The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1897-06-02
His Case Takes the Same Course as That
Of Sugar Trust President HaYemeyer.
ACQUITTED BY ORDER OF THE COURT
Opinion by Judge Brad.
IeJ-Ihe Questions E'ut 10 the De-
fcninnt were Not Pcriincnt-Com.
necifon EctYecH Gnrnpni.n Cautri.
outfonsnnd Sugar Schedule II cmote
Washington, D. c., June /, 1897.

John G. Searles. secretary of the
american Sugar Refinery company, like
president llavemeyer, was acquitted by
the direction of Judge Bradley, who to-
day sustained the motion OF the defense.
argued last Friday, to order an ac-
Quittal. ~ ,
The cases OF e. j. Edwards and John
,. SnriTer, the newspaper corrcspon-
dents. were postponed until next Mon
day.
Judge Bratiley's opinion was exhaus-
i've It had been reduced to writing and
was read from the bench. He pointed
out that Mr.. Searles had testified spe-
cliically that money had been contri-
buted by the Sugar Trust to the Ma
tional campaign or for Ine purpose OF
influencing legislation or the election of
United States Senators. As to the local
contributions Mr.! Seares had testified
mat he did not know how the contri-
buttons had been used, by whom or for
what purpose The questions asked Of
Broker Chapman, the court said, were
manifes,ly pertinent because they re-
lated TO the question OF speculation in
sugar by Senators, q subject the COM
mfttee was directly charged with inyes-
tigating. This the decision of the SUI
preme Court had settled. The quest tions
put to the defendant were claimed TO
be pertinent to the second anu third
divisions OF the Senatorial inquiry,
namely, as TO whether the Sugar Trust
nad contributed sums to campaign funds
with the purpose Of influencing the clev-
ton of i United States Senator and
whether any Senator had been a party
TO compact With the Sugar Trust
Certainly, the Judge said, a simple in
VeStiGation as to whether the Sugar
Trust had contributed to. q campaign
fund would be an unwarranted search
into the private affairs Of the company
and plainly beyond the power OF the
a Of 49,
kiibourne case. The Senate committee
had reported that no testimony had
been produced that the Sugar Trust had
made any contributions to any National
campaign fund, or for the purpose of
affecting legislation. If money had been
used for the purpose of electinG MEM
bers OF the State Legislatures. who, in
time, would elect q United States Sena-
tor 1t was beyond the power OF the
United States Senate to ge behind the
election of legislative members. II this
were true as TO State matters, how
much more true was 1t Of local cleo
tions. How remotely speculative" was
the way he characterized District At
tcrney Davis suggestion made in his
argument that local and State contri-
buttons could have been traced to their
ultimate destination, possibly into the
pockets of United States Senat tors, if
the defendant had given the names of
the persons to whom the moneys were
first paid. It would be widest con-
lecture to assume that the money so
contributed in any way had gone to
make UP the sugar schedule. It appear
ed from the report Of the committee
that they were not In the possession Of
any facts upon which they could base
the most remote hope Of showing an ul-
t!mate connection between the Sugar
Trusts contributions and the sugar
schedule. Under these circumstances
it must be held that the questions asked
were not pertinent. and If construed to
be pertinent, they were an unwar-
ranted prying into the private affairs of
the company and, therefore,, beyond the
jurisdiction of the Senate.