The times., 1897-06-19
UIIIUtu SIdGtS SUI dIP,
WASHINGTON. u. e. -, IS.

| Washington. d. C.,-,1S-.
| You are requested TO appear before the
! - Of the United States Senate on -,
| IS, at - O'Clock m, TO TESTIFY reiauve 10
| matters under consideration by SAID com
nittee. Win you accept this notice as SER
| vice OF subpoena and appear at the tiIiie
| named? Answer.
The prosecution admitted that this was
| all the testimony it had as to sufficient
| summons or subpoena.
The question was then raised that II
| the court held that this summons was not
sufficient there would be no use Of 60
| ;ng on with the case, and an expression
| OF views was asked of the court
The court-''In the Shriver case the court
held that no one could he brought within
the purview of the statute under which
these indictments are made unless he be-
longed TO the class of those duly summoned
to appear and 10 give testimony. In the
Shriyer case the witnesses appeared on u
verbal notification of a messenger of the
committee. The court held that that was
not legal summons as contemplated by the
statute Now the question is whether
telegram in this form-even if received by
the defendant, and so far there is no testi-
mony that the defendant received it-would
telegram was not so regarded by the com
nlit,ee is perfectly plain from the substance
OF the telegram. This telegram If filled
out would read: you are requested 10
appear before the committee at certain
time and place TO testify relative TO mat
ters under consideration by the committee.
That would amount to nothing more than
a notification of the desirability Of the
off ba Inv tfat m a
present and contribute his testimony. Then
in the telegram, follows the question
do you accept this as notice to appear
at the time named?' 1t is quite evident
from this that tie committee did not re-
gard the telegram on one of these blanks
containing the substance OF this telegram
as a subpoena, bnt that it contemplated
the issuance of subpoena service. If the
defendant did not appear voluntarily in re-
sponse TO the request contained in the rele-
gram.
Clearly il the witness declined TO ap-
pear after having received such tele-
gram. he could not be held to have violated
the provision of this statute by wlfuliy
making default as one of its provisions
prcscribes.
Now. if he voluntarily appeared, would
ne Dc Drought Wltnln the statute relative
to the class of witnesses who are duly surl-
moned? / think not. 1t leaves this defend
ant, Edwards, in the same position with
regard to a lawful summons as il left the
defendant Shriver. l cannot see that the
additional feature of the request to Mr..
Edwards having been put in writing IN the
shape of this telegram, in place Of a sub
poena, can possibly alter the situation.
The same ruling VIII, therefore, be made
III this case as in the other.
Mr.. Davis--As we understand it, then, it
being sine qua ron that the summons
should be- as your honor has ruled, it is no
use to proceed.
The Court-Not unless q better case can
be made out.
Mr.. Daris-Then I win stop where I am.
Judge Dittenhoefer tsmiling gl- Yourest?
Mr.. Davis Yes, rest where am.
Mr.. Davis looked not only as ifhewanted
to rest, but that protracted holiday frora
these cases would be as welcome ds GER
tain flowers of the recent Easter season.
The court directed that the verdict of
acquittal be entered up, and Mr.. e. j.
Edwards also went his way rejoicing.
1t was announced that the cases against
Mr.. Mccartney, the Washington broker,
and Others, would be taken up on Monday
next. The court then adjourned.