Delaware gazette and state journal., 1897-06-03
THE HAvEMEYER TRIAL.
District Attorneys Reply TO Motion OF De
fence for All order OF Acunittal.

fflct Attorney Davis entered upon his
reply to the motion OF the defence to
order an acquittal. which Mr.. Have
muyer's counsel argued yesterday. Mr..
Davis took up the six propositions upon
which tho defence based the motion
and met them seriatim, although not
in the ordor laid down by the defence.
With regard to the proposition that
1t was not Mr.. lavemsyer'e duty TO
consult books and records in order 10
give testimony which was beyond his
recollection Mr.. Davis pointed out that
when ths question was first propounded
Mr.. HavemeYer expressed his willing
ness to procure the data demanded.
Mr.. Havemeyer haI admitted that he
had access tn the records. The only
thing he had asked was the opportunity
to consult counsel. AS TO whether the
question to which answer was refused
was peiIinent Mr.. Davis said that was
matter OF fact for the jury to decide.
With this statement the court seemed
to coincide. The contention that the
question was loo broad fell to the
ground through Mr.. Davemeyer' ssown
instrumentality, Mr.. Davis said, be-
cause Mr. Hayemeyer himself had dis
iutegrated the question and had thon
made himself recusant.
As TO the pertineney OF the questions
relating to local and State political con-
trihutionH Mr.. Davis pointed out how
| United States Senator, hard pressed
in his local elections, might have ap-
peaed to the Sugar Refining Co. for
| funds with the understanding that il
he triumphed his vote and influence
would be at the disposal of the Sugar
Trust That may be brutally blunt"
| said the district attorney, but ii is
possibility" A4
AS to the contention OF the defencs
that Mr.. Havemeyer should have been
warned that the question he declined
to answer was a committee question
Mr.. Davis pointed out that Mr.. Have
meyer was duly warned, that he was
making himself recusant. After he
had refused the chairman of the COM
n,ittee had said to him very plainly |:
" ls that the answer you desire to make
to this question:" Mr.. Havemeyer re,
| piled: THAT is the answer" The
| question put to Mr.. Havemeyer. Mr..
Davis insisted, was pertinent to the in
quiry. Ii had been alleged by the
newspaper articles, the truth of which
the committee was investigating, that
a director Of the Sugar Trust had
stated that the trust cared nothing for
| the Senate. He was quoted as having
said: We own the United States
Senate. body. boots and breeches,
brain, morals and ALL. In the face OF
such allegations was it not the duty of
the committee, he asked, TO find out
| whether the trust had contributed 10
local elections upon the result of which
hung the fate of United States Sena.
torsf He cited the decisions Of the
| Court OF Appeals and the Supreme
i Court of the United States in the
/ Chapman case to prove the pertinency
of the question. MIR. Davis described
| the trust as conscienceless "octopus''
reaching from coast to coast, using the
leverage Of its power ip politics, by the
admission of its president as Repub-
lican in Republican States and as a
Democrat in Democratic States. BY
| innuendo it had been charged that the
| authors Of tho sugar schedule in 1894
had framed it for ''hard cash." but
Mr.. Davis said no one supposed that a
Senator OF the Uoited States would
accept a vulgar bribe. Still it was
within the realm of possibility that
indirectly Senators were enabled to re-
ceive vast sums. No one, Mr.. Davis
declared, would contend that the Senate
had not the power to protect itself from
| jobhers within it's walls.
At 1l.30 O'Clock adjournment was
announced till p. m., to give the
court opportunity to take the motion
of defendants counsel under advise.
ment.
/ THE CASE DISMISSED.
The court has sustained the motion of
the defenGe, and the case against Have
meyer is dismissed.
TRIAL OF JOHN e. sEARLEs.
Washington, May S.-The trial of
John Il. Searles, secretary Of the Ameri-
can Sugar Refining Co., began in
Criminal Court No. to-day. Judge
Bradley's decision yesterday, which
throw the case against President Have
meyer cut of court, robbed the Searles
trial of much OF its interest, despite
the assertion of District Attorney Davis
that the cases were not analogous, and
that the contention set up by the de
fence in the Havemeyer case. upon
which the judge ordered verdict of
acquittal returned. would not hold in
tho Searles case. The general belief was
that the main question as to pertinency
would bp raised ny the defence in this
case, and that the judge would be re
quired to rule or that question before
the defence opened. The same lawyers
who appeared for MIR. Havemeyer had
charge of Mr.. Sealre's defence. Mr..
IIavemeyer sat by Mr. Searles' side.
At II. 40 O'Clock the government
rested its case, and the defence moved
that the jury be instructed TO bring IN
verdict of acquittal on three grounds.
The course followed by the district
attorney in the Havemeyer case was
repeated in the Searles case. The same
documents were Introduced to lay this
basis for the trial. The defendant g
counsel made no attempt to contest any
of the documents, as they did in the
lIavemeyer case Such extracts from
Mr.. Seares' testimony before the Senate
committee as the government and dc.
fence desired to be introduced as evil
tlence were admitted without protest
from either side Mr.. johnson, in read
ing these extracts to the Jury, laid great
stress upon MIR. Searles' repeated atlirma-
tion, in reply to question, tnat he had
mo personal knowledge" 1t was
noticeable that Judge Bradley, as these
responses were read, was busily engaged
in making notes. and that Mr.. Have
meyer and Mr.. Searlss exchanged sig
nifirant mods.
Court took recess until O'Clock.
Washington, Juno lin the case of
John e, Searles, the Sugar Trust wit.