Evening star., 1897-06-01
Justice Bradley's Instructions to the
Jury Today.
A VERDICT OF ACQUIFfAL DIRECTED
Shadow of the Jail Passes From
the Secretary.
L III E j L d q E'S MARKS

Judge Bradley this morning directed the
| jury in the case of John E Sea-les he
secretary and treasurer of the American
| Sugar Refining Company charged with
having in June, 1894. refused to answer
| certain questions asked him by the Sem
| ate's sugar trust Investigating committee,
10 return verdict of not guilty That
verdict was, of course. at once returned,
end thereupon the millionaire defendant
was discharged from custody and from
| further liability under the indictment;
In granting the defense's motion for an
| acquittal Judge bradley held that the ques
hons to which Mr.. Searles refused TO re-
| ply required answers not pertinent TO the
senate inquiry, and not within tn. iuris-
oichon, therefore, Of the Senate to make
HI anticipation OF Judge Bradley's de-
ctsloh' the court room was packed This
| morning, when court was opened. shortly
| after lG O'Clock, the attendance of MEM
oers OF the bar being particularly large.
Mr. Havcmeyer a Spectator.
ine Gcfcndan;, accompanied by Presi-
ueft liehry y. 1iavemeycr OF the American
sugar Rthning Company, who was ac-
quit'ed iast week of a similar charge Ly
cHeciion OF the court, HLs among the frs.
10 appear in court. lie was also accom-
| panied by his counsel Messrs. John q
Johnson or Phil ldelphia. John +. Parsons
OF New York ana Nathaniel Wilson of ms
city, and his face was wreAthed in A smfl,.
which plainly Indicated that ne was CONT
dent OF a favorable iecistol by the court
Mr. Havemeyer and the counsel for the
defense APPEARED equally as confident while
District Attorney Davis and mis- assistant
MI. Baker, wore looks of resignation. The
Judges decision met with general approval
among the members oc the bar no heard
II. pon the rendition of the verdict Mr.
Searles was promptly discharged from Gus
tody, and alter nai been warmly con-
graduated by mis- chief and counsel left
the court room with them in very happy
frame of mind. Mr.. Davis announced 10
the court that he VIII next Monday mora
ing call up for trial mat day ;he cases
Of Newspaper Correspondents John 3
Shriver and e. Jay Edwards. who also
stand indicted for similar alleged offense.
Following their cases will be tried Messrs
Mccartney and seymour.
Judge BradIey's Opinion.
In directing the jury to acquit Mr. Searles
Judge Bradley said the indictment is prac-
ideally duplicate of the indictment fJund
in the Havemeyer case, with such Changes
in allegation as adapt il TO shC official char
acter of the defendant an officer of The
American Sugar Refining Company, and 10
the questions that were put TO him, the re-
fusal to answer which is the basis of this
prosecution.
The questions asked Mr.. Searles, said the
judge, were these:
What amount was expended by your
company in the campaign of 1S92?'
What sum Gid You Contribute TO the
democratic campaign fuad in the state OF
New York in lS,2 that WIS used for the
purpose of condu citing the campaign IN that
state, at which time Cleveland and Harri-
son were candidates for President Of the
United S:ates?
Did you contribute 10 the democratic
fund of New York;
These questions, explained the court, the
defendant declined TO answer Cn the
ground that the committee did not have
lawful power authority, under the reso-
luton. to propound the questions. and that
he did not think that he was lawfully
bound 10 answer the sane.
The Evidence Adduccd.
The testimony of the government, said
the judge. tended to show that these ques-
tions were put to the defendant as a wit
ness on that occasion, and that he declined
to answer them for the reason alleged. 1t
also shows that the witness was subjected
to a lengthy examination by the chairman
and various members of the committee
that covered the entire subJect-matter Oh
the investigation that the committee was
directed to make: that during this eNami-
nation the defendant testified, in substance,
that he had never made the suggestion 10
any one that the democratic party was IN
debted to the sugar trust for campaign
contributions made by ii, or any Kindred
suggestion: that there had been no contrl-
buttons MADE bN Ine CoIpdhss "
knowledge. with any view TO pending legls-
lation either to secure or to defeat leglsla-
ton: that contributions had been made To-
caily for campaign purposes, but Win no
appication or purpose to Gefeat legislation;
that he had no knowledge OF contributions
made by the company TO the campaign
fund of 1897 for purposes of the presiden-
tial election: that the only money paid out
in 1873 was for local political purposes;
that he knew nothing as to how that
money was used, or by whom or for what
purpose: that he thought an amount was
contributed to the democratic campaign
fund of the state of New York IN the year
1892, but that he personally had no knowl-
edge of what IL was then; tnat ne was NOT
aware of any expectation Of a return to be
made for the contribution; that the contri-
button was made without any definite un-
derstanding to any benefit TO be re-
ceived, and that the only Contributions
made were made locally.
Other Points Raised.
Judse Bradley also called attention 10 the
denial of the defendant that any contribu-
tions had been made by him to the national
campaign fund of either or by the so-called
sugar trust or that any had been MADE 10
influence legislation or to aid In the cleo
ton of any United States senator or ior
any improper purpose. Referring TO tne
law alleged to have been violated, the Juoge
explained that the question for the court
to determine upon this motion Is wnetner'
as matter of law. upon the evidence,
the defendant can be held to be guilty OF
a misdemeanor by reason of the refusal
to answer the questions that were put TO
him.
The statute, he continued, makes the Of
tense to consist in the refusal of a witness
who has been duly summoned TO give testi-
mony, and who has appeared 10 answer
any question pertinent to the question un-
Ger inquiry. To determine, therefore,
whether this motion should be granted, II
becomes incumbent upon the court TO de-
eide whether the questions put were peril
uent to the question under inquiry, and,
further, whether the inquiries directed by
the resolution were within the jurisdiction
Of the Senate to make.
The statute makes the offense to consist
In a refusal to answer any question peril
rent to any matter under inquiry before
any committee of either house of Congress
Obviously, however, the words ANY mat
ter include only such matters OF inquiry
as are within the Jurisdiction of the Sem
ate. That such Is the meaning of this
statute is declared by Mr.. Chief Justice
Fuller in the Chapman case, and with ref
-