The times., 1897-06-22

L III IL M Oh IN l.
whether subpoena was issued or not
l dent know IL up to this time; nor do /
know Of any reason why he (MacartneyJ
should not be called"
Judge Wilson here moved the court to
direct an acquittal.
The district attorney-On what grounds?
Judge Wilson-On the grounds that the
questions put TO the defendant were the
questions of al individual member of the
committee. On the grounds that the COM
mittee never asked Mr.. Mccartney to an
swer the questions
ION the ground that the committee never
insisted that he should answer them.
Now, l insist,' continued the judge,
''that in m after of this kind, it must
appear that the committee demanded that
the witness answer the questions and
notified him that if he did not answer he
would be in contempt of the connlittee. -
Judge Wilson proceeded to show that
Mr.. Macartney's testimony appeared to
be only colloquy between Senator Allen
and Mr.. Mccartney, during which none Of
the other members of the committee opene1
their mouths. MIR. Allen was the sole
'inteuogator and inquisitor;;'' and when
the evidence was over Mr.. Mccartney
was discharged without word as to
contempt of the committee.
The court-Is the question contempt of
the committee, or whether the defendant
violated the statute?
Judge Wilson said that contempt
could only be OF the committee, and not
of member OF the committee and the
witness was bound to answer only ques-
tions Of the committee Mr. Mccartney
found himself in the dilemma of facing
the statute, and of refusing to do q thin z
for which he had ample warrant, in con-
stitutional right Then, when the citizen
stood in that attitude, 1t was the duty
OF the committee to direct him how to
act with reference to the statute and It's
penalties.
Mr.. Baker replied that the record show ed
that the testimony OF Mr.. Mccartney WAS
given in the presence OF the committee, and
that the chairman, in addition to Senator
Allen, was asking questions. Each mem
Der OF the committee had right to ask
questions, as the committee was not a
BODY Win the chairman as the judge. Mr..
mccartney himself in his testimony spoke
or treating with the committee" In this
Case. too, the defendant was warned OF
the consequences by Senator Allen, and
Mr Mccartney said he would take the
ordinary chances.
Judge wilson, desire TO add to the
grounds OF the motion that the questions
asked the defendant were not pertinent
to the inquiry.
The district attorney-That statement dis
poses ofitself, for Mr.. Mccartney was asked
the same questions put to Mr. Chapman
Mr.. Davis, further replying TO the argu-
ment, said that the statute does not say
that person shall or shallnot answer any
particular member of the committee, but
1.-THE committee Mr. Davis quoted the
Senate resolution to show that the oues-
tions asked Mr.. Mccartney were included
in the subject matter OF the inquiry. There
was nothing in the statute prescribing
that questions should be asked by ma
1osfty of the committee As matter II
fact, each member OF the committee had
equal and coordinate powers. and unless
new things We're interpolated in the
statute, there was no escape from con-
viction. Mr.. Mccartney himself said: Il
want to treat this committee with all re-
spect''
Inc defense, he said, overlooked the
fact that he defendant was not summoned
by Senator Allen but by the committee.
The Chapman case and this case are pre-
cisely the same, Concluded Mr.. Davis, and
there can be DO reason why the result
should not be the same In each case.
The Court-Mr. Chapman was advised
that he must answer The whole com
plittee voted on that Question
AS soon as Judge Bradley said tlis
there was an impression that 1t indicated
that he would order the acquittai on the
gropnd that Mr. Mccartney had not been
advised Of the effect OF q refusal toanswer
and that the committee had not adopted
any question propounded to him.
The court adjourned at p m until
today, the district attorney having first
Withdrawn certain defective indictments
against Chapman and Mccartney.