The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1897-06-02
Judge Bradley Gives Searles
His Liberty.
HE READ A LONG OPINION
NO RIGHT TO PRY INTO SHARIESr
DEVILMENT.
THE ouEs TONS NOT PERTINENT
The Judge Thought II Wild C;n
lecture to Assume that Money Con-
tributed by Searies Was Meant
for Badness.

Washington, ID. c., June John C.
Searles, secretary of the American Sugar
refinery Company, like President Have
meyer, was acquitted by the direction OF
Judge Bradley, who, to-day, sustained
the motion of the defense, argued last
FRIDAY, to order an acquittal.
The cases of Il. j. Edwards and John
s. Shriver, the newspaper correspond
ents, were postponed until next Monday.
Judge Bradley's opinion was exhaus-
tive. 1t had been reduced to writing and
was read from the bench He pointed
out that Mr.. Searles had testified speci-
hcally that no money had been contrib
uted by the Sugar Trust to the National
campaign or for the purpose OF in
f1uencing legislation or the election OF
United States Senators. AS to the local
contributions, Mr.. Searles had testified
that he did not know how the contribu-
tions had been used; by whom or for
what purpose. The questions asked of
Broker Chapman, the court said, were
manifestly pertinent because they related
to the question of speculation in sugar
by Senators, a subject the committee was
directly charged with investigating. This
the decision of the Supreme court had
settled. The question put to the de-
fendant were claimed to be pertinent to
the second and third divisions of the
Senatorial inquiry, namely as to whether
the Sugar Trust had contributed sums
to campaign funds with the purpose of
influencing the election of a United
States Senator and whether any Senator
had been party to a compact with the
Sugar Trust.
Certainly, the Judge said simple in
vestigation as to whether the Sugar Trust
had contributed to campaign fund
would be an unwarranted search into the
private affairs of the company and plainly
beyond the power of the Senate. Here
he referred at length to the Kilbourne
case. The Senate committee had report
ed that no testimony had been produced
to show that the Sugar Trust had made
any contributions to any national cam
paign fund or for the purpose of affect
ing legislation. If money had been used
State legislatures who in turn would
elect a United States Senator, it was be-
yond the power of the United States Sen
ate to go behind the election of the leg
islative members; if this were true as to
State matters, how much more true was it
of local elections. How remotely spec
ulative," was the way he characterized
District Attorney Davis's suggestion
made in his argument that local and
State contributions could have been trac-
ed to their ultimate destinatiO possibly
into the pockets of United States Sena-
tors, if the defendant had given the
names of the persons to whom the moneys
were first paid. 1t would he the widest
conjecture to 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 the possession of any
facts upon which they could base the
most remote hope of showing an ultimate
connection between the Sugar Trust con-
tributions and the sugar schedule. I'm
der these circumstances it must be held
that the questions asked were not per-
tinent, and if construed to be pertinent,
that they were an unwarranted prying
into the private affairs of the company
and therefore beyond the jurisdiction Of
the Senate. 81