The evening times., 1897-06-22
MCCARTNEY NOT GUILTY
The Last of the Sugar Recalci-
trantS Is Acquitted.
NOT BOUND TO ANSWER ALLEN
Jrdge Jere Wilson Concludes HIS
Argument and the Court teliv-
ers an Elaborate Oral opinion
The Essential Points of the De-
cisiou-D Defendant Was Absent.

Exit Mccartney. Exeunt omnes
Tpe case OF the Government against Mr.
John W. Mccartney, the Washington stock
broker in,iicted for refusing to answer ques-
tons propounded him by Senate COM
mirtee, WAS disposed OF this morning hy
Judge Bradley ordering the jury IN circuit
court No. > To aoquit the defendant.
The case against Mr. Mccartney is the
last OF the so-U~Iled sugar cases, aud ot the
| eight Instances OF alleged cOntumacyi MI
Elverson Chapman. of Philadelphia, being
! the only one who was convicted, he also
having sen ed a term in the Washington
;an, where he is said to have suffered
N.vdriouS!y ia a mOss agreeable way Tor
thr th.r alleged recalcintrants IL as
said that the other defs nda Hts were
slghing for this kind OF mart yrd''m, Int
there wac nothing in the proceedings IN
court To Justify that theory.
Ju,ir,. Allsla naa. tuc c"uclUdiuE afGu
iuont iu the case shortly after the
meeting cT the court He directed has re-
marks 20 showing that II Mr. Mccartney
was gunty OF any contempt tt wds oi "A
member only OF the committee. II WAS al
! mitted. ne said. thaJ II panty fails t. ap-
l pear when summoned before proper BODY
/ he ~ IN contempt. aud II Dee apleAfS aud
refuses e. TESTIFY hs Is aiso IN contempt
| IL the ,i,-fcn cant had been summoned he-
/ fore the senate itself a. n plain he wo1ll
! not be amruablr f0T Conterapt az be lie
,iined T. answer any particular SrnstoT
50 the CON mittcc OF inquiry must De- taken
] fEtr
defen dant could not be held Tor questions
pTcpounded by any member OF the Commit
te,. Tn, statute could not he COHst Iucd 80
broadly
IN military trials the court itself would
adopt a question 10 put TO the "ness
The military board would clear the rouI-
and detcrmine whether question was
proper. and II u We're not adopted, tue
witness would not Ice required TO cUH.e
back aud answer. Judge Wilsoa said At
was time mat tie Ia v should beiaid down
that would relieve witnesses Uf trouble and
Embarrassment. There should Also De- sonis
y law 10 govern the examinat an oi witnesses
before q uuET essiona lCuuui' Tees Ietthuse
gentlemen know that when they DO
thing % mat kind they must do IL legally
and deliberately. He dslnt believe that
the statui" vas inlcuded - gave oUmu.it-
tees uulimited or unreasonable power
There was certainly tendency or the
part Of Cnuluittecs - expose the pfIyat.
affairs % citizens.
Jucu- Bradley, in delivering the opin
ION OF t..e court. held in general terms Jhat
AR Nacartuey was not bound TO ans wcr
or 20 ne held FOR contempt for refusing
TO ausw"r questions. except one emanat-
ING from the committee The court said
that n the witness had declined a. an
swer - per cent OF the questions pat 10
him. th- ccur, would not regard him a.
guilty uf rpuiumacy The court al>D did
not sce m the testimony any notice ~ "a
20 th- defendant Of the ounsequruCcs OF
refusal
Judge Rrldley's opinion was hot writ
ten The spirit and grounds OF the opinion
wiu be had from the following extracts.
The ouIy question that has troubled
the court ~ all Is tie question whether
the evidence IN tins case is such a. - re
quire its submission % the jury IN order
that they might determine whether II
would JUSTIFY the inference that the ques-
tons pot 10 the defendant and whica be
dcclincd l. answer were Questions pat 10y
the committee"
The defendant L. 10 iawbrpaker. he Is
one OF the substantial citizens of Wash
inEt0n. known and recognized such Tor
many years hack. and under all the aTCuW-
stances JfthvCaSe. the circumstance a Shown
% have attended his examination, and Ia"
examination OF other witnesses before that
committee. the conditions of that statute
which had bpen di>reEa r,ird Tor 50 many
years and had been forgotten by most peo-
pie, the fact that IL required the ultimate
determination OF the Supreme Court 81 tae
United states 70 Indicate that this statute
was Constitutional. and that IL was obi
gatoTy upon the citizen, under all these
circumstances. even if Nh. Macartuey were
found guilty by the jury, ! could no, fiud
10 within the range II myduty toimpoSe on
him even the minimum sentence, because
do not think the Interests OF Justice would
demand ~. would take his personal
recugnizance a. showing technical con
viction. and nothing more"
1T scans 20 me 10 Ice clear that a wit
ness bcforc one OF these committees ought
not 70 he regarded a. guilty Of contnmacy
untn he Is asked = question toy the com
mitiee, whi"h ne refuses 10 answer. Tn.
construction Of the act seems 20 me 10
demand that construction. IL Is true
that the language of the statute il treferring
10 wiInessb who. having appeared,
refuses 20 answer any question. Hut Ia
section lo2 language is used which tends
TO explain what is meant by any ques-
tion. and 10 indicate that 10 meant any
question INT by Committee -
1T Is quite true that any member OF
committee has right TO intergogate
witness. and ask him any pertinent ques-
tiOu. but | can see no reason why a wit
ness should be asked any series of ques-
tons 10y any member OF a committee,
whether pertinent CT otheTwise aud be
held as in contempt OF COMMITTEES or to
have acted in violation OF this ST atute.
who has not been advised that the Ques-
ton is put by the direction or authority
OF the committee"
''ina aSrnt,ch. as in the Instance nf this
defendant iofOre that committee. Is does
not appear that the committee wanted
him. or that they deisred his testimony,
or insisted on answers 10 Questions, or
these Questions were regarded as put 10y the
committee. and, inasmuch as think
that the situation is une THAT requires a
strict construction of the statute for the
prUtertion uf the rights uf ciuzens. I
would direC; the jury 60 acquit the de-
fendsnt. and that a verdict OF not guilty
be entered"
The order of the court was olJc we'd. and
the defendant WIS acquitted Mr. MRcart-
ney was not tn court.