The herald., 1897-06-03
THURSDAY. JUNE 3, 1907.
sEARLEs Is PURGED

The little comedy that has been draw
ing full houses and fuller criticism in
Washington for the past two weeks
This play will go down to history as
the "purgation Of Havemeyer and
Searles."
AS everybody knows, this comedy took
the form of trial Of the unsophieticat-
ed promoters and principal shareholders
of the great sugar trust. It SO happened
that in the course Of political mutations
these ingenious trustees Of contraband
truet were thought to have corrupted
certain members Of the United States
senate by the unlawful use of money
and were further reported to have de-
bauched state legislatures charged with
the duty of electing United States SEN
ators, by similar means.
These were the matters that the SEN
ate undertook to investigate in 1894. In
the prosecution Of its investigation the
senate committee found itself face to
face with a power that believed itself
greater than the government, and it
would just now seem that it has justified
this assumption. The officers named
above deigned to answer euch of the
questions propounded by the committee
as they deemed unimportant, but
whenever a question was proposed, the
answer to which might lead to the reve-
lation of corrupt practices. it was met
by a contumacious refusal to answer.
A broker named Chapman, who was
examined at the same time, had the
temerity to adopt the contumacious
tactics of the sugar barons, and he was
promptly found guilty and is now in
Jail. The proletarian rascal was unable
to secure square inch of judicial ermine
to screen him from the wrath of the trial
jury. He was judged by his peers and
upon their verdict was sentenced by the
judge.
But with Trustees Havemeyer and
Searles the case was altogether different
The same ermine that glinted it's cold
purity for the confusion of the pennilees
broker wrapped its warm folds around
the imperiled money kings. The cases
of Havemeyer and of Searles were sue
cessively taken from the jury, and the
jury was not allowed to pass upon the
question of their guilt. The decision by
which this result was reached will find
but slight warrant in law and none in
Justice. The committee 8 question which
the accused declined to answer was, as
to whether the sugar trust contributed
money to the campaign funds with the
view of influencing the election of United
States senators. and whether any SEN
ator had been party to any compact
with the sugar trust. The judge decided
that this was an unwarranted inquiry
into the private concerns Of the trust;
that being such the accused might right
fully refuse to answer, and hence that
there was no question of fact for the
jury. Yet it is clear that the question
would reach the very heart of the trans
action which was under investigation.
No man can disburse money in order
to effect a bribe without affecting his
private interests to the value of the
amount disbursed, but what sane man.
acting in good faith, would be heard to
say that such case must not be investi-
gated because the private business of
the corruptionist ie a sacred right and
will be laid bare by necessary impli-
cation?
Why did not somebody think of that
last refuge when Chapman was on trial?
1t would seem to the average observer
that his private interests must be more
or less embarrassed by the walls of the
bastile that separate him from his office
and clientage. Chapman ought to be set
free with an apology, inastmuch as pri-
vate interests are sacred and may law
fully conceal and protect beneath the
robe of their sanctity all the crimes that
aflict the race. Under this charming
logic of the court he never wac in con-