The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1897-05-28
HAvEMEYER OUT OF THE HOLE.
THE JUDGE ORDERS A VERDICT OF
NOT GUILTY.

Within the huOWledge OF
the Witness-The Judge Declines
to Rule ON the Main Question Of
the Jurisdiction OC the Committee.
Washington, May 27.-"Certainly / am
satisfied with the verdict, said II. o. Hav-
emeyer. the sugar king, to an Associated
Press reporter, few minutes after the
judge had read the verdict of not guilty.
THE verdict" he continued. fought to
be satisfactory to every decent man In this
and every other community"
This was the only expression the presi-
dent of the American Sugar Refining
Company would make upon the result of
his trial, which had been in progress for
three days before Judge Bradley. The
verdict was the elimination of a long le-
gal battle which began three years ago,
when Mr. Havemeyer declined, as a wit
ness of the sugar investigating commit
| tee, to furnish the committee with the
date as to the political contributions made
| by the company Of which he is president,
! to the local and state campaigns of 1892
and 1898. Broker Chapman, around whom
the preliminary battle waged, was found
|
sentence In the district Jail.
The conclusion of the trial was abrupt,
| The defense produced no witnesses. When
! the government rested IT'S case yesterday
the defense moved that the court instruct
the jury to order an acquttal on six
grounds, the principal one of which was
| that the committee did not have jurisdic-
| ton and that the question asked was not
pertinent
This morning the district attorney made
| valiant attempt to convince the pre-
\ siding judge to override the motion. But
| the court, after taking an hour and a
half to weigh the arguments, sustained
| the motion.
In rendering his decision which was
very lengthy, and consumed over an hour
| i'm its delivery, Judge Bradley declined to
! rule on the main question as to the turis-
| diction of the Senate committee. He said
| the questions involved in that proposition
were of such grave importance that he
would not rule on that point without fur
| Their and more careful examination He
/ held IL was unnecessary to rule on the
| main contention. Practically. he sustain
| ed the motion, upon the single ground
| that the question calling for data as to
state and local contributions demanded in
1
! the witness, which he had testified he
had no personal knowledge of and which,
| IL given at all, must have been procured
| from books, and of which books them
| selves were the best testimony. Although
| the verdict of mot guilty" was given by
| the jury, it was a verdict returned under
! the courts directions, and amounted prac-
| tically to the judges throwing the case
| out of court.
! Mr. Havemeyers attorneys were natu-
rally much elated over their victory
This ends the case forever" said Mr.
| Johnson of Philadelphia Mr. Havemeyer's
| chief counsel.
The case of John E. Searles the Sec
| rotary of the sugar trust who was in
dicted with Mr.. Havemeyer, for recus-
ancy, will be called tomorrow District
! Attorney Davis, who will likewise conduct
this case for the government says that
| the cases are not analogous, andR that the
Searles case could not be dismissed on the
| same ground, because Mr.. Searles declined
| to answer questions of which he presum-
ably had knowledge. But in the Searles
case IL is probable that the main conten-
tion as to jurisdiction and pertineney will
| be raised, and that Judge Bradley will be
compelled to rule upon 1t as he to-day am
| nounced he would when II was raised as
| the direct issue
| Judge Bradley, In announcing his de-
| cision. said that the proposition upon
which the motion for the defense was
| founded involved questions of import-
ance. and questions which could not be
| decided by the court without the most
| careful consideration, especially that one
| which related to the power and jurisdic-
| ton of the special committee appointed
| by the United States Senate. IL had been
impossible for the court, In the few min
| utes since the argument terminated to
consider carefully and accurately the
grave questions involved. But holding
that question In allegiance, the court had
| given enough consideration 20 the other
| questions involved TO enable II to dispose
| Of the motion of the defense Judge
| Bradley then proceeded carefully to re-
| View the Indictment. He read the statute
! prescribing the punishment Zine and i'm
| prisonmenD for default or refusal to an
/ swer questions OF a congressional com
/ mittee and reviewed the decisions of the
court OF appeals and the supreme court
| in the Chapman case. The questions ask
/ ed OF Mr.. HaVemeyer and Mr. Chairman
differed somewhat, he said. The facts az
shown tended 10 establish the facts as
| given In the indictment. But, he asked
was the defendant guilty OF contempt?
| This. he said depended upon two PROPOSE
tons. First, did the committee have
/ Jurisdiction, and was the question
pertinent; second, did the question de-
mand facts within the possession OF the
witness? A negative reply TO either OF
these propositions. the judge said, would
require the court to sustain the motion.
The witness, the Judge said, was not
asked 10 produce the books which would
show the data as 10 local and state polIt-
/ teal contributions, but the dates from
those books He was not asked as to
anything within his own knowledge or
recollection
Judge Bradley then read the question I'm
exienso. Part Of that question, Mr.. Have
meyer had Answered. He said that there
were no contributions as TO national mat
tiers: as 10 state and local, he had said
there were contributions. but Of their par
| ticulars he had no personal knowledge.
| Gould II be contended, the audge asked,
that Mr. Havemeyer had personal knowl-
edge Of this data? lie thought not. The
witness Was expected 10 give any facts
within his knowledge" He was not cali
| ed upon to prepare himself for any ques-
lions the committee might ask He was
/ opiss attpauanuad 10 rive tt4Frfturnt f..tl