The evening times., 1897-05-26
OBJECTIONS At ALL POINTS
Continued from First Page.


original, and specifically as to the ques
tion by Mr. Allen if Mr Havemeyer wouI,
submit an account of money con tributed by
him for campaign purposes.
Mr.. johnson here Offered 70 read Other
parts of Havemcyer' testimony not quoted
III the indictment, and specifically the letter
of Holland in the Philadelphia newspaper
II e said that the whole conversation should
have been given.
Mr.. Davis said that the newspaper ar
ticle was not relevant.
Judge Bradley sustained the point that all
of the conversation of Mr. Havemeyer was
admissible.
Mr.. Davis remarked that the only effect
| of the reading would be to consume time
Nj. Johnson created good deal Of aInuSc-
! ment by the serious manner in which he
readthe specuiations Of the newspaper man
relating 80 the meeting between Mr. Have
meyer and Mr.. Benedict and Mr. Cleveland
on yacht u talk over the sugar trust in
| tcrestS, all of which Mr.. Havemeyer denied
point blank as TO a yacht or any place
In fact. he had never seen Mr. Cleveland in
his life. hut he might know him from his
pictures
This testimony amused Gen. Grosvenor,
OF Ohio. who was sitting directly behind
| Mr. johnson. Mr.. Hayemeyer was also
incidentally amused at the stenographic
| phonograph of what he said.
Mr.. Havemeyer laughed outright at the
reading OF the account OF the alleged
meeting between him and Senator CAT
ferry, Mr.. Terrell and others at the Cap
itoi on one Sunday morning, when they
were fixing up "a sugar schedule;'' all
OF which Mr.. Havemeyer denied. Mr. John.
son also read parts of the testimony in
which Mr.. Havemeyer denied ContribU-
tions 10 the national campaign funds
This was regarded as All important part
OF the case, because it Will doubtless bc
sought TO be shown that Mr. Havemeyer
did answer the things for which he had
been accused OF recussancy.
Mr.. johnson also read those parts of
the testimony, ill which MI Hayemeyer
denied that he knew of any Senator who
Speculated in stocks, or of any one who
made combination to affect legislation,
that there was no suggestion of obliga-
tion to the trust made to any member OF the
Finance Committee.
recess was here taken until / D. IN
After the recess Mr.. johnson concluded
the reading of Mr.. Havemeyers testimony.
Mr.. Davis then read extracts from the
printed tes stimony of Mr. Havemey yer.
which went to show what effect pro-
posed legislation W ouId have on the
prices of sugar
Mr. johnson replied with such parts
Of the testimony as showed the forna-
ton nf the trust, and he laid stress On
the statement of Mr.. Havemeyer that after
the fOrma ton of the trust the price OF sugar
to the consumer had decreased. Mr. Have
meyer In this part of his testimony stated
that no Senator occupied the place Of an
attorney for the American Sugar Refining
Company.
The defense waived objection to the
introduction OF the journals Of the assem-
blies or New York and New Jersey, it he
ing admitted that there were elections,
state, county and municipal, In those
States at the times alleged.
Mr. Davis offered in evidence. without
objection, the files of the New York Sun
and Philadelphia Press for the month OF
May, 1894. This, he said, closed his case
MIR. johnson moved for an aCquittal on
the following grounds:
First. That there was no rightin the SEN
quiry concerning the contributions by the
American Sugar Refining Company
Second. That there was no duty on behalf
of the witness tHayemeyer) to examine the
books of the refining compauyin order that
he might thereby answer questions which
he could not answer from his memory
Third. That the question in reply TO
which the defendant is averred TO have been
recuSant is question which demanded
him to produce data from books, and that
the proper method of obtaining Information |
contained in books was by the production |
ofthe books and not by demand that the |
witness should take figures therefun.
Fourth. That the question as 1T was rut |
to the witness was too broad: that it |
involved matters concerning which there /
can be no possible right to demand an |
answer, and that it was the duty Of the |
witness to answer the question as a whole |
as it was put and that it was not his |
duty TO take out of the question the |
parts which he might answer (even if |
did not answer all he was obliged tol and /
to specify those to which he should not |
reply.
Fifth. That before the defendant can
be convicted IT must be shown, in a way
that tth:SrepOrtd does not Sho W, that the COM
mittee. of which he alone can be recusant.
advised him that the question which was
put to him wasa question, not of member
of the committee, but OF the committee
tself
Sixth That the Indictment does not
disclose the cause Of action by reason OF |
its failure to make certain averments that
were necessary.
Mr. johnson proceeded to argue the |
points made. One of the strong points made
was that contributions to State elections |
as In New York and New jersey, were not
an offense against the Senate of the rnIted
States He said that Mr.. Havemeyer had
admitted contributions to municipal cam
paign purposes, but that when the COM
mttee asked him how much. Mr.. Have
meyer ought to have told the interrogation
{ was none Of his business
1t was an important question. What |
was there In the question that could have
been insisted on by the Senate in sits srro-
cation OF dominion over private rights?''
-t would be a miserable thing if modern
star chambers could exercise the right
over private affairs claimed by the SEN
tie Committee Of Inquiry Mr.. johnson
quoted Judge Miller in the Kilbourpe case.
10 show that it was the function of the
'ourts to determine the question of per
Onal rights involved |