The times., 1897-05-27

in contempt Of Mr.. Allen t''for which he he
lieved Mr.. Havemeyer was eNcusable ana
not OF the committee. The proceeding
against him, therefore, in the name or the
committee, ought to fail This is, per
haps, ttie real question in the case so far
as presented to Judge Bradley
Mr. Davis Testsned the evidence
by offering extracts from the Journal II
the Senate, showing the recussancy of Mr..
Haveneyer He also would ask the court
to consider tie question OF the adnissi-
bhity OF the report Of testimony as
developed by Senator Gray.
AIR johnson objected, on the ground that
the defense intended TO put in the whole Of
the journal at the proper time. He would
object to extracts without ceTtification.
II the residue will be offered, he did not
object
Mr. Davis read the statute to show his
right to introduce the extracts The
court sustained Mr. Davis, but gave the
defense the right TO Introduce AT the proper
time further relevant extracts.
Mr.. Davis read from the Senate Journal to
show that Haveineyer had refused to answer
"pertinentquest. ION; that the President OF
the Senate Issued his warrant TO bring
be kept in custody etc.
The district attorney then attempted 30
file as evidence the report of tie testimony
as found in Senate document 6o6
Mr. johnson OBJ jectedon the general g1Uund
that the stenographer's notes were the
proper primary evidence and that so Ear
as the defense was concerned it had no
aIvisement of the truth OF any or all Of
the printed evidence
Judge Bradley inquired if the Government
had offered a typewriter copy Of the
stenocrapher's notes would that be COM
petent.
Mr.. Baker. the assistant district attor-
ney, was heard on the adIniSSibiiity of this
printed testimony.
Mt Raker answered that the typewriter
copies III this particular case We're read
over by the witnesses and corrected by the
witnesses themselves
Mr. Davis made the further statement
that it was proposed to introduce the testi-
mony on the general ground that it was
contained in a PUBLIC document. which con
tanned, not the work of stenographer, but
Of the Senateinvestigating committee. Mr..
Davis fortified his position by reading the
decision in the case of Morris eX rel. the
State, in which it was held that such books
as the one offered We're admissible. This
case held that the documents We're com
pleted Ito prove the facts they recite y
Mr.. Davis also read the case Of the King
against Hope, in which u certain gazette
was held to he competent to prove certain
petitions of certain subjects.
The Court-Certain loving subjects?
MIR. Davis-I believe So Gilbert and
Sullivan were not writing in those days.
Mr.. johnson desired to know If it was
proposed to put the testimony in ''as evi-
dence.''
Mr.. Davis ans nswered affirmativeiy as to
matters relating TO this case"
Mr.. johnson objected peremptorily. He
did not believe, a s stated by Mr.. Davis,
that it had the sanctty of record of
court, although he had due respect for
Senate committees.
The judge held that the Senate docu-
ment was not the best evidence, and sus-
tanned the objection of the defense.
In discussing the question of the sane
tity" OF certain records Judge Bradley
recalled the fact that there was once
reverence paid to the old clothes of the
apostles. The latter, however, have had
no SUCCESSORS z"
Mr.. Prentiss was called to read his notes
to verify certain parts of the evidence OF
Mr.. HaveMeyer, as set out in the indict-
nlent. Much time was consumed by the
attorneys for the defense In comparing
the parts referred to with the testimony
as printed in the stenographer' transcript.
The fundamental difference in the
case Of Chapman and that of Have
meyer, in the opinion of the de-
fense, is that Chapman was asked If
certain Senator'S had speculated in sugar
stocks through his house Had he answered
affirmatively and given the names the
Senate would have right of action against
it's members, and SO far the question to
Mr.. Chapman was regarded as proper and
legal
On the other hand, the defense holds
that Mr. Havemeyer was asked whether
he had contributed to certain campaign
funds; and it followed that even IL he had,
the Senate committee could have no legiti-
mate use of the testimony. 1t did not
affect any member Of the Senate, so far
as the allegations were concerned ON
which the Senate inquiry was based.
After wasting all this time, it wasagreed
notes. and Assistant District Attorney
Baker was asked to read Mr. Havemeyer's
testimony or parts Of it,
Some of the testimony vast statement
Of Mr. Havemeyer' name by himself. the
organization of the sugar trust, the con-