New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-05-28
PRICE THREE CENTS.
MR.. HAVEMEYER GOES FREE.
JUDGE BRADLEY ORDERS VERDICT OF
NOT GUILTY
THE INDICTMENT DISMISSED on THE GROUND
THAT THE QUESTIONS OF THE SENATE
COMMITTEE WERE PROPERLY An
sWERED-MR. sEARLEss TRIAL
TO BEGIN TO-DAY.


TO BEGIN TO-DAY
Washington. May 27.-"Certalnly 7 am salts.
fed with the verdict" said Henry o. Havemeyer
n few minutes after the jury had returned ver-
dict Of not guilty this afternoon "The verdict"
he continued ought to he satisfactory to every
decent man in this and every other community"
That was the only comment the president OF the
American Sugar Refining Company would make
on the result of his trial. which had been In prog
ress for three days before Judge Bradley The
verdict was the elimination OF long legal bat
tie which began three years ago when Hr. Have
meyer declined a witness before the Senate
Sugar Investigating Committee to furnish data
as to the political contributions made by the
company Of which he is president TO the local
and State campaigns OF 1892 and 1893 EIverton
r. Chapman, around whom the preliminary bat
tie waSed, was found guilty. and is now serving
a thirty-day sentence in the District jail.
The end Of the trial was abrupt The defence
produced no witnesses. When the Government
rested its case yesterday The defence moved
that the Court instruct the jury to order an
quitta on six grounds, the principal one Of which
was that the committee did not have jurisdic-
ton, and that the question was not pertinent.
This morning the Dstrict-Attorney made a VAL
liant attempt to induce the presiding judge to
overrule the motion. But the Court. after taxi
ing an hour and half to weigh the arguments,
stained the motion
THE CHIEF QUESTION NOT PASSED ON
In reading mis- decision. which consumed
an hour in delivery. Judge Bradley declined to
rule en- the main question as To the Jurisdiction
! Of the Senate committee. He said the ques-
tons invoved in that proposition were OF such
grave importance that he would not rule on that
point without further and more careful ex-
animation. But he held that it was unneces-
| gary to rule the main contention. Practi-
| cally he sustained the motion on the single
| ground that the question calling for data as to
State and local contributions demanded in
| formation not within tho knowledge Of the witt
ness, which he had testified he had no personal
knowledge Of and which If given at all. must
| have been procured from books and Of which
| books themselves were the best testimony.
Although the verdict If mot guilty" was given
| by the jury, it verdict returned under
| the Courts direction and amounted practically
! TO the Judges throwing the case out Of court
| Mr.. Havemeyer's attorneys were naturally much
! elated over their victory This ends the case
| forever" said Mr.. Johnson of Philadelphia Mr.
| Havemeyers chief counsel.
The case Of John F. Searles. secretary of the
! Sugar Trust, who was indicted with Mr. Have
! meyer lOF contempt, VIII De called tomorrow
! District-Attorney Davis who will Likewise con-
| duct this case tor the Government says that the
cases are not analogous. and that the searies
case could not be dismissed on the same ground
| because Mr. Searles declined TO answer aues-
! tons Of which he presumably had KNOWLEDGE
But In the Searles it is probable that the
main contention as to Jurisdiction and perti.
nency will be raised, and that Judge Bradley
! will be compelled to rslle upon it. he to-day
! announced he would when it was raised as tho
! direct issue.
| Interest in the trial greatly intensified
! this morning by the pending motion OF the de-
fence to instruct the jury to bring in a verdict
! of not guilty. There again a large crowd
| present.
| THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL.
AS soon court opened Dstrict-Attorney
| Davis replied to the motion Of the defence 10
order acquittal. which Mr.. Havemeyer's coun.
| sci argued yesterday. Mr.. Davis took I'D the
! six propositions upon which the defence based
the motion and met them seriatim. although not
! in the order laid down by the defence In his
! opinion not one of the six propositions was we'll
! grounded. Only was really substantial II
! the subject Of the Senate investigation was not
within its constitutional power and it's inherent
! right of self f-protecton, then. indeed" said he,
/
| purify their Legislatures"
Mr.. Johnson. for the defence replied at some
length TO the arguments advanced by the Dis
trict-Attorney. going substantially over the same
! ground traversed by him yesterday When he
closed at 1l:30 Judge Bradley adjourned the
court until o'clock to give him opportunity to
take the motion into consideration.
There almost breathless suspense In the
courtroom when the court reconvened at 1
o'clock. The room buZzed with speculation as
TO what the decision would be- Just before the
judge entered. little girl ran over to Mr.. Have
meyer and said she wanted 10 shake his hand.
The sugar magnate took her in his arms and
kissed her. He then put her down and she ran
back to her mother II don't know who the child
is" said Mr.. Havemeyer TO his attorney. Mr.
Parsons but think it is a good omen."
JUDGE BRADLEY's DECISION
Judge Bradley was ten minutes late. With
great solemnity he announced that the PROPOSE
tons on which the motion of the defence was
founded involved questions of great Importance.
which could not be decided without the most
careful consideration, especially the which
related TO the power and jurisdiction OF the spe-
ciaI committee appointed by the United States
Senate 1: had been impossible for the Court
in the few minutes since the argument closed to
consider carefully and accurately the grave ques-
tons involved, but, holding that question
in allegiance. the Court had given enough
consideration to the other questions involved to
enable IL TO dispose of the motion OF the defence
As to the power and jurisdiction OF the Senate
committee the Court could not enter upon that
without further thought.
Judge Bradley then proceeded carefully TO re-
view the indictment. He read the statute pre-
scrbng the punishment (fine and imprisonmeno
for default refusal 10 answer questions or
Congressional committee, and reviewed the de-
cisions OF the Court OF Appeals and the supreme
Court in the Chapman case The questions
asked Of Mr. Havemeyer and Mr.. Chapman dif-
fered somewhat. he said. The racts as shown
tended to establish the facts as given in the in
dictment Judge Bradley said. But. he asked,
was defendant guilty Of contempt? This depend
ed on two propositions: First did the committee
have Jurisdiction and was the question peril