Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-06-02
SEARLES ALSO FREE.
ACQUITTED. As HAvEMEYER WAS,
by DIRECTION or JUDGE.
THE COURTS OPINION EXHAUSTIVE
Discussion Of Pertincncy of Cues
lions Asked by senate Committee
Cases of Edwards and schri'er I"
Come Up Monday.

WASHINGTON. June John c.
searles. secretary Of the American Sugar
Refinery Company, Ike President Have
meyer. was acquitted, by direction Of
Judge Bradley, who to-day sustained the
motion Of the defence. argued last Fri
day. to order an acquittal.
The cases Of T.. u. Edwards and John
5. Schrver. 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. The Judge
pointed out that Mr. searles had tesii-
fed 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.. Searles had tes-
titled that he did not know how the con-
tributions had been used; by whom or
for what purpose. The questions asked OF
Broker Chapman. the Court said, were
manifestly pertinent, because they re-
lated to speculation in sugar by sena-
tors, subject the committee was di-
recty charged with investigation. This
the decision of the Supreme Court had
settled The questions 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 a party to a compact with the
Sugar Trust.
KILBOURNE CASE.
Certainly. the Judge said. a simple in
vcstigatiCn as to whe7her the Sugar
Trust had contributed to a campaign
fund would be an unwarranted search
into the private affairs Of the company
and plainly beyond the power OF the
Senate. lie here referred at length TO
the Knbourne case. The Senate Com
mit.ee had reported that no testimony
had been produced to show that the
Sugar Trust had made any contributions
to any national campaign fund. or Tor
the purpose of affecting legislation. III
money had been used for the purpose
OF electing members Of State leSisld-
lures. which in time would elect
United States senator II was DeyOnd tne
mower Of the United States Senate 10
20 behind the election OF legislative men,
hers. If this were true as to state mat
ters. how much more true was it of local
elections.
How remotely speculative" was the
way he characterized District-Attorney
Daviss suggestion. made in his arsu-
roent. that local and State contributions
could have been traced TO their ultimate
destination. possibly into the pockets OF
United States senators, If the defend
ants had given the names of the per
sons to whom the moneys were frst
naid. 1t would be the widest conjec-
ture 10 assume that the money so con-
,ributed i'm any way had gone TO make
I'D the sugar schedule. IT 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 con-
nection between the Sugar Trust
contributions and the sugar schedule.
Under these circumstances. IL must be
held that the questions asked were not
pertinent. and If construed to be peril
nent. that they were an unwarranted
prying into the private affairs Of the
company. and. therefore, beyond the
jurisdiction Of the Senate.