The San Francisco call., 1897-06-02
JOHN {. SEARLES
IS ACQUITTED
Judge Bradley lnstructs
the Jury to Find Him
Not Guilty.
Questions Asked by the Sem
ate Com mtttee Decided
Not Pertinent.
Nothing to Show That Money Con.
tributed Influenced the Sugar
Schedule.

WASHINGTON, D. c., June John
Z. Searles, secretary of the sugar trust,
was dis C arged to-day after Judge Brad
ley had ordered the jury TO bring IN ver-
dict OF acduitial and the order had been
obeyed. In his decision dismissing
Searles and declaring him not to be IN
contumacy, Judge Bradley said: ANY
corporation has right TO make campaign
contributions unless it is shown that the
money has been used for corrupt pur-
poses. do not think that the Senate in
vestigating COMMITTEES had any right TO
inquire into the private affairs OF lndivid-
uais, and doing so was beyo the power
of the Senate"
Judge Bradlev's decision set forth that
Searles had testified specifically that no
money had been contributed by the sugar
trust TO the National campal or for the
purpose of influencing legislation or the
election of United States Senator's As to
the local contributions, Searies had tes;l-
fed that he aid not know how the contri-
buttons had been used, by whom or for
what purpose.
The questions pnt to the defendant were
claimed to be pertinent to the second
anu SAAliO OINlSlOH5 Oi tLlc Adt III
quiry, namely, as to whether the sugar
trust had contributed sums to campaign
funds with the purpose of influencing the
election OF United States Senators, and
whether any Senator had been party 10
compact with the sugar trust.
The Judge said a simple investi cation
as to whether the sugar trust had con-
trlbuted TO the campaign fund would be
an unwarranted selrch into the private
affairs of the company and plainly be-
yond the power of the Senate. The SEN
ate committee had reported no testimony
had been produced to show that the sugar
trust had made any contributions to any
National campaign iund or Tor the pur-
pose of affecting legislation. Ii money
had gone for the purpose of electing
mem bers of State Legislatures who in
time would elect United States Senator
it made it beyond the power of the
United States Senate to go behind the
election of legislative members. II this
were true as to State matters. how much
more true was 1t OF local elections? 1t
would be the widest conjecture to as
sumo that the money so contributed in
any way had gone TO make up the sugar
schedule.
1t appeared from the report of the COM
mittee that they were not in the posses
sion of any facts upon which they could
base the most remote hope of showing an
ultimate connection between the sugar
trusts contributions and sugar schedule.
Under these circumstances it must be
held that the questions asked were not
pertinent, and if fconstrued to be pertinent,
they were an unwarranted prying into
the affairs of the company, and therefore
beyond the jurisdiction of the Senate.
Judge Bradley, therefore. sustained the
motion of the defense and ordered the
jury to return verdict of scQuittal. The
jury accordingly returned a verdict of not
guilty, and Mr.. Searles was free.
Searles was charged with having, June
13 1894, refused to state the amount con-
tributed by the American Sugar Refining
Company in the political cam paign of 1892
to the Democratic party in New York
State. Unlike Havemeyer, Searles made
no reference TO the books of his company,
which were safely locked in its vaults in
New York city, but absolutely refused TO
nswer the questions. The evidence that
secured Havemever's acquittal was there
fore OF no service to Searles, and il was
thought that he would be convicted and
forced to serve Jail sentence like Broker
Chapman, VINO is now doing pensnce for
an exactly similar refusal.
Two newspaper orrespondents-Shriv
of the New York Mail and Express and
Edwards of the Philadelphia Pressure
also under indictment for refusing to an
swer questions put by the Senate commit
tee and will be tried this week.