Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-06-18
Justice Bradley Directs Return Of
Verdict Of Acquittal.
DEFENDANT WARMLY CONGRATULATED
District Attorney Davis Begins the
Trial of Another Defendant.
JUDGE BRADLEY'S OPINION

SHTiFeT, the washington representative OF
the New York Mail and Express, charged
with contumacy before Senator Gray's
sugar trust investigating committee, in
June, 1894. this morning granted the mo-
tion of the defense for a verdict of not
guilty, and directed the jury to acquit.
The formal verdict Of not guilty was at
once rendered, and then, after the court
had discharged the journalistic defendant
from further liability and custody under
the indictment, Mr.. Shriver was warmly
congratulated by his counsel and the many
friends who had come into court in antici-
patton of the favorable action.
District Attorney Davis took his defeat
philosophically. and gave notice that he
will at o'clock this afternoon proceed with
the case Of Mr.. E. Jay Edwards, the WASH
ington correspondent of the Philadelphia
Press, who stands similarly indicted.
An. Elaborate Opinion.
In granting the motion for a verdict of
not guilty, Judge Bradley presented an
elaborate and carefully prepared opinion
reading it from typewriter sheets. The
opinion was not nearly SO lengthy as that
delivered by the judge in the Searles case
and 1t was based principally on two
grounds, viz, that Mr.. Shriver was not
duiy summoned to appear before the in
Vestgating committee, and because the
question asked him, and which he was al
IeSed to have declined to answer, was not
pertinent one
The judge, while not agreeing with the
contention of counsel for the defense that
confidential communications made to news
papers and newspaper men are privileged,
held, nevertheless, that Mr.. Shriver was
not obliged to give the name of the person
from whom he obtained the informatio
on which he based his article in the Mail
he ia
ference between members of the Senate
and those of the sugar trust at the Arling-
ton Hotel in this city.
Victory for the Press.
Therefore, Mr.. Shriver, his counsel and
his newspaper friends consider the opinion
of Judge Bradley as most substantial and
gratifying victory for members of the
press
Speaking Of the decision, Judge Ditten-
hoefer, one of Mr.. Shriver's counsel. said:
I'VE consider it a great victory for the
newspaper profession. While the judge
held that in the absence of legislation by
Congress to grant to newspaper men the
privilege of refusing to disclose confiden-
tal communications he was not prepared
to hold that such privilege existed, yet in
his decision that 1t could not be pertinent
or relevant to any issue, either in court or
before a legislative committee, to compel
newspaper man to give the name of his
reached.
THE profession of Journalism under this
decision obtains virtually the privilege of
refusing to disclose the name of an in
formant, but under a different legal prin-
ciple, which is that such evidence is not
pertinent or relative. This was one of the
principal points discussed by Judge Wilson
and myself before Judge Bradley"
As the case of Mr.. Edwards is consid-
cred to be identical with that of Mr.. Shri-
ver It is not doubted that the court will
also promptly direct his acQuittal.
In disposing of the motion Judge Brad
ley stated that it was based on several
grounds one of them being that Mr..
Shriver was not directed or required to
answer the question, but the judge held
that the circumstances testified to tend
ed to prove that the defendant was advised
by the committee that they required an
answer. The Judge held further shat there
was a deliberate declination to answer the
question calling for the source of Mr..
Shriver's Information, the one alleged in
the Indictment.
Judge Bradley's Reasons.
Referring to the contention that Mr..
ileged not to disclose the name Of his in
formant, Judge Bradley said:
communications by client to attorney in
the source of professional employment,
and confidential communications between
husband and wife, are privileged at COM
mon law, and protected from disclosure III
judicial proceedings In some of the states
of the Union this protection has been eX-
tended by statute to confidential communi-
cations made by a patient to a physician in
his professional capacity, and to informa-
ton obtained by the physician in his at
tendance upon the patient. 1t has been
extended by statute in some of the states
to communications made to spiritual ad-
visers 1t appears that communications
made to editors. or reporters, or cor
IL hnry tNy.AI
such legislative protection in hut one of
the states.
'The Congress of the United States has
not yet SO yielded to the force OF the de-
mahds of public policy for such legislation,
strenuously urged in argument. as to pro-
vide a statute protecting newspaper men,
called as witnesses before congressional
committee or before court Of justice,
from disclosing relevant facts within their
knowledge. Until it does. will not be
able to distinguish the public duty of the
newsgatherer from that Of other indi-
viduals to make such disclosure when call
ed to do so by court of justice, or by an
irquisitorial body having Jurisdiction Of
the subject"
Discussed the Summons.
The court next considered the contention
of Mr.. Shriver's counsel that the defendant
was not summoned to appear before tho
committee of investigation, and that his
refusal to answer was not a misdemeanor
under section 1O2 of the Revised Statutes
OF the Unied States.
1T appears" said the judge, by the evil
dence that no writ was issued. but that he
was sent for by the committee, and by
their messenger asked to appear before
them; that he was informed that sum-
mons would be served upon him II he did
rot appear voluntarily; that he did appear.
was sworn as a witness and answered
many questions 1t is claimed that this
was sufficient summons under the statute,
and that the summons need not be by
service of writ"
Judge Bradley said that a witness ap-
pearing before court of law can be pun
ished for contempt only after he has been
properly served with a subpoena, yet IL
lie voluntarily appears he valves the right
to the writ and to its service. But the
court held that whether an unserved wit
Less before a congressional committee can
be punished by the legislature for refusing
to answer a question was not before the
court.
Application OF the Statute.
The question before the court was, "Can
this penal statute be held to apply to q wit
ness refusing to answer questions who has
not been summoned. but who has appeared
tcontinued on Tenth Pasa)