Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-05-26

0eveloped tnaI MI. devemeyer a0mitted
that the Mckinley tariff bill was very
favorable to the interests Of his company.
and That tbs company made q great deal OF
money under It's operation. The notes
showed, also. that while the defendant
stated, in reply to Senator Allen, that no
contributions were made by the company
for the national campaign, or to influences
the election OF any United States senator,
he declined to go into details as to contri-
buttons for local campaign purposes until
after he had consulted his counsel.
Mr.. Miller was then excused from tina
stand, and MI. johnson proceeded to read
from the printed report certain other parts
of the defendants testimony. Mr.. Davis
objected, contending that the only matter
at issue is whether the defendant did or
did not refuse to answer the particular
question set out In the Indictment
Judge Bradley's Ruling.
Judge Bradley held, however. that the
defendant had the right to show, If he
could, that he had, in reply to other Ques-
lions. answered substantially the question
he Is charged with having refused to an
swer Mr.. johnson then proceeded with
the reading Of the defendants testimony,
during which 1t appeared that Mr. Have
meyer absolutely denied ever having con-
suited e. G. Benedict. a friend of Presi-
dent Cleveland, as to the sugar interests
or as to any other business interest. 1t
also transpired that he alphabetically denied
even knowing or having met the ex-Presi-
dent He as emphatica1ly denied appear
ing at the Capitol here during the Senate
committees COZ, consideration of the Wilson
oiu or at any other time for the purpose
OF influencing the action of the committee,
except to secure fair treatment by fair
means, as he claimed he had a perfect
rieht to do. He stated that he never knew
OF any senator dealing in sugar stocks, and
uehiso ever having received from any sena-
tor the slightest intimation as to the prob
aoie future action Of the Senate in the
matter Of the tariff
After Recess.
MI. johnson had not concluded reading
the testimony of Mr.. Havemeyer before the
committee when Judge Bradley, at 1880
O'CLOCK directed recess for half an hour
ana after recess he continued the reading
of the defendants testimony That part
OF his testimony showed that Mr.. Have
meyer reasserted that neither his company
nor himself contributed anything to the
national campaign fund, and that neither
contributed anything toward securing the
domination Of any person for the presi-
dency OF the United States in 1892
Inen District Attorney Davis read a few
OF the defendants answers. showing that
MI. Havemeyer stated to the committee
that the Senate schedule In the Wilson
tarih would very materially increase the
price OF sugar But Mr.. johnson again
took hand In reading his clients testi-
niony, for the purpose of showing that after
the formation of the so-called sugar trust
sugar was considerably cheaper to the con-
sumner than 1t was before. 1t was also de-
veloped by Mr.. Havemeyer's testimony that
so far as he knew no senator or representa-
tive was at the time or ever had been en-
ployed as attorney Of the American Sugar
Refining Company.
Then. after offering in evidence copies of
the New York Sun and the Philadelphia
Press. containing the charges that brides
had been offered certain senators to induce
them to vote In favor Of the interests Of
the American Sugar Refining Company;
that the Senate's sugar schedule had been
SO influenced. and that senators had been
Improperly Specializing in sugar stocks,
District Attorney Davis announced the
close OF the case on behalf Of the govern
ment.
Defense's Notion.
Mr.. Davis announcement had been anticf-
pated by MI. Havemeyers counsel, and In
his behalf they moved the court to take the
case from the jury. That is they asked
that the jury be directed to return q verdict
OF not guilty. In support of the motion, Mr..
johnson explained that it was based on six
grounds: First, because there was no right
In the Senate to make inquiry concerning
state or local contributions made by the
American Sugar Refining Company; Sec
ondiy. because there was no duty on the
part Of the defendant to examine the books
OF the company in order that he might
thereby answer; third: because the question
asked him required him to produce data
from the said books, when the proper
method would have been the production of
the books by the custodian of them; fourth,
because the question. as put to the de-
PENDANT, was too broad. involving matters
concerning which 1t was not his duty to
answer In the whole; fifth. because before
the defendant can be convicted it must be
shown that the committee advised him that
the question was that Of the committee
and not the individual one Of any one of
the committee, and. sixth. because the in
dictment does not allege the commission of
any ofense.
Nj. Johns0n's Argument.
Mr.. Johnson took up the grounds on
which the motion was based in their order,
making an exceedingly forcible and elO-
quent argument in support Of the motion.
Mr.. johnson is recognized as the leader of
the Philadelphia bar, and his abilities are
we'll known here. So. when it became
known that he was addressing the court
In support of the expected motion to take
the case away from the further considera-
ton OF the jury, the demand for admission
to the court room was far beyond the ca
pacity of the room, and even the ante
rooms and corridors leading to the court
room were packed by members Of the bar
and others seeking to hear him, 1t being
evident that he would accupy the re-
mainder OF the day In making his argu-
ment.
In contending that the Senate had no
right to make an inquiry as to the con-
tributions said to have been made by the
American Sugar Refining Company for
state and local campaign purposes, Mr..
johnson submitted that such an inquiry
was nothing more or less than an effort to
pry into the affairs Of private business
concern. He admitted that the Senate had
a right to inquire into national affairs. but
he asserted that when the defendant had
fully answered that there had been no
contributions to the national campaign, the
committees right to inquire had been ex-
hausted.
The Indictment he characterized as con-
tanning more inuendoes than the most libel
Gus article ever printed, and the question
set out In the Indictment he referred to as
a trf-barrel one. Then he corrected him
self by terming 1t as containing SO many
barrels. all shooting at one time and every
one In different direction. 1t was, he re-
marked. not only an unfair question but
an unmanly one, and it was not the duty
Of the defendant to dissect 1t. answering
the good part of 1t and declining to answer
the bad part of it SO. until the question
was properly framed. 30 expressed as to
make an intelligent answer possible the de-
PENDANT was not obliged to answer.
Referring to the other grounds on which
the motion was based. Mr.. johnson sub
mitted that the subpoena served on the
defendant did not direct him to produce
the books of his company, and he was not.