The times., 1897-05-28


quoted from the opinion of the District
court of appeals and of the United states
Supreme Court to show that these courts
had made broad distinction between the
kilbourne case, on which the defense largely
relied, and the case under coI sffefs
ton. Both of these courts had held that the
Senate committee IN the Chapman case
had Jurisdiction OF the subject-ma tier which
was SIMPLY the putting of the Senate Into
odium and disgrace, aud that this jurisdic-
tion must first be determined in order to
ascertain tie truth or faIsty of the alIega-
tions made. The courts held that the SEN
ate had the inherent right" TO Investigate
such charges as the one made that the trust
owned the United States Senate and
had turned some OF its members to its
purposes and uses.
The courts, in fact, had declared that
the question to Chapman as TO the specu-
lation of Senators in sugar stock was
pertinent and defensible, because til
matter was clearly within the Constitu-
tional powers OF the Senate. There was
no mistakug the purpose of the allegation
against certain Senators; IL was simply
one OF bribery to favor the sugar trust.
No man who did that was fit to associate
with other Senators, and it could not be de-
MED that the Senate had a right TO in
quire into the fitness of certain Senators
SO charged to sit in the United States
Senate No wonder Mr.. Havemeyer, rep
resenting an enormous octopus, had been
.brutaily frank in his statements, as for
instance that he was a Republican and a
Democrat in turn, and entering into the
very fiber of legislation on product 50
largely used by the population OF the
country.
MI Davis said that everybody knew that
Senators did not receive bribes with open
honds or through their secretaries, but it
was at least possible that they should Ie-
ceive the benefits of indirect bribery
such as this through state legislatures
or otherwise.
He defended the legality Of the TesolIi-
ton, because it was TO meet an allegation
that Senators had received dirty money
for influence. He complimented the speech
of Mr. johnson on the abstract question
of liberty as applied TO Mr. Havemeycr's
danger of being sent to Jail Mr.. Johnson
had said it would be sad day when such
liberty was TO be abridged.
1T would be sadder day Mr.. Davis
said, when the legislatures of our land
which are the sources of our law, can have
their morals sapped in this insid:ous way,
andthen that the hands ofthe Senate should
be tied when il attempts 10 investigate -
Mr.. johnson said it was idle to talk
about corruption and bribery or money con
siderat.on when the unanimous report of
the committee showed that there was none
Mr.. Davis-The witness would not an
swer when il was desired TO ascertain the
facts.
Mr.. Johnson You are doing now what
you did in your indictment-eking out the
want of facts with innnendo. Would you
iInpugn the veracity of all the Senators who
denied that there was any money consid-
Grafton?
Mr.. Davis-I would submit that your ar
gument is like the flowers that bloom in
the spring--it has nothing to do with the
case.
Mr.. Johnson That won't do. You are
reasoning from false premises. You reach
conclusions and then mix up cen
clusons and premises to enlarge your
premises. 1t wouldn't do to say that there
was a money consideration and then to
say that 1T was impossible to ascertain
that fact because the witness had shut
his mouth"
Mr.. Johnson said that even if the Senate
committee had ascertained that money
had been used in State legislatures, it was
a question for the legislatures and not for
the Senate. He said that in such case
the Senate had no jurisdiction, and he had
challenged the district attorney to show
it,
Mr.. Davis-I have stated that the Senate
could expel its members if they were
elected by such influences In State legis-
latures
Mr.. Johnson WHAT Expel a Senator
because 1t was alleged that the Sugar
Trust had contributed to State and munich
pal elections?
This appeared too utterly ridiculous for
serious consideration by Mr.. Johnson
The attorney for the defense made plain
what he meant by star chambers He
meant that Senate committee, OF which
one member at least was vindictive and
deairous OF hunting" his client He
maintained agSin that the committee had
given no notice to Mr.. Hayemeyer that he
was TO answer to the committee and not
Mr. Allen. Recurring to Afr. A Hens vim
dictiveness, he said:
Il say to the headsman behind this
prosecution: say to the vindictive spirit
behind this thing, that If he Intended
to punish. it was his duty to warn the wit