The times., 1897-06-17
: JOHNNIE WAS WANTED
Legality of Shriyer's Summons
an Important Point.
THE COURT ASKS QUESTIONS
Defense Claims That the Contu-
macious Witness Was Not Form
Senate Committee-CaIled From
Press Gallery without Summons.

A new turn was given to the proceed
ings in the Shriver case yesterday by o
very simple question of Judge Bradley,
before whom the case is being tried.
The testimony developed by the prosecu-
tion contains no statement that MI
Shriyer was summoned before the
Senate committee OF inquiry The Gov
ernInent, however, thought that it had
anticipated this defect, il it be defect,
by putting up witnesses to prove how
MIR. shriver got before the committee.
One Of the witnesses on this point was
Mr. Bernard w. Layton, assistant ser geant-
al aims of the Senate. MI. Layton, it
appears in his testimony, looked up Mt
Shriver when he was wanted and found
him in the press gallery. Mr.. Layton
said in very sociable, debonair style:
"Johnnie, you're wanted" explaining
fu- ther that he was wanted To testify be-
fore the Senate committee. MI. Layton
alsoinrormed Nj. ShrIver that, If process
Were insisted on, he, Mr Layton, would
have the summons executed in that Of
ficial way Mr.. Shriver however, did not
insis. on formal summons and went on
the unceremonious Invitation of Mr.. Layton
who, however, as an officer of the com
mittee, stood ready to have the witness
appear had he refused.
The prosecution, in addition to Mr. Lay
ton, put up a clerk OF Senate committee
and deputy auditor OF the Treasury to
show that Mr. Shriver had at least served
as witness, accepting pay for service as
such, all of which was proved by certain
vouchers.
TIE defense has touched upon this point
in its argument, but there has not been any
general impression in court that 1t had the
grave Importance seemingly attached 10
it by ] udge Bradley. There has been
drawn a distinction between the summon
ing of a witness before a Senate COM
nIttce and witness summoned before a
Court on a subpoena, and the question now
is left open as to whether the same liability
attaches to a contempt of the former as 20
the latter. Further than that, the other
question appears to be involved that il Mr..
Shriver's summons was not a Legal one
whether any contempt attaches at all
Then, again, does Mr. Shriver come under
the category oe voluntary witnesses, aud,
if he does, what is his relative liability
Judge Bradley, after hearing a very
comprehensive and able argument, yester-
dav, by Assistant District Attorney Baker,
desired to have the views of Government
counsel Oh the foregoing points. Mr..
Baker argued them briefly yesterday, but
they viii he made, no doubt, the subject
of an elaborate consideration today by
the District attorney.
To the average layman, it looks just
now that, If the District attorney does
not show that Mr.. Shnver was sunmonsd
within the meaning of the statute under
which the Indictment is drawn, Mr. Shrfyer
can scarcely be held for contempt, and
that this will be sufficient reason to in.
struct the jury to acquit
The counsel for the defense made an
argument to justify Mr. Shrver's declina-
tion to testify on the ground that the
communities tons 10 him as a newspap per
man In confidence Were matter of priyi-
lege. This argument was based on coIGnon
law precedents and not on legislative en-
actInents, which was made by the court
The prosecution paid no attention to this
part of the argument which, however, was
very interesting, and was substantially as
follows:
IA Boston grand jury recently sum-
moned before it an editor to state under
oath where he had received certain iDfor-
nation which was published in the col
up1Ds of his journal He declined to tell,
under the plea that the case vas privil-
eyed. Thereupon the court was asked TO
him guilty of contempt. The cause
thus originated by the grand jury, being
heard by the Judge, who had allowed to
issue a rnle to show cause why the editor
should not he punished An opinion fol-
lowed, releasing the defendant substan.
TALLY upon the ground taken by him at
the outset. The result Will create no sur
prise, because there is as much honor and
confidence involved in the communications
made to editors of newspapers as between
the lawyer and his client, the physician
and his patient, or the clergyman and bis
parishione
Moral law forbids that communications
disclosed in either OF these
shall be published The law |
Of the State, which is founded on the |
moral, has taken the same high ground |
consider what fetter would be placed |
II all new spaper comments if the source |
Of information In every case were the
subject Of an inquisition on the part of the |