The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-05-26
HAVEMEYER' FIGHT
The Sugar Millionaire Try
ing to Vindicate His
Contempt of the
Senate"
NRANGLEs OVER DOCUMENTS
His Committee Evidence in Court
did He Substantially
Answer Everything.
NRANGLEs OVER DOCUMENTS


WASHINGTON. May 2e, 1ss7.-The trial
of Henry O. Havemeyer, the President of
the American Sugar Refining Company.
indicted for refusing to answer questions
propounded by the Senate Sugar lnves-
tigation in June. 1894, was resumed this
morning. The attendance was almost as
large as on yesterday. District Attorney
Davis re-offered in evidence the extract
of the Senate Journal showing the recre-
arey of Mr.. Havemeyer, to which the de-
fence objected, unless the other Journals
showing the whole action of the Senate
upon the case be admitted. Judge Brad
ley agreed to admit all revelant extracts
from the Senate Journals and thereupon
Mr.. johnson withdrew his objection Ac-
cordingly the extracts showing the three
reports of the committee to the Senate
paragraph detailing the fact of Mr.. Have
meyers contumacy were admitted
Mr.. Johnson objected to the admission
of the printed report of the committee
as evidence and long legal debate fol-
lowed on this point.
The government strenuously insisted
that it was admissible as an official Sem
ate report. Mr.. Davis said he was driv-
en- to the necessity of offering this docu-
ment as evidence because the original
stenographic notes of Mr.. Hayemeyer's
testimony had been lost.
The defense offered to admit the whole
printed record, but objected to the ex-
tract relating to Mr.. Havemeyer's testi-
mony. The court said that If the con-
tnen the e whole record was evidence S ptans and
much time of the court had been wasted.
He convulsed the court room by his
whicn the District Attorney had clothed
the proceedings of the Senate. In the
aapostolic days, he said, clothes taken
posed to have healing virtues and even
the rags that subsequently came in con-
tact with them. 's1,hose days. said the
right, tare passed"
The Court sustained the objection.
This ruling compelled the District At
tee's. stenographer, Mr. Prentiss, to the
stand Over half an hour was consumed
printed records with the testimony as
given in the Indictment.
The attorneys then announced that they
mad agreed that certain. extracts from the
printed report OF Mr.. Havemeyer's testi-
The extracts admitted showed the evi-
that Mr.. Havemeyer had answered all
pertinent inquiries and had refused to fur
Snish only data as to political contribu-
uons IN state and local elections.
The court held for the defence that
these extracts having been admitted it
was competent for the defense to. bring
In making, the ruling the Judge remarked
significantly
Suppose it can be shown that Mr.
Havemeyer in substance gave the. COM
mittee the information asked for in the
question to which answer was SUBJ
seQuently refused
Immediately following this the defense
offered Mr. Havemeyer's deniais, para
graph by paragraph, of the newspaper
articles , in IN tn the Phiiladelphia Press writ
Ali the other portions of Mr. Have
meyers testimony before the Senate In
h f tRe gaTs asestsd also te
introduced by the defense. The court
then 2. r. recessed es untsl l., one o'clock.
to read Mr.. Havemeyers testimony to
the jury. The defense agreed to the ad-
mission of the records and journals of
Jersey. which the Government offered
yesterday, with the admission by the
Government, Of the fact Of county and
1892 The files of the newspaper articles
upon which the Senate resolution pro-
yiaing for the nyaestigation was based
Government announced that 1t rested its
case.
Thereupon Mr.. Johnson, in behalf of
miss the Indictment on six grounds.
First. that the question asked as to
pagns to Which answer was refused iase fa
lsot pertinent; second, that it was not the
duty of Mr.. Havemeyer to examine rec
ords in order to be able to answer ques-
tions he could not answer from memory
third, that the question to which reply
was demanded necessitated the production
of the data by the witness from books
and that the proper method to secure
such testimony was the production Of
such books; fourth, that the question put
matters concerning which he had no pos
sible right to answer; fifth, that before
conviction it must be shown that the
committee, of which alone he could be
recusant, instructed him that the ques-
tion to which answer was demanded was
the question of the committee and not of