The times., 1897-06-16

The proceedings were commenced yes
terday, before Judge Bradley, in the case
the New York Mail and Express, who
is Indicted as a contumacious witness be-
fore the Senate committee of inquiry In
the sugar scandals of 1893. Mr. Shnver
was represented by Judge Dittenhoefer,
OF New York. and Judge Jere Wilson, of
this city, the Government being repre-
sented by District Attorney Davis and
Assistant District Attorney Baker.
The case is one of considerable interest
as it involves the question as to the
right of newspaper correspondents to pro
tect those from whom they derive in
formation in confidence. Mr. Shriver
placed his defense before the Senate COM
mittee on the general ground that dl-
vulging the name of Congressman, or
any ether who might have given iniorria-
tion, would be a breach OF confidence.
Notwithstanding the peculiar interest CT
the case, the courtroom was not crowded,
although the out-of-town newspapers Were
well represented.
The testimony was largely the same as
that which has been adduced in the Chap
man case and more recently in the have
meyer and Searles cases, the Chapman case
being considered by the District attorney
the parallel of the present cause. The Gov
ernment relies strongly on conviction
After putting in the documentary evil
dence, such as the New York State assem-
bly, journals, the New Jersey State jour
naIs, the Senate journals and the Senate
proceedings leading up to the inquiry and
the {. stinlony taken before the Senate COM
nnttee, the prosecution put up three OF the
Senators who were members of the conf
nittee, MeSsrs Gray, Lindsay and Davis.
The testimony of these has practically ap-
peared already in The Times Two of the
Senator's declared that they could not re-
member whether Mr. Shriver was warned
OF the consequences OF the recalctrancy,
and Senator Davis said that his recollec-
tiou was that the witness was told that he
would be obliged TO answer unless the
answer to the question would incrirninate
hir!, to which Mr.. Shriver replied that he
did not decline 10 answer on that ground.
The prosecution was not able to produce
the original notes of testimony taken by
Stenographer Boswell, VINO explained salts
factoriiy how they had been lost. One
of the features of the examination, and, in
fact, the only feature, was the effort made
by the defense to discount the value or
the testimony taken by Mr.. Boswell The
defense endeavored to show that because
Mr.. Boswell had substituted another
stenographer for himself on certain day
OF the trial, 1t was because OF temporary
tucapacity to work. The district aJtor-
ney, however, protected the witness all
the way through, and the witness himself
proved to have good knowledge of law
and what he might or might not answer
This incident OF the trial was as follows:
Mr. Wilson Did an ything occur duringthe
committee meetings which does not appear
on the committee record?
Mfr Davis-I object.
Tie witness-I think know TO what you
refer
Mr.. Dayis-I object.
The witness admitted that some things
might have occurred when he was absent;
but everything that Mr. shriver said was
In the record Aside from tile record, Mr..
Boswell would say that Mr.. Shriver did
not ask for tiTne He remembered that Mr..
Shriver only asked for time from the fact
that Judge Dittenhoefer appea ared for him.
Judge WiI>on-You ceased to be stenog-
rapher Of that committee?
The Witness-Yes, sir.
Judge WilSon-Now, why?
The district attorney objected.
Mr.. Wilson desired to know if Mr.. Pos
well did notccase to take notes OF Congress
man Cadmus' testimony, and that another
stonographer was substituted. Mr.. boswell
replied that the substitute stenographer
was Mr. Miller whom he placed In charge
Judge Wilson'S it not fact that the
committee discovered that your notes were
inaccurate and that for that reason you
ceased TO be stenographer.
The Witness No, sir. / substituted an
other person.
Judge Dittenhoefer here made the point
that the district attorney was trying to
prove tie testimony of Shriver in second
ary way, ard not by the originalnotes.
Judge Wilson-were you under the influ-
ence OF LIQUOR when you were taking Mr..
shrivers testimony?
The Witness--Judge, that is not Kind.
Mr. DsviS-He has already answered that
question.
The CORFU QlrecUeO lne WlUueSS 10 du-
swer.
His reply was, ~ was not
1t was necessary for the prosecution to
prove by MI Bernard w Layton, assistant
sergeant at arms, Messrs. Cousard, of the
Treasury, and Mr. McFee, of the Senate,
that Mr. Shriver had been properly sum-
moned before the committee.
The prosecution rested its case on the
documentary evidence and the statements
of the Sens that the witness, Shriver,
had declined to answer when asked for the
name OF 4 certain Congressman who had
given the newspaper man certain infor
nation obtain ed from a wire manufactures
at the Arlington Hotel, on which he built
d story involving the enators.
Judge Dittenhoefer moved that the court
direct tho jury to acquit on grounds which
he proceeded TO argue at length, his argu
ment being unfinished at the time of the
adjournment OF the court until this morn
ing
BAPTIST Minister'S Union.
Il,4; off