The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1897-06-02
SEARLES FOOLS THE SENATE.
JUDGE BRADLEY ORDERS THE sU~
GAR SECRETARY ACQUITTED.

The Court Holds That the Senata
Had No Right to Ask Him tha
Questions PrOpOunded by It's Cons
mittee-The Questions Asked BrOI<-
er Chapman Declared Pertinent.
The senate Could Not Inquire Into
the Sugar Trusts Contributions to
Political Campaigns.
Washington, June John C. Searles,
secretary of the American Sugar Refining
Company, like President Havemeyer. was
acquitted by the direction of Judge Brad
ley who to-day sustained the motion oe
the defense. argued last Friday, to orden
an acquttal.
The cases of +. J. Edwards and John g..
SchrIver, the newspaper correspondents.
were postponed until next Monday.
Judge Bradley's opinion was exhaustive.
1t had been reduced to writing, and was
read by the bench. lie pointed out thau
Mr.. Searles had testified specifically that
no money had been contributed by the SUI
gar trust TO the national campaign for
the purpose of influencing legislation. on
the election of senator's. AS to the local
contributions, Mr.. Searles had testified
that he did not know how the contribu-
tlons had been used, by whom or for WHAT
purpose. The questions asked OF Brokers'
Chapman, the court said, were manifest-
y pertinent because they related to the
question OF speculation in sugar by sem
ators, subject the committee was direct.
ly charged with investigating. This tho
decision OF the supreme court had settled
The questions put TO the defendants wera
claimed to be pertinent to the second and
third divisions OF the senatorial inquiry.
namely as to whether the sugar trust bad
contributed sums to campaign funds with
the purposes of influencing the election of
United States senator, and whether anv
senator had been party to a compact
with the sugar trust.
Certainly, the judge said, a simple In.
vestigation as to whether the sugar truss
had contributed to a campaign fund wouId
be an unwarranted search into the prlvats
affairs Of the company. and plainly he.
yond the power Of the Senate.
lie referred at length to the Kilbourne
case. The committee had reported ney
testimony had been produced that the SUI
gar trust had made any contributions "a,
any national campaign fund or for the
i
had been used for the purpose OF elect
ing members Of state legislatures. who
IN turn would elect a United States sen
ator' 1t Is beyond the power OF the United
states TO go behind the election Of leRisla-
eVe members IL this were true as "a,
state matters, how much more true was h
or local elections. How remotely sDecu-
atiVe,' was the way he characterized Dis
tIlct Attorney Davis suggestion, made In
MS argument. that local and state con-
tributions could have been traced to thei.
ultimate destination, possibly into the
pockets OF United States senator's ~ the
defendant had given the names Of the
persons TO whom the moneys were hrst
PAD. II would be the widest conjecture
10 assume that the money so contributed
IN any way had gone to make up the sugar
schedule 1t appeared. from the report OF
the committee, that they were not In nos
session Of any facts upon which they could
base the most remote hope of showing am
ultimate connection between the Sugar
trusts contribution and the sugar sched-
ule. Under these circumstances Il must
be held that the questions asked were
not pertinent, and II construed to be per-
tinent that they We're unwarranted. pry-
ing into the private affairs OF the COM
pany, and, therefore, beyond the jurisdic-
| ton OF the Senate