The times., 1897-06-19
Judge Bradley Decides in Favor
of Shriver and Edwards.
FATAL FLAWS REVEALED
Correspondent of the Mail and FIX
press Acquitted on Two Grounds.
The Philadelphia Press Man on
Oue-FulI Text of the Courts
Opinion as to Edwards.

tions propounded to them by the Senate
committee investigating the sugar schedule
scandals of 1898, were disposed OF in
short order yesterday by Judge Bradley
il criminal court No. =. OF the four cases
known as Sugar Trust cases -Havemeyer S,
Searlcs', Shnver's and Edwards the re
suit was reached before the testimony was
given to IA jury. The cases were disposed
of either on technicalities or constructions
of law or practice.
Briefly stated, Judge Bradley acquitted
Shriver and Edwards on the grounds iirst,
that they were not legally summoned and
secord that they were asked questions
which We're not pertinent to the invest-
cation conducted by the Senate Committee.
Judge Bradley is no respecter OF persons.
He fired broadside iuto the learned and
capable Senate Committee yesterday when
he referred to il as roaming through time
and space in its inquiry. The conrt also
did not speak with reserve when comment
ing on the complete wreck of the Govern
ment's case against Edwards At The
threshold of the proceedings, it said that
the prosecution had not even proved that
Edwards had received a summons OF any
kind.
The Shriver case had been argued ON
Thursday, and the opinion OF the court
was expected, and was delivered yesterday
morning The contentious on both sides are
familiar, so that the following e2tTacts
from the opinion Of the court directing the
acquittal VIII be all that is necessary TO
show how Mr.. Shriver was discharged
II am of the opinion that NO one can be
ns. 10
terms of this statute, for refusing to answer
questons-perunent TO the question under
inquiry-who has not been summoned as a
witness by authority of either house OF
Congress to give testimony"
twas claimed that the defendant waived
his right tc a SUNNI ons. The court says.
This is a criminal prosecution. No
doctrine of estoppel can avail to sup
plement insufficient evidence in making
out the offense. Every ingredient Of the
offense must he made out by the evidence
that is sufficient to prove its actual ex-
istence.''
Judge Bradley held also that ''unless the
questions asked the defendant, that he re-
fused to answer, were pertinent to some
one or more OF the matters under inquiry
by the Senate, his refusal, even il he had
been lawfully summoned as witness, was
not a violation of the statute
The indictment is, however, based on
name OF a certain Congressman, and this
was not pertinent to any of the matters
before the committee.
"If," said the court, "a Congressional
committee sees fit TO roam In tie realm Of
collateral, irrelevant, irnmaterial, impertin-
ent matters, the witness who refuses TO
accompany it viii not be amenable to the
penalties of this statute"
Summing up, the court said: 'Eeing of
the opinion that the statute applies only
to persons who have been lawfully sum
moned, and also that the question asked
the defendant which he refused to an
swer was not pertinent to the question
under inquiry, it follows that the mo-
tion must be granted"
The case against Z. j. Edwards was
taken up at ! p. M, and was disposed OF
in short order.
Mr.. Edwards was represented by Judge
Dittenbcefer and Judge Jere Wilson, who
expressed surprise when Dolle pros. was
not entered as to the Edwards prosecution.
Mr.. Edwards was in court when the case
was called.
The District AttoTney-This defendant,
believe, your honor, has not been arraigned.
Judge Dittenhoefer rather wearily said
that that formality could Well be waived.
Mr Davis-Then / understand that the
defendant pleads guilty?
Judge Wilson, Judge Dittenhoefer, and
the court smiled.
NIr IL, IL Of
pleaded not guilty.
The court renewed the hurnors of the
situation by inquiring if the district at
tomey desired a jury.
Mr.. Davis replied certainly and the
jury, which was marched into its place,
was sworn.
Mr.. Baker, assistant district attorney,
then read the indictmen Mt and proceeded
to make the opening address indicating
as usual to the jury what the prosecution
proposed to prove.
The prosecution first put up Mr.. Frank
s. Bright, clerk of the Sergeant-atArrns
United states Senate. The only connection
he had with tn e case was to return TO the
Senate Committee the suhpoenas, which
were directed to be served by the Sergeant
alarms. On four or five OF these re-
turns he made pencil memoranda
II turned out that the subpoena to Mr..
Edwards had been lost, and that the
proposed to prove the service
by secondary evidence.
Judge Dittenhoefer entered an obiac-
tion promptly. The witness was allowed
to proceed, subject to the exception.
His testimony showed that Mr. Edwards
c,.It nd - Sal1 ;,,
York, May 21, 1898 The witness had
no knowledge Of this particular telegram
having been sent, but assumed that it was
sent. according to the rules OF the office.
On cross-examination the witness said
that there was no record in his office,
except the memorandum made that n
telegram had been sent. He had no rec
election Of the contents of the tele-
gram. The subpoena by tele gram to
Mr.. Edwards was in the usual office form
in such cases.
Senator Gray, the chairman of the Sem
ate committee of inquiry, was put On
the stand. Senator Gray was examined
at length as to the manner in which the
testimony was taken and furnished to
the committee Mr.. Edwards acknowledged
the authorship Of the article in the fhil-
adeiphsa Press, signed Holland" Mr..
Edwards said that he had no personal
knowledge of the allegations in his ar
ticle. He declined then to give the name
of his informant
Mr. Jaines E. BressneI, property clerk
of the Western Union Telegraph Com
pany, testified as to his functions, which
ale to keep copies Of kilograms FOR six
49, .s,l.
to New York for safe-keeping. He did
not know, of his personal knowledge, what
became Of them in New York.
Mr Hurry Z Smith cloxl- rf Al. 49,.