Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-06-22
John W. Mccartney Acquitted of
Charge of Contumacy.
JUDGE BRADLEY DELIVERS OPINION
The Broker Dismissed From Gus
tody and Congratulated.
DETAILS OF THE TRIAL

Judge Bradley this morning disrosnd of
the last of the sugar trust conturacv
cases. that of Mr.. John W. Mccartney by
granting the motion Of the defense for a
verdict of rot guilty. That verdict was
promptly returned. ana Mr. Mccartney vas
discharged from further liability under the
Indictment. being made the recipient of the
congratulations of his many friends
W hen tkc trial of Mr. Macartn.y was
adjourned yesterday afternoon ay Judgs
Bradley. in Criminal Court No. > the gov
ern-ent's counsel lad Just concluded their
replies to the Motion made by the defease
that the court direct a verdict of not guilty..
Grounds for the Notion
The motion was based by Mr.. Jere NJ.
Wilson. counsel for MIR. Mccartney. on
four grounds: That the questions which
the defendant declined to answer were.
asked not by the committee but by Sena-
tor Allen; that they were not made com
mittee questions. that the Defendant was
not informed that the committee desired
MN TO answer them. and that they Were
not pertinent to the inquiry authorized by
the Senate to be made
District Attorney Davis. and his assist
ant Mr. Baker. argued in opposition to all
OF the grounds. OF course. and this morn
Ing Mr. Wilson proceeded with his rcDIy 10
counsel for the government
beIcre tne court adjourned yesterday
District Attorney Davis nolIe pressed The
indictments returned against MIR EIverton
X Chapman and Mr. Mccartney IL. Jure
ls.a indictments having been returned the.
following October to take their place the
hrst ones having been found to be mac
curate.
In his remarks this morning which were
very brief. Mr.. Wilson reasserted the
grounds upon which he hased his motion
lor an acqulttai He said that it was time
that some good law should be made where
by congressional committees might be
guided against an invasion of the rights of
private citizens.
Some such law" remarked Mr.. WILSON,
oT some such Judicial declaration in the
matter, is badly needed at this time in this
country Let such committees know and
understand that they must, at least have
some foundation for subjectins citizens to
the annoyance suffered by my client. Let
them know and understand. too. that no
member of such committee can ask ques-
tons which are not pertinent, and asked
SIMPLY TO crafty the curiosity of the inter
Iogator and that loose -jointed co!iouuies
eanno: he induleed in. There is too great u
tendency in cur legislative bodies to total
ly disregard the right of citizens TO be free
from intrusion and invasion of their pri-
waite affairs.
Only Question in the Case.
In disposing of the motion, Judge Bradley
said the only question in the case which
had troubled him was whether the court or
Jury should pass upon the question of
whether or not the questions asked MIR
mccartney Were committee questions but
the court explained that he felt bound TO
decide 1t.
Mr. Mccartney, the judge remarked, is
DO law-breaker but one of the substantial
citizens of this city. The circumstances at
tending his examination before tie corn
mittee: the fact that the statute alleged to
have been violated had been allowed IL
sleep for r. l.,
fact that ii required an Interpretation: at
the hands OF the United States Supreme
Court. were referred to by Judge Bradley,
ard then he remarked:
IF Mr.. Mccartney were found guilty. |
could not tind IL 10 be my duty to impose
even the minimum penalty. l would COR
slider 1t TO be my duty TO release him. for
1t would be simply a technical conviction -
Judge Bradley referred next to the fact
that every senator except one two had
sworn that he had not Specuiated in sugar
stocks. and he could not, therefore, under
stand why MIR. Mccartney had ever been
brought before the committee. 1t was,
also. evidently incomprehensible to ma l.
jori.y of the Investigating committee, the
judge added.
Reading from the testimony of Stem
ographer Prentiss, Judge bradley said that
IL was clear that Mr.. Mccartney was ex-
amined by Senator Allen, who had insist
ed that the defendant, being present he
(Allen) should be allowed to question: him.
Differs From Chapman Case.
The case differed froi1 that Of Mr. Chap
man. for the latter was questioned by the
whole committee. AMI Informed that the
questions were pertinent. of the conse-
quences attending refusal 10 answer ard
that answers We. desired
His tChaIman's) case was the only one
worthy of prosecution. That is worthy 70
be sent to this court for prosecution
Il am convinced, continued Judge Brad
ley. that the committee did not wan Mr.
Macartney's testimony. and many of :he
questions asked HIN We're highly iaiporti-
rent. both in a legal and in an ordinary
sense If 15 per cent OF them in this and
The other cises had been refused answers
the witnesses would have been justified in
declining 70 answer them.
MI Mccartney was not advised by the
committee that ans ~ers 10 the quest ons
Were desired, and the committee allowed
senator Allen 10 put the questions and
Senator Allen allowed them to stand as
his. If the defendant had been advised by
the committee that answers were desired
by the committee. he might in that event
Fave answered them. rather than AXE the
consequences of refusal to answer them
IL IS clear TO me that 4 witness before
sucn committee ought not 10 b,. ad-
judged guilty of contumacy until =.
has. after being duly advised AMI warn
ell by the committee. persisted in a refus sa
TO answer a question put by the eorIm:tte,
CT by its authority"
Judge Bradley Concludes.
Judge Bradley said that II Is true that a
member of committee of this kind ha.
the right to interrogate witness but tn.
witness must, before he can Ieccme guilt,
of contumacy. be advised that such a
question Is that of the committee or of q
majority thereof And, in conclusion ths
judge remarked that. inasmuch as Mr.
Mccartney had not been examined by III,
committee. but by Senator Allen. and mas
much as he had not been advised that tn,
questions were those Of the committee o.
that answers were desired by the commit
tee. and had not been warned by the com
mittee CT the Consequences Of refusal {,
answer them. ths motion for 4 verdic. o.
TO; guilty would have to lie granted
Therefore gentlemen of the Jury" sa!S
the court. turning TO the twelve men, ..goot
and rue. you Will return a verdict G.
not guilty"