The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-06-02
JOHN E. SEARLES SET FREE.
THE JURY ORDERED TO FIND n
VERDICT Of ACQUIITAL.

The senate MAY Vet Press Insuiries ~ 70 Css.
tFtsutiops 90 Locai Campaign Rusas-Cor-
poratiens Net Especially Lssbie % the SEM
ate-Correspspdcnts' Trials Nezt week.
WASHINGTON, Juno l.-Justioe Bradley this
morning rendered his decision in the case OF
John Z. Searlcs, who was accused Of being q re-
calcitrant witness before the sugar Investigating
committee. lie ordered the jury to ind a YER
dict for the defendant Mr.. Searles and bis
counsel were present in court to-day. but the
familiar face Of IL. o. Havemoyer was missing.
Justice Bradley, MS soon as he opened court. took
up the motion OF Mr.. johnson for the defence,
that the case be taken from the jury and q YER
dict returned for the defence.
The were heard on Friday. so that
ali that was necessary was the opinion OF the
Justice.
Justice Bradley gave n review OF the case
from the beginning OF the investigation by the
committee. lie said that Mr.. Searles had testi-
fed very fully before the committee, and had
testified that no funds had been contributed TO
the Democratic national campaign fund. The
evidence showed that while contributions had
been made to tho campaign funds in various
cities and States. no contributions had been
made to secure or defeat Federal legislation.
Taking up the report OF the minority OF the Sen.
the alleged contumacy OF the witnesses. Justice
Bradley referred TO section 1oa OF the Revised
statutes OF inc l n1Lcu oJaueS. lnlS lb the one
under which all these prosecutions are. con-
Quoted. He said that the State required all per
moned BY the senate to testify and had refused
to answer questions pertinent to the matter I'M
der Investigation.
The Justice then compared the Chapman case
and the case against Mr.. Searles. II was APP
parent that the questions put TO Mr.. Searles
were not pertinent TO that branch OF the inquiry
regarding the allegation that Senators had
voted for the schedule on account OF money
held that the second subdivision OF the resolu.
ton for Investigation relating TO the contribu.
a reasonSble construction within the power and
jurisdiction of the Senate.
lions to make contributions to campaign funds
could not be denied. He held the Senate had the
right to conduct such inquiry as was then being
Justice Bradley referred at length TO the Kill
bourne case, reading. a large part OF the opinion
of the Court in this famous case. lie then re-
turned to the questions put to Mr.. Searles re-
garding the contributions to the campaign fund.
especially to those relating to the state of New
York. He said that it seemed TO be beyond the
power OF the Senate to inquire whether the
and local funds. as that was a matter affecting
purely local interests. The fact that the COM
pany was q body corporate did not render it
more liable to the Senate.
The Justice could not see that there was any.
thing in the questions themselves that made It
matter. The Court held that a question should
show it's visible connection with the subject
ness that the committee did not advise him that
he was punishable for contumscy.
Justice Bradley sustained the position Of the
defence on every point except the one regarding
the Jurisdiction OF the Senate, and he instructed
the jury to return a verdict OF acquittal. There
decision was announced. At the conc fusion of
the opinion Mr.. Davis, the District Attorney.
congratulated the counsel for Mr.. Searles. The
jury was discharged and in u moment the court
room was deserted.
The cases against Messrs. Edwards and Shri-
yer, the newspaper correspondents, will lie called
At the conclusion of the trial Mr.. johnson,
the leading counsel for the defence, expressed
f h5Rsf IN S Ss hsfisfs ~ RsTs@ey at t and s ssSsis. Of ae edi
said he was glad that he was not to endeavor to
pull through the newspaper correspondents who
Mr.. Davis, the District Attorney, did not ap-
pear at all cast down by his failure to secure
conviction in these two cases. and expressed
would result differently. The indictments
on which Elisha Jay Edwards, who Is the "Hol-
land of the Philadelphia Press. and whose
ton. and John Z. shriver. Wilmington
iGSfrsspsn1 Wii be- 2 tried hfs E srs for oef the A srst s seT.
enteen or eighteen pages identical with those
against Havemeyer and Searles. But the parts re-
Edwards is charged with refusing point blank
20 give the name OF the person who informed
him Of the allegations made In his article. Mr..
Shriver wrote an article In which he said that q
wire manufacturer had overheard an animated
discussion In q room at the Arlington between
representatives Of the Sugar Trust and certain
Senators. He told the committee that this in
formation was given to him by a member OF the
House of Representatives, and when asked for
time until the following day TO consider il. He
then said he had been requested by the member
not to divulge his name, and that he would not
both men will be convicted, although their line
OF defence will probably be one OF privileged
communication"