The daily morning journal and courier., 1897-05-28
HE WAS NOT C0NTUMACIOUS
SUGAR MIGNATE HAVEMEY ER IS
 ADJUDGED NOT GUILTY.

beBln Ao-uHy.
 Washington, D. C., May 27.-"Cer- talnly I am satisfied with the yer dict" said Henry o. Havemeyer to an Associated Press reporter a few minutes after the Jury had returned verdict of not guilty this afternoon. "The verdict" he said, ought to be satisfactory to every decent man in this and every other community
 That was the only expression the president of the American Sugar Re- fining company would make upon the result of his trial, which had been in progress three days before Judge Brad ley. The verdict was the continuation of long legal battle which began three years ago when MT. Havemeyer de- clined as witness before the senate sugar investigation committee to furn- ish the committee with data as to the political contributions made by the company to the local and state commit tees in 1892 and 1S93 Broker Chapman, around whom the preliminary battle waged was found guilty and is now serving thirty days sentence in the dis trict Jail The conclusion of the trial was abrupt.
 The defence produced no witnesses. When the government rested it's case the defence moved that the court in- struct the jury to order an acquittal on eiS 5c ho ntr1a nf which was that the committee did not have Jurisdiction and that the question ask ed was not pertinent.
 This morning the district attorney made a motion to induce the presiding judge to overrule the motion. But the court sustained the motion.
 In rendering his decision, which was very lengthy and consumed over an hour in it's delivery, Judge Bradley de- clined to rule on the main question as to the Jurisdiction of the senate com mittee He said the questions involved In that proposition were of such grave importance that he would not rule on that point without further and more careful examination. But he held 1t was unnecessary to. rule on the main contention.
 Although a verdict of not guilty was given by the jury it was verdict re- turned under the courts instructions. MT. Hayemeyer's attorneys were natur- ally much elated over their victory.
 This ends the case forever" said MT. Johnson of Philadelphia, MT. Have meyers chief counsel
 The case of MT. John F. Searles, sec retary of the Sugar Trust, who was indicted with MT Havemeyer for re- cusancy. will be called tomorrow Dis trict Attorney Davis, who will likewise conduct this case for the government says that the cases are not analogous and that the Searles case could not be dismissed on the same ground because Mr Searles declined to answer ques- tions of which he presumably had knowledge. But in the Searles case, 1t is probable that the main contention as to the jurisdiction and pertinency will be raised and that Judge Bradley will be compelled to rule upon 1t as he to- day announced he would, when 1t was raised as the direct issue.
 There was almost breathless suspense in the court room when the court re- convened at 1 o'clock. The room buzzed with speculation as to what the decis- ion would be. Just before the judge entered bright little girl ran over to Mir Havemeyer and said she wanted to shake his hand. The millionaire su- gar king took her in his arms and kiss ed her. He then put her down and she ran back to her mother.
 'I don't know who the child is," said MT Havemeyer to his attorney, MT. Parsons, "but think that it is a good omen."
 Judge Bradley was exactly ten min- utes late With solemnity he announc- ed that the propositions upon which the motion of the defence was founded involved questions of great importance questions which could not be decided by the court without the most careful consideration. especially that one which related to the power and juris- diction of the special committee ap- pointed by the United States senate.
 It had been impossible for the court in the few minutes since the argument terminated, to consider carefully and accurately the grave question involved, but, holding that question in abeyance, the court had given enough considera- tion to the other questions involved to enable it to dispose of the motion of the defence. As to the grave question of the power and jurisdiction of the senate committee, the court could not enter upon that without further thought.
 Judge Bradley then proceeded care fully to review the indictment. He read the statute prescribing the pun ishment (fne and imprisonment) for default or refusal to answer questions of a congressional committee, and re- viewed the decisions of the court of appeals and the supreme court in the Chapman case.
 The questions asked of MT Have meyer and MT. Chapman differed some- what, he said. The facts as shown tended to establish the facts as given in the indictment, Judge Bradley said But. he asked. was defendant guilty of contempt. This, he said, depended upon two propositions: First, did the com mittee have Jurisdiction and was the question pertinent; second, did the question demand facts within the pos session of the witness. 4 negative to either of these propositions, the judge said, would require the court to sus- tain the motion. The witness, the