Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-06-17
Justice Bradley Will Deliver Opinion
in Shriver Case Tomorrow.
ACQUIFrAL OF DEFENDANT PREDICTED
Arguments Of Counsel Concluded
and the Jury Excused.
GREAT INTEREST IN TRIAL

commenced before Judge Bradley in Grim
inal Court No. 2 this morning. When the
second day of the trial closed yesterday,
Assistant District Attorney Baker had just
finished his reply to ex-JGdge A. ]. Dit
tenhoefer Of New York. who had the pre-
vious day, upon the close of the govern
ments case. moved that the court instruct
the Jury to return a verdict of not guilty
The court room was well filled, Mr.. Chas.
Emory Smith of the Philadelphia Press
being among those present.
Before District Attorney Davis arose this
morning to conclude the argument in OPP
position to the motion, Mr. Dittenhoefer
suggested another ground in support of it,
he submitted that, as Stenographed Bos-
wells original notes of the proceedings of
the investigating committee have been de-
he submitted that, as Stenographer Bos-
testimony in the present case dlscredited
me Correctness OF the printed report of
the committees proceedings, and that as
the members of the committee could not,
lndepence ntly of the printed report tes-
tify defnitely as TO the particular uues-
tlon which Mr. Shriver is alleged to have
refused to answer. or as to his said re-
iusal, the offense alleged in the indictment
has not been sustained.
Merely n Suggestion
Mr.. Dittenhoefer explained that he mere
~ suggested the additional ground in sup
port OF the motion to acquit leaving to his
associate, Mr.. Jere NJ Wilson, the duty OF
arguing in support of it,
Mr.. Davis then began his argument. ad-
dressing himself first to the contention
Of the defense that the Senate in order
ing the investigation did not refer to or
nave knowledge of the article written by
Mr.. Shriver. Mr.. Davis submitted that the
defendants article was based upon those
contemplated by the Senate which appear
ed IN the New York Sun and the Phila-
delphia Press, and that, therefore the in
Vestigatilg committee were authorized to
inquire as to the one written by Mr..
Shrlver. though 1t appeared two days SUBJ
sequent to the adoption by the Senate of
the resolution directing the investigation.
Defendants Voluntary Appearance.
Mr.. Davis next addressed himself to the
contention of the defendants counsel that,
as Mr.. Shriver was not served with a SUBJ
poena, voluntarily appearing, before the
committee as witness, he cannot, there
fore be held guilty Of a misdemeanor. MIR.
Davis read authorities which supported his
view that Mr. Shriver having voluntarily
appeared before the committee, thereby
waived the serving upon him of the SUBJ
coena.
The statute argued Mr.. Davis. saws:
ANY person who having first been sum-
moned." etc, and as the defendant was
verbally notified by a deputy sergeant-at-
arms to appear, and did SO, he was sum-
moned in all contemplation of the require
ments Of the statute.
Justice Bradlcy's Inquiry.
Judge Bradley interrupted Mr. Davis to
inquire whether it can be said that Mr.
Shriver. when he voluntarily appeared be-
fore the committee, waived any essential
defense. Mr.. Davis, in replying to the
judge, remarked that the courts inquiry
suggested the real question at ISSUE the
essential essence of the offense. And that,
said Mr.. Davis, was the defendant s refusal
to answer pertinent question within the
power of the committee to ask.
THE question which is troubling me-"
explained Judge Bradley, lis whether the
defendant is guilty of 4 misdemeanor. He
might have been in contempt of the COM
mittee, but did he violate the statute, he
having voluntarily appeared before the
MIR. Davis said that in his humble opin-
ion Mr. Shriver was both in contempt of
the committee and guilty of the offense
was a pertinent one. There can be no
doubt, continued the district attorney, that
the question was relevant, and he was con-
tending that Mr.. Shrivers refusal to an
swer obstructed. cut off. the investigation,
when the court interrupted him by sug-
gesting that the committee could have
sent for the man in whose room the con-
ference was alleged to have occurred.
''how the defendants refusal to answer
could have cut off the investigation"
Mr.. Davis said in reply that the peril
nency of the question asked Mr.. Shriver
was at issue, and If 1t was pertinent, and
hc submitted that there could be no doubt
that it vas. then the defendant was guilty
as charged provided, of course, the court
agreed with him that he was properly sum-
moEed.
Attorney Wilson's Argument.
IL after II o'clock, when he was followed
by Mr.. Wilson on behalf of Mr.. Shriver,
the court first excusing the jury until to-
morning.
In cemme ncing his argument, the closing
one on the motion for acquittal, Mr.. Wilson |
Insisted tfat the article written by Mr..
Shriver contained nothing which the COM
mittee was direG ted or empowered to in
vestigate, aid he also contended that the |
answer would have been neither competent
or relevant.
Mr.. Wilson briefly referred to those mat
ters, dwelling fer the most part upon the |
failure of the committee to duly summon
been violated, said Mr.. Wilson, Is penal |
one, and 1t Is obligatory on the part Of the |
court, therefore, to coEstrue 1t strictly. He |
then read the statute, calling attention 20 |
It's requirement that the witness must first |
be duly summoned as such, and also call |
Ing attention to the allegation in the in |
dietnent that tha defendant was duly sum
mcned.
The defendant was not duly summoned.
said Mr. Wilson, when the statute is /
strictly construed. and while Mr. Shriver |
nay have been guilty OF contempt OF the |
committee he was not. n not, he argued, |
guilty of Offending against the statute. Mr.. |
Wilson also contended that In the matter /
of the pertinency OF the question the stat |
ute must no less strictly be construed. and |
IN that connection he urged that the def |
milton of pertinency must be legal one.
Makes Another Point.
Another point insisted upon by Mr.. Will |
son was that the question asked Mr.. |
shriver was not made committee ques-
lion, nor was the defendant. he remarked, |
Instructed that the answer would be in |
sisted upon. and that he would be sub /
Iect to punishment should he persist final |
y In q refusal to answer.
The next point discussed by Mr. Wilson
VAS the contention Of counsel for the de- /
Tense that, as Newspaper man, he was /
entitled to be excused from answering. Mr.. |
Wilson confessed that he could furnish no |
president for such an extension OF the rule /
pf privileged communications. but some