The times., 1897-05-25
HAvEMEYER AND sEARLEs
The Trials Of the Sugar Magnates
VIII Begin Today.
THE CHARGES AGAINST THEN
They Declined TO Answer Questions
as To Contributions Alleged TO
Have Been Made by the Trust
for Politidal Purposes or to Aid
or Defeat Legislation.

John IL. Seafles, the rccalCilTanJ sugar
witnesses, whose trt$lis were postponed last
Monday, will pc oijened in criminal court
No 2, before Jsistice Bradley, at / . y Clock
this morning.
District Attorney Davis has been ready
ever since the Gates were set for the
first arraign mont, ,.tlnd this morning his
side OF the case will be presented in a
very few minutes, it being claimed by ,he
prosecution that GRe points of law under
discussion are gieauiand distinctly obvious.
Mf. Nathaniel, Wilson, OF counsel for the
defense, said yesterday that his dis-
tinguished associate, MIR. John g. john
son, Of Philadelphia, on whose account
the trials were postponed until today, and
Mr.. John T.. Parsons, OF New York, would
be Oh hand When court opened this IaDrn
ing, ana II nothing of an unexpected
nature arises the battle between the legal
lights will be ficrceiy waged.
Mr. Havemeyer arrived at a late hour
lass evening, and retired almost immedi-
ately to his apartments at the Arlington,
where he Will be t!omiciled during the pro-
ceedngs OF his trial.
The witnesses who have been summoned
for the Government S side of the case are
kansas. a nd Allenof Nebraska; Mr.. Edward
Murphy, official reporter OF the special
committee; Mr. Harry II. Smith, ex Journal
clerk OF the Senate; William B. Hibhs,
the well known + street broker; II z.
Cunningham and Robert Miller. another
official reporter Of the special inyesti-
eating committee. Senators Lindsay of
Kentucky, Lodge of Massachusetts and
Davis OF Minnesota were members Df the
special Committee, and VIII no doubt be
called upon during the course of the trials
The following is a brief summary OF the
Charges ntained in the indictment gainst
the mcn 10 go on trial today:
On June | 2, S94, the defendant, Henry
o. Hayemeyer, was summoned before the
special committee of the Senate appointed
to investigate charges or bribery, etc,
and, among other things, was asked by
Senator Allen, to produce full data hs
to all money contributed by the American
Sugar Refining Company, or any of its
officers. on Its account or in its interest,
In the different States In the Union. in
l S92 or 1898, for political purposes, 10
any political party. whether national, State
or local" To this question Mr.. Ia e
meyer. after having TeqUestt 4 aud obtained
permission to consult counsel with refer
ence to tie right OF the committee to
inquire into such a matter, on the reXt
day replied:
While l am perfectly willing to answer
as TO any material matters, under advice
OF counsel / decline TO ans wer about
outside matters j decline TO answer
about local contributions. l know Of
nothing given to the national campai gn.
There exists no. bargain OF any nature,
and we never claimed that the Company
was entitled to anything except what
it's merits required
Mr.. Searess the secretary of the sugar
trust. was summoned a Z the,same time. and
questions OF the same general character
were propounded to him. which he also de-
clncd to answer, under the advice oG coun-
sci, and for his refusal to answer W hich he
was indicted by tbs grand jury Of this Dis
trict. s5e-}
These questions. We're asked in pursuance
of the clause lie the Senate resolution Great
ing the committee which directed 1t to lin
quire furtheT whether any contributions
have been made by the said sugar trust, or
any persons connected Herewith, to any
political party for campaign and political
purposes, or to secure or defeat legislation.
1t was contended by counsel for these de-
PENDANTS that this subject of contributions
for campaign purposes was a matter into
which the Senate had no right to inquire,
and further that the questions We're irn
material, because they related to State ami
local contributions, with which, under tie
Constitution, the Senate could have Moth
Ing to dC-in short, that the questions asked
were not pertinent'to the matter under in
Quiry, which had in view the ascertain
1nent Of the fact whether any Senator had
been guilty of misconduct in the manner
charged in the new spaper articles, the pub
lication OF which occa stoned the investi-
CATION.
In this respect the cases Of Havemeyer
and Searles differ from that of the broker,
Chapman, who, in consequence of his re-
fusal to answer questions relating TO the
dealings, through his firm, of Senators In
sugar stock during the tendency of the
tariff bill, is now serving a sentence In
the District Jail. In the main, however,
the same constitutional questions are
said TO be involved in the cases OF Have
meyer and Searles as in the Chapman
case, and the same is true of the cases of
respondents, and the other reealcitrant wit
nesses now under Indictment.
1t was practically conceded in the briefs
filed In support of the demurrers to the In
dictments in the Hayemeyer and Searles
cases that II the Senate had the DO oxer to
make this investigation, and If the ques-
tions which the witnesses declined to an
swer were legitimately connected there
with, and the witnesses answers would
not tend to Grimm ate them, the Sena te had
the constitutional power to punish them for
refusing to answer.
The question as to the con stitutiopality
Of Section 102 OF the Revised Statutes,
upon which these indictments are based and
as to the constitutional tight of the COM
m!ttee, under the resolution under which
the investigation was proceeding, to ask,
and punish the defendants for their refusal
to answer, the questions that Were pro
pounded to them, having all been decided
by the court Of appeals and the Supreme
Court CT the United States in the Chapman
case against their contentious, these other
defendants are practically precluded from
again raising them in the criminal court
before Judge Bradley, who would be
obliged to decide them in conformity with
the decisions OF the higher courts and this,
of course, will In a great measure narrow
the scope of the trials in the criminal
court It is understood that about the only
matter that will be left for the jury to
decide in the present cases is whether the
questions alleged in the Indictment were
actually put to the witnesses and whether
they declined to answer these identical
questions as charged f