Evening star., 1897-06-01
SEARLES ALSO FREE
CONTINUED from First Page.)

CONTINUED from First Page)
the jurisdiction Of the two houses Of Con-
gress, beforet them for consideration and
proper for their action; to questions peril
neAt thereto. and to facts or papers bear
ing thereon"
Chapman Case Cited.
In the Chapman case the questions put
to the witness were whether the firm of
which Chapman was a member. and which
was engaged In buying and selling stocks,
and in buying and selling the stock of the
American Sugar Refining Company. was
employed by any senator to buy or sell
for him any of that stock. A branch OF
the subject matter of the investigation that
the committee were directed to make was,
under the resolution. whether any senator
has been or is speculating in wha: are
known as sugar stocks during the consld-
Grafton of he tariff bill now before the
Senate" Plainly the questions tina: were
addressed to Chapman were directly per-
tinent to that branch of the investigation;
and while recognizing the right Of an indi-
vidual to the entire control of information
relating exclusively to his own private
affairs. and the force of article of the
amendments of the Constitution, insuring
the right of the people to be secure in their
perscrs, houses, papers and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures. the
court Eeld that the questions put to Chap
man could not be regarded as amounting
10 d NlOlaCOh OF ln1S provision.
Scope of the Decision.
In the Chapman case, said the Judge, the
Supreme Court limited the scope of its
decision to that particular case, leaving
open the question whether the other
branches of this investigation were within
the power of the Senate.
The subject matter of the investigation
directed by the Senate in the resolutions
adODted he divided into
Q) Whether bribes had been offered to
certain senators to induce them to vote
against the pending tariff bill.
2) Whether the sugar schedule as
amended was made up by the committee
on finance in consideration of large sums
OF money paid for campaign purposes Of
the democratic party.
g. Whather any contributions had been
made by the sugar trust, or any persons
connected Herewith, to any political party
for campaign purposes or to secure or de-
feat legislation.
a. Whether any senator has been or is
specializing in sugar stocks during the con-
sideration of the tariff bill now before the
Senate.
AL additional authority conferred by the
resolution upon this committee is to this
effect: That they were authorized to in
vestlgite and report upon any charge or
charges which may be filed before it al
ieging that the acton of any senator has
been corruptly or Improperly Influenced in
the consideration of said bill, or that any
attempt has been made to so influence
legislation
Senator's Not Charged.
This last paragraph of the resolution may
| be laid aside as having application to
| this case, for ii appears by the report of
| the committee that no charge or charges
| were filed before them alleging that the
| action of any senator has been corruptly
or improperly influenced in the considera-
ton Of said BILL or that any attempt was
| made to 50 influence legislation.
With reference to the first branch of the
| inquiry. whether bribes had been offered
| TO senators to vote against the pending
| ell, the committee reported that they had
| heretofore made full report to the Senate
| OF their investigation of that question, and
| that no other testimony under that head
| had been submitted to the committee, and
they had nothing to add to the report that
had been made. 1t may be concluded
| therefore. that the questions put to this
defendant were not by the committee
| dee med as having any reference whatever
| to this branch of the investigation. 1t is
quite apparent that these questions were
| not pertinent to the fourth branch of thu
subject of investigation, that being whether
any senator had been was specializing
in sugar stocks.
JurisdictiOn Considered.
1t is claimed, however that the questions
put are pertinent to the second and thirs
branches of the inquiry directed. Thi.
| leads us TO inquire, first. whether thes
branches of the inquiry were within tn,
Jurisdiction and power Of the Senate, and
second, whether the questions put wer.
| pertinent to either or both.
If the inquiry directed in the second sub
| division of the subject were directed to tn
ascertainment of the assured fact that
| senator being a member Of the financ
committee was Influenced to favorabl
| action upon the sugar schedule in consid
| GRAFTON of large sums of money paid fo
campaign purposes of the democratic part
the inquiry would be plainly within tina
| power. With reference to the third sub
| division of this subject, 1t is equally pla
that 1t means that the committee shoul
inquire whether any senator was a part
: | to any compact with the sugar trust @
! with any persons connected Herewith. b
! which, and in consideration of a contribu
ton by that company for campaign pur
. poses. he agreed to use his efforts to sc
cure legislation in favor OF that company
, or to defeat legislation that would be ad
verse to its interests, that inquiry wa
within the power of the Senate.
' 1t seems equally plain also that If III
E purpose Of the investigation were sinlpl
to inquire whether the American Suga
| Refining Company had made contribution
| TO political parties, without any agreemen
| with aAy senator as to any benefit tha
the company should derive from future lee
: islation. without reference 10 any actio
I by or bargain with any senator to secur
: : or defeat legislation, such inquiry oul
e g | be an unreasonable search into the privat
i | affairs of tina: company, and that sue
, | search would be beyond the power of tn
Senate to make.
J. Indefinite In Expression.
: This second subdivision of the resolutio
5 Is entirely indefinite in expression. 1t
!, not specifically addressed TO any act
the American Sugar Refining Company
contributing sums of money for campaie
purposes; it is not specifically addresse
, TO the conduct of any senator who was
h member of the finance committee. tt
% reasonable construction of it, -howeve
would appear to be this: That this con
mittee shall inquire whether any one
more senators had used his influence
T his vote in making up the sugar schedu
in consideration of large sums Of mono
paid for campaign purposes of the dem
: cratic party. Under that construction tn
inquiry would be within the power Of Il
Senate to direct, as affecting the condu
| of the members of its committee. and
affecting the integrity ana purity Of Il
members of the Senate, and although the
is no specification OF the sources fro
| which this money for campaign purpos