The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1897-06-01
Holds the Questions Asked
Were Not Pertinent.
Points Out Difference in Chapman
and Searles Cases.
The Chapman Inquiry Related to the
Speculation ofU. s. Senators.

Washington, Juno LIN tho case OF
John Il. Searles. the Sugar Trust wit
ness, Judge Bradley this morning ordered
the jury to bring in a verdict of acquit-
tai, holding that the questions asked the
witness by the Senate committee were not
pertinent and If so were not within the
jurisdiction of the committed
Mr.. Searles was charged with recus-
cancy Both MIR. Searles and Mr. Have
meyer were present at the session today.
Judge Bradley's opinion was exhaustive.
Ii had been reduced to writing and was
read from the bench. Ho pointed out
that Mr.. Searles had testified specifically
that no money had been contributed by
the Sugar Trust to the national campaign
or for the purpose of influencing Legislation
or the election of United States Senators.
AS to the local contributions Mr. Searlea
had testified that he did not know how
the contributions had been used, by whom
or for what purpose.
The question asked Broker Chapman,
the court said, were manifestly pertinent
because they related To the question Of
speculation in sugar by Senators, which
subject the committee was Investigating.
This the decision OF the Supreme Court
had settled. The questions put to the
defendant were claimed to be pertinent
TO the second and third divisions of the
sensational inquiry. namely as TO whether
the Sugar Trust had contributed sums to
campaign funds with tho purpose of in
fluencing the election of a United States
Senator and whether any Senator had
been party TO compact with the Sugar
Trust
An warranted Search.
Certainly, the Judge said simple in
yestigation as 60 whether the Sugar trust
had contributed TO a campaign fund would
te an unwarranted search into the pri-
vate 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 reported
that no testimony had been produced to
contributions to any national campaign
fund or for the purpose of affecting Legis-
lation.
If money had gone for the purpose Of
electing members of the state Legislatures,
who in time would select United States
Senator, it was beyond the power Of the
United States Senate TO go behind the
election of Legislative mem bers.
Remotely Speculative.
How remotely speculative. was the
way he characterized District Attorney
Davis suggestion made in his argument,
that local and state contributions could
have been traced TO their ultimate des-
tination. possibly into the pockets or
United States senators, II the defendant
had given the names Of the persons IN
whom the moneys were first paid. lt
would I've the widest conjecture 10 as
sumo that the money so contributed in
any way had gene to make up the sugar
schedule. It appeared from the report OK
the committee that they were not In pos
session of any facts upon which they could
base the most remote hope or showing en-
ultimate connection between the Sugar
Trusts contributions and the sugar sched-
ule. Under these circumstances it must
be held that the questions asked were not
pertinent and If construed TO bo pertinent
that they were an unwarranted prying
into the private affairs of the company
and therefore beyond the Jurisdiction of
the Senate He therefore directed the jury
10 return verdict of acquittal, which
was done and Mr.. soarles was free