The evening times., 1897-05-27
HAVEMEYER FREE
Continued from First Page.

i ion OF Judge Bradley would be. Some
averred that he would direct the jury TO
| acquit, and others thought he wouldn't.
| and that was about all of the reason given
| for either proposition.
just before the resumption of business
| after adjournment very pretty little girl
made her way through the crowd and
] spoke 10 Mr. Havemeyer 1t was ascer-
| tanned that the little girl had gone over
| tC express her sympathy with the defend
ant on account OF the death of his brother.
The young lady, who is about five years
| OF age, declined to give her name Mr.
Havemeyer said he didn't know her. and
there you are fer another mystery
An elderly lady accompanied the little
girl, but even the former would not be
confidential, except to say that the girls
parents were friends of the Haveme yers.
The lady and her little friend are at a
Virginia summer resort, and came To town
| today 10 listen TO the proceedings.
The little girl, who was quite sweet
looking enough and young enough to war
rant he conclusion that she was interested
every day in certain products OF the Sugar
Trust retired after the incident was closed
and appeared to he amused at the general
interest in her visit
Judge Bradley appeared and said that
the propositions of the defense were
too grave to be Immediately considered
and especially 1.-THE question which re-
lates TO the power and Jurisdiction of
the Senate of the United States in the
| resolution directing the investiga Jon -
He would therefore pass that.
Judge Bradiey then went on to consider
the effect OF the amendments To legislation
and the price OF sugar stocks, the alega-
tionS Of the influence on Senators by news
paper articles, the appointment and scope
OF the committee, the testimony of Have
meyer, the question asked him, and his re-
ply, the direction TO him to disclose GER
tain information, and his refusal to COM
ply.
Judge Bradley read the statute under
which the indictment was found. He also
reviewed the Chapman case, and held that
the Havemeyer case differed from it in
some respects. The question asked Mr..
Havemeyer was interrogated as to CON
tributions to national, State and municipal
elections
In this connection the court read from
the testimony of Mr. Hayemeyer, giving
his ans werS to the important questions and
the reply OF Mr.. Havemeyer that he would
do what the committee Commanded The
indictment charges that the defendant
willfully declined to answer questions re-
latIng to contributions
Did the testimony show that the de-
fendant violated the statute? Did he de-
cline to answer question of which be
had knowledge at the time, 1t was asked?
A
motion TO acquit he granted
The statute prescribps that witnesses shall
esUmmonedto givetestimonyor to produce
papers and c0ntemplates contumacy in
two cases; first, that any person sum
moned TO do either and makes default in
either case, is guilty: or, second. that if
the witness refuses to testify on pertinent
questions, he is guilty Of misdemeanor
Mr.. Havemeyer was summoned, in the
legal understanding of the word. 'ad
teShficandum,' and not to bring papers
He was asked a question which he said
involved the production of books
He was not then asked to produce the
books. but data" saying at first that he
would do so if the committee requested it
A day clasped, and he was simply asked
data as to political Contributions
He had already answered negatively as
to national contributions, but did not
know the specific amounts as to other
campaigns.
When Mr.. Havemeyer declined to an
swer it did not mean conturaacy: it meant
that he had no further knowledge than
he had the day before. Mr. Hayemeyer
So
material, facts within his knowledge
He was 10 assume that he was to be
asked only competent questions; he was
not obliged 10 anticipate anything else,
such as information not within his reach
A strict construction Of the statute re-
quires a witness 10 testify impronIptu as
to facts in his knowledge.
He could not be held guilty of wiIlful
contumacy whenhe had not been summoned
to bring books or data with him If he
had the data with him the committee might
have insisted, as a Judicial body, on its
production.
He concluded that the witness was not
in contempt under the circumstances The
witness was under no obligation To go out
and qualify himself to testify. 1t was not
known i'll the courts experience
Judge Bradley read the case of Bean
end Wetmore in support of the opinion
that the request to Mr.. Havemeyer was
equal to The force of a subpoena tecum
duces.
1t was not sustained by the evidence. as
alleged in the indictment, that the witness
refuesd to testify. On the contra ry the wit
ness did answer 1.-THE question:" but de-
cideG to do other things.
Judge Bradley concluded: Upon all of
tnese grounds, therefore, it appears To
me that no court in hrstendom would hold
these witnesses guilty of contempt
The court directed the Jury to acouit.
and it was discharged
Mr.. Havemeyer was congratulated i'm
mediately by his attorneys MI Davis an.
nounoed thathe would go ION with the searles
case tomorrow morning at 10 O'Clock. 10
which time the court adjourned