The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1897-05-29
sEARLEs CASE UNDECIDED.
Judge Bradley Adjourns Court Without
Reaching Decision,

Washington, May 2S.-The trial of John
E. Searles, secretary of the American
Sugar Refining company, followed that
of President Havemeyer, before Judge
Bradley in Criminal court, No. /, today
The Indictment found against Mr..
Searles is very similar to the one found
against Mr.. Havemeyer, except that the
questions asked Mr.. Searles are somewhat
different. The same lawyers who appeared
for Mr.. Havemeyer had charge of Mr..
Searles' defense.
The defendants counsel made no at
tempt to contest any Of the documents
S they did the Havemeyer case. Such
extracts from Mr.. Searles' testimony be-
fore the Senate committee as the govern
ment and defense desired to be intro
duced as evidence were admitted without
protest from either side.
MIR. johnson in reading these extracts to
the jury laid great stress upon Mr..
Searles' repeated affirmation in reply to
questions that he had no personal nowl-
edge. 1t was noticeable that Judge Brad
ley as these responses were read was bust
y engaged in making notes and that Mr..
Havemeyer and Mr.. Searles exchanged
significant notes.
Senator Gray was the first witness
called. He testified as in the Havemeyer
case, to the facts as to the Senate investi-
cation. On cross examination Senator
Gray stated that he did not believe the
question asked by Senator Allen was per-
tinent and with Mr.. Lindsay so reported
to the Senate.
II did not believe it was pertinent, !"
said he, ''taken in connection with the
questions he had answered. He had testi-
fed that no money had been contributed
for notional political purposes and none
for the purpose of affecting legislation
Judge Bradley himself put several ques-
lions to Senator Gray. He asked the wit
ness if Mr.. Searles was informed when
he declined to answer Senator Allen S
question that the committee insisted upon
answers.
dent recollection ON that point. When
Senator Gray left the stand District At
torney Davis announced to the surprise
of the spectators in court that the gov
eminent rested it's case. Thereupon John
son for the defense moved as in the Have
meyer case that the judge instruct the
jury to bring in verdict of acquittal,
He based his motion on three grounds.
First-That the questions Mr. Scarf es
refused to answer were revelant to moth
ing the committee was supposed to have
been ordered to investigate.
Second-That the evidence did not show
that the questions put were committee
questions so that if there was contempts
it was simply contempt of Senator Allen.
4 Third-That the Senate had no power
whatever to put questions even if the
resolutions authorized them.
Mr.. johnson proceeded to elaborate and
argue the three propositions laid down.
The recess was taken at 1910 until 90
o'clock.
After the recess Mr.. johnson continued
his argument. He argued that the ques-
ton must have been impertinent because
If it had been ascertained that millions
OF dollars had been contributed for local
campaign purposes. In New York for
instance, Congress would have no power
to enact remedial legislation, and could
not raise finger to prevent similar con-
tributions in the future. 1t was purely
matter for the state to deal with. Mr.
johnson concluded his argument shortly
afetr 2 O. clock. District Attorney Davis
reply was comparatively brief. Mr.. Davis
concluded at 8 o'clock and Mr.. Davis
closed briefly.
= At $50 without rendering his decision
Judge Bradley adjourned court until