The times., 1897-06-23
BROKER MAcARTMEY FREE
Last of the Sugar Reca.citrants
Found Not Guilty.
END OF THE FARCICAL TRIALS
Judge Bradley Holds That the W.T.
ness Was Not Bound to Answer
Senator Aliens Questions, and
Directs His Acquittal- Essential
Points of the Decision.

Points of the Decision.
Mr. John w Mccartney was acquitted of
! contumacy yesterday by Judge Bradley in
criminal Court No. 2 the court ordering the
| jury TO enter up verdict OF not guilty.
! The result was expected from the sug
| gestive renark made by Judge Bradley at
the close OF the proceedings on Monday
afternoon, the bearing of which was noted
yesterday in The Times.
The verdict OF not guilty in the Macart-
! ney case is the end OF a series OF farcIcaland
| bungledlitiga cations, which have entertained
| if they haven't edited, Congress, the bencn
| and bar, and the public al large. What
| was said OF the trials in The Times yester-
| day was indorsed substantially by Judge
! Bradley in his opinion delivered III the
| Mccartney case. Judge Bradley spoke wifi
/ out even notes.
The opinion was delivered after short
| speech by Judge Wilson, the burden OF
| which was that it was time that the
! private rights OF citizens oe protected from
| invasion by Congressional committees, ex-
! cept under the most strict construction OF
| tire law.
1t had been expected that the court
| would find a parallel between the Chap
! man case and the Mccartney case. The
| court saw it in exactly the opposite
way.
Tie following extracts from the opinion
OF Judge Bradley win be read with in
terest:
The oaly question that has troubled the
court at all is the question whether the
evidence in this case is such as TO require
its submission to the jury in order that they
might determine whether IL would Justify
the Inference that the questions put To the
defendant and which he declined 10 an
swer were questions put by the colu,nittee
.The defendant is no lawbreaker he is
one of the substantial citizens OF Wash
ington. known ana recognized as such for
Inauy years hack; and under all the circum-
stances OF the case, the circumstances shown
70 have attended his examination and the
examination of other witnesses before that
committee, the conditions OF that statute
which had been disregarded for many
years and had been forgotten by most peo-
PIE, the fact that IL required the ultimate
determination of the Supreme Court of the
United States TO Indicate that this statute
was constitutional, and that IL was obli-
gatory upon the citizen, under all these
circumstances, even if Mr.. Mccartney Were
found guilty by the jury, could not find
il within the range OF my duty to impose on
him even the minimum sentence, because
do not think the Interests of justice would
demand it. | would take his personal
recognizancc as showing technical con-
yiction. and nothing more
Noting the difference between the pres
ent case and that of Chapman, the court
said:
'In the case of Chapman the defendant
was interogated by several members of
the committee, and he was advised that
the com niittee a whole insisted upon an
answer to the question. Not only that
but he was given time TO consult counsel
The statute was read To him; he was care
fully Informed that he would render HIM
self liable to prosecution, that the question
was pertinent, and that the committee
would insist on an answer That was
the only case that has been decided by
the United States Supreme Court, and it
evidently was the only case worth prose
cution. as the results have shown / don't
mean prosecution by the attorney Of the
United States-I don't want TO be under
stood in that way-but | mean Ii was the
only one worthy of being sent to this
court for prosecution under this statue.
in the present case, however, it ap-
pears TO me that the committee did not
want Mr.. Mccartney. He was practically
brought there by Senator Allen. He was
interrogated entirely by Senator Allen,
and many of the questions put to him
were iInpertinent in the highest sense, as,
in the legal sense of the word. If rs per
cent of the questions asked this witness
judging according to the record as / have
read ft-had not been answered, the wit
ness would have been perfectly justified
in his refusal TO reply.
'After the witness had been exam
iIed and discharged, the committee Sc
lected from these questions number
and reported him to the Senate for con-
tumacy. the president Of the Senate GER
titled this TO the Senate, and Mr Ma
cartney WAS indicted. Can it be con-
siderei that the witness, to say the least
of it, had been treated with any degree
of fairness? That brings US to the con
sideration of what seems to be the deter
mining point of the case: Whether in any
way Mr.. Mccartney was advised that rhe |
questions put TO him were questions which |
he must answer"
The court, after reviewing the .esti |
mony could find no evidence that the |
defendant was 50 advised and procee,le1: |
lit seems TO me to be clear that a wit |
ness Before one of these committees ought |
not 20 he regarded as guilty OF contuInacy |
until he is asked a question by the CON- |
mittce which he refuses to answer The |
construction of the act seems to me 10 de- |
mand that construction. 1t is true that the |
language of the statute is (referring to a |
witness) who, having appeared, refuses to
answer any question: but in section 103 |
language is used which tends to explain
what's meant by any question: and to In
dicatc that it meant any question put by |
committee
ut is quite true that any member Of
committee has a right TO interrogate wit
ness and ask him any pertinent question,
but can see no reason why witness
should be asked any series of questions by |
any member of committee, whether peril
nent or otherwise, and be held as in con- |
tempt of a committee or to have acted in
violation of this statute. who has not been
advised that the question is put by the
direction or authority Of the committee
"Inasmuch as in the instance OF this |
defendant before that committee, it does
not appear that the committee wanted |
hin, or that they desired his testimony