AT the
outset he asked the Court to rule as to
whether the pertinency of the questions
propounded by the committee were in is
sue. Mr.. Johnson for the defendant, in
sisted that the District Attorney present
his case in accordance with the indict-
ment Judge Bradley said he must de-
cline at the outset to set any limitations,
although he freely expressed the opinion
that the indictment was much more vol
luminous than was necessary
The District Attorney then proceeded
with his statement, sketching, in extenso,
the political issue in the National cam
paign of 1892, the certainty of tariff re-
duction if the Democrats should tri-
umph, and the interest the Sugar Rein
ing Company had in the defeat of the
members of the House and Senate who
were hostile to them. The tariff bill,
which subsequently passed the House,
placed sugar on the free list, and, there
fore, the District Attorney says was dis
tinctly unfavorable to the business and
the stock of the company. 1t was conse-
quently, he pointed out to the jury, to the
interest of the company that the bill as
it passed tine House should not pass The
stock of the company fell. But when the
Jones amendments were presented in the
Senate placing duties and differentials on
sugars amendments favorable to the
company, the value of the stock in
creased. Thus matters stood, he said,
when on May II the Senate resolution for
an investigation of the questions of
whether the Sugar Refining Company had
contributed to the previous campaign;
whether any Senators had speculated in
sugar stock, as alleged, ETC., was adopted.