The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1897-03-08
1t Secured the Signing OF a Bill
by Cleveland.
OTHER MEASURES NEGLECTED
The President Failed to Approve
Four Appropriation Bills, But He
Did Sign a Measure Which VIII
Serve to Keep Chapman. Have
meyer and Others Ont of Jail.

I
the late administration. This company
is better knownsas the Sugar Trust Tw,
OF its officers, President Henry O. Have
meyer andiSecretary Edward Searles are
under an Indictment, which if sustained
Wouidlandthemin IN the penitentiary, though
their offense isghegal rather than moral.
Reaching out its long arms from New
YORK, the trust laid one hand on the Capitol
and the OTHER ohthe White House and made
the peoples government at both places do
It's Kidding. This was in the passage of q
law which will greatly delay, il it should
not finally defeat, the enforcement OF the
statute under which the trust officials are
indicted.
Already Mr.. Elyerton r. Chapman, the
sugar broker, has been convicted undervery
| nearly the same state of facts under
which they are indicted
The prison doors were beginning to seem
| uncomfortably near TO Mr.. Chapman and
| the prospectnotp pleasant forthe sugar mag
| mates Then it was a bill was passed in
| the rush at the close OF the Fifty-fourth
| Congress, by which Mr.. Chapman's case
| can be taken before the Supreme
| Court for Review, and by which
the settlement of the cases of
MesSrs. Hayemeyer and Searles can be
| put off year or two further This was
| done at a time when Congress was sorUshed
that matters Of national Importance could
not gain consideration. IL was done in
the face OF praest that IL was a law
which would especially favor Mr. Chapman
and the trust officials.
But more singular than all this the bill
received Mr.. Cieveiand's signature, while
four appropriation bills Were refused it.
II was picked out OF the mass OF legislation
awaiting his approval under the influence
of the trusts magic touch and in the dead
OF night, at $40 a. m, was made law
by President Cleyeland's signature.
The law, before change was effected
by this bill, was that the Judgment of
the District couyt OF appeals was
finaIity in criminal cases, and so Elyerson
Chapman was at the end OF his rope when
the court of appeals affirmed the judg-
ment or the court below, in wfIich he was
convicted and sentenced to Imprisonment
He applied 10 the Supreme Court for a
release ON baleas corpus. alleging that
he was unlawfuIly detained. Before the
Supreme Court the government will be
represented by one Of the assistant at
dent Mckinley, the conviction having been |
secured by District Attorney Birney and |
Assistant Tracey Jeffords. Ifthe Supreme |
Court, under the law, as unchanged, de- |
clined 10 interfere, Mr.. Chapman would |
have been Obliged to serve out his term |
OF Imprisonment.
At this stage OF the proceedings Con-
gress interfered, and passed a law by /
xx-hfo
court OF appeals, not only in the Chapman
case, but in any other that may here
after be brought. thus making interminabIe
litigation a probability.
1t was worked In this wise. Senate bill
303S was introdyced, reading innocentIy,
as follows: BE liz etc, that in sill cases
in which byiaw the DEGREES and judgments
of the court of appeals of the District of |
Columbia iare final it shall be competent
for the Supreme Court to require by Ger
tiorao, or otherwise, any such cases to be
certified 20 the Supreme Court for its re-
view and determination, with the same
power and authority, any case as if il had
been certified by appeal or writ of error
to the Supreme Court
On March l 1t was discovered in the
House that this meant protection for the
sugar trust witnesses and an amendment
was suggested that the above law should
apply only to cases hereafter arising"
and that phraseology was inserted in the
bill, which then went into conference
on March 1t was suggested from the
Senate side that the law should apply to
all criminal cases and all civil cases as
nay hereafter arise This was q pro-
,osed substitute for ''in all cases hereafter |
arising" and was evidently intended TO
make safe such cases as that of Chapman,
inl at the same time to throw a sop to
he anti-sugar trust people in the House
1y retaining the then useless words here
Ifter arising" as applying only to civil
ases.
The conferees were On the part of the |
House, Henry NJ Baker, who has a large
ractice here; ID. B. Henderson, and ]. E.
On the part Of the Senate,
dessrs. Hill, Plat, and Clarke.
When the Senate amendment reached the
louise Mr.. Bailey, of Texas, made the |
irect point that this law would permit |
he sugar trust witnesses to carry their |
ases to the Supreme Court. Z.
Mr. Baker replied that all he knew about | i,
uch an intention was derived entirely
rom the remarks OF Mr.. Bailey. There was
further disagreement, resultiB g in another
Inference ON the night of March 3, and
ne conferees reported the bill finally in
he following shape:
"Be it Resolved, etc, That in any case I
made final in the court of
ppeals of the District, it shall be compe-
ent for the Supreme Court to require by y
or otherwise, any such cases :,
D be certified to the supreme court for .
8 review and determination with the | a
lme power and authority any case as it 81
nd been certified by appeal or writ OF Il
ror to the Supreme Court
Inthe discussion of this last phase of the p
,heme, Mr.. Henderson, in reply to ques- o. o.
ons, admitted thatit would include pend in
q cases. ~
Mr.. Updegraff asked the more pointed Ca
,estion: "Will not this act, IL 1t becomes III
law, permit a rehearing of the Chapman st
.se?'' Ut
A member saidinreply: "what IL it does?,, y, "
Mr.. Updegraff Kept to his cue tenaciousiy "
I'd affirmed positively that the enlarge 81
ent OF the law was ''for the benefit OF ~
e sugar trust" On it's final passage to
ints of no quorum were made, but the af
II went through on a count of 95 to as. ~
r. Cleveland is reported to have reached ~ ~
d signed 1t at $3.50 O'Clock ON the morn ot
2 of March 4. II
It will be Interesting in this connection tn
recall the litigation in the sugar trust at
ses. A section of the United States re- I'M
sed statutes makes 1T misdeme amor for - -
y witness Summoned by a committee of ,,,, ha
ngress TO refuse 20 testify or to refuse he
appear to testify When the Wilson no