The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1897-06-04
THE COURT AND THE SUGAR TRUST

The acquittal of John E. Searles, the
Sugar trust witness, by direction Of
Judge Bradley, is an unfortunate cir
cumstance. The charge against Searles
was for contempt in refusing to answer
certain questions of the senate commit
tee whether the Sugar trust had con-
tributed money for campaign or legis-
lative purposes. There was evidence
tending to show that no money had
been contributed by the Sugar trust to
the national campaign; but as to local
contributions Mr. Searles did not know.
He refused to answer some questions
Or to produce the books or records Of
the trust, Of which he was the secre-
harry. Judge Bradley held that as the
senate committee were not in posses
sion Of any facts upon which they could
base the most remote hope of showing
an ultimate connection between the
Sugar trusts contribution and the
sugar schedule. Under these circum-
stances it must be held that the Ques-
ti6ns asked We're not pertinent, and If
pertinent they were unwarranted pry-
ing into the private affairs of the COM
pany, therefore beyond the jurisdiction
of the senate"
The scope Of the investigation being
10 disclose whether the sale of certain
stocks Of the Sugar trust TO senators
had any real or probable connection
with the sugar schedule reported by
the senate committee having charge of
the Wilson bill. 1t is true that the SEN
ate investigating committee was taking
pretty wide range and, technically
speaking. Judge Bradley's decision will
In all likelihood be pronounced by law
gers the law Of the case. However,
practical men will hardly take that
view Of the matter. Here was an inves-
tigation. Open charges had been made
that the Sugar trust had sought cor
ruptly TO influence senatorial support,
through opportunities for profit in sugar
stock speculation, in favor of the adj
vantageous sugar schedule which was
reported by the senate committee The
charge was open and notorious; no sat
isfactory explanation was offered by
the Sugar trust. A committee of inves-
LEGATION was ordered, but the investiga-
ton was blocked by refusal to an
swer the questions put by the commit
tee. The practical man, unacquainted
with the technicalitieS of the law. will
find little sympathy with the courts
rulings, right or wrong, that the uues-
tons were NOT pertinent" What he
assumed it had the right 10 find out
was whether the Sugar trust did any
thing directly or indirectly, by offer of
money or through the hope OF specula-
tive profits. 10 influence the votes of
any senators in favor of the sugar
schedule. II the Sugar trust was limo
cent. then it should have welcomed the
chance 10 make so convincing an eX-
PLANTATION of a public charge As it
stands in the public mind, the Sugar
trust and the senators are guilty-but
not proven. Ii is to be regretted that
this investigation was not carried 10
successful conclusion and all relevant
facts given 10 the public. The practical
man is apt to say that the investigation
should have been SO conducted that the
pertinent" facts tending 10 prove or
disproye the charges against the Sugar
trust should have been disclosed. And
I've are not going 10 say that the prac-
heal man is wrong. If the questions
were not pertinent they should have
been made so.
The worst feature of the matter is
likely 10 be the charge against the
eourt. that Hsvemeyer and SearleS
were discharged because of the moaey
they represent. In these times of whole
tale accusation, the courts, as matter
Of fact. have been wonderfully clear Of
Vell-founded charges OF corruption. Ii
Is the interest of every man who loves
his country to uphold the integrity OF
the courts-to believe no judge corrupt
until there is evidence to prove him 80.
While Judge Bradleys opinion may be
the law, no doubt is the law as he I'M
derstands Il, still il is unfortunate that
this investigation was baked on &C
count Of technicalities.