The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-05-27
HAYEMEYER SAFE.
Court Directs the Jury to
Acquit the Accused
Sugar Magnate.
NO EVIDENCE OF CONTEMPT
Ugly Talk About the Ownership
Of the Senate and Mere
Vulgar Brides.
NO EVIDENCE OF CONTEMPT

Il Company. for contulnacy OF the Senate
4 investigating toinmittee. was greatly in
tsnsiiied li,is rnetuiug rs ilie pending
fe@tion OF syhe defense 10 instruct The ituy
to bring IN a verdict of not guilty. Ii
4 was UNDERSTOOD of course. that If the
4 Court should ofdes an acquitted the case
\ would come to an abrupt close and that
the indictments against John E. Searles,
Secretary of the Refining Company, and
Messrs. Edwards and Snriver, the news
paper men, probably would be squashed.
There was again the same crowd of dis
tinguished persons present. Several la
dies were also in attendance
AS soon as the court convened this
morning District Attorney Davis entered
upon his reply to the motion of the de-
tense to order an acquittal which Mr.
HaVemeyer's counsel argued yesterday
Mr.. Davis took up the six propositions
upon which the defense based the motion
and met them seriatum. although not in
the order laid down by the defense.
With regard to the proposition that it
was not Mr.. Havemeyer's duty to CON
suit books and records in order to give
testimony which was beyond his recol-
lection, Mr. Davis pointed out that when
the question was first propounded Mr..
Havemeyer expressed his willingness to
procure the data demanded Mr.. Have
meyer had admitted that he had access
to the records. The only thing he had
asked was opportunity to consult counsel
AS to whether the question to which
answer was refused was pertinent. Mr..
Davis said that was matter Of fact for
the jury to decide. With this statement
the court seemed to coincide. The con-
tentlon that the question was too broad
Iell TO the ground through Mr. Have
meyers own instrumentality, Mr. Davis
SAID, because MIR. Havemeyer himself had
olslhteSrated the question and had then
MADE hlmself recusant. AS to the peril
nency of the questions relating to local
and State political contributions Mr.
Davis pointed out how a United States
Senator, hard pressed in his local cleo
i tions, might have appealed to the Sugar
Refining Company for funds with the ,,n
derstanding that if he triumphed his vote
and influence would be at the disposal of
the Sugar Trust. THAT may be brutaJlv
blunt" said the District Attorney. "but
1t is possibility AS to the contention
OF the defense that Mr.. Havemeyer should
have been warned that the question he
-ascnhed TO answer was o committee cues
ton, Mr.. Davis pointed out that Mr.
faVefneyer VAS d4iy warned that he was
making himself, reeusast After he had
refused the chairman of the committee
haa said to him very plainly: rs that the
answer you desire to make to this ques-
tionE MI Havemeyer had replied, THAT
is the answer"
Ihe question put to Mr.. Havemeyer,
Mr. Davis insisted was pertinent to the
inquiry. 1t had been alleged by the
newspaper articles, the truth of which
the committee was Investigating that a
director of the Sugar Trust had stated
that the trust cared nothing for the
Senate. He was quoted as having said
We own the United States Senate.
Body, boots and breeches, brain. morals |
and all" In the face of such allegat tions |
was 1t not the duty of the committee
he asked, to find out whether the Trust
had contributed to local elections upon
the result of which hung the fate of |
United States Senators? The decision of |
the Court in the Kilbourn case Mr.. |
Davis argued, did not apply here as that i
was palpaby an attempt of the House of |
Representatives to pry into the private |
affairs of a citizen under official guise |
The honor, dignity and integrity of the |
Senate were at stake, In the inquiry |
Its purpose was to vindicate the purity |
OF the Senate III the charges were proven
to be false and to adopt means of purg-
ing itself Of corruption If such corrup-
ton was found to exist. 1t was the /
power of self-preservation, the power to
separate itself from contamination.
which the Senate exercised when the I
committee was appointed. He cited the
decisions of the Court of Appeals and +
the Supreme Court of the United States
in the Chapman case to prove the per-
tineney of the question asked Mr.
Havemeyer.
While Mr.. Davis was covertly scoring
the Sugar Trust by yelled hypothesis, Mr..
Havemeyer twirled his umbrella uncon-
cernedly and seemed to be the least in
tefested spectator in the court room. Mr. |
Davis described the Trust as a conscience
less octopus. reaching from coast to
coast. using the leverage of its power in
politics, by the admission of its presi-
dent as s, Rsiplh'ican in Benuilis-s,ir
States and as n Democrat in Dssn,a.l:,tit.
States. Ry inniientlo ii charged that, tis.
authors OF the sugar schedule in lSs. mad
framed il for sflard cash But Mr.
Davis said. no one supposed that a Sen
q vulgar bribe.f Still it was within the
realm of possibility that indirectly Semi
tors were enabled to receive vast sums
No one, Mr.. Davis declared would con- I
tend that the Senate had not the power
to protect itself from jobbers Within It's
walls.
In conclusion Mr. Davis said that in his
opinion not one of the six propositions
by the defence Was well ground
ed. Only>one was really substantial. If /
the subject matter of the Senate Investi-
cation was not within its constitutional
power and its inherent right of self-pro-a
tectfon, then Indeed" said he, q were
the people HELPLESS when the hoped to
purify their legislatures.
Mr.. Johnson, for the defense, closed in
support of the motion. He was very
severe in his stl'ictures on the district at |
torney for his indueness. The Senate's
resolution creating the Investigating
Committee. he pointed out. asked them to
inquire what contributions, large or
small. had been subscribed to the Demo-
cratic campaign fund to insure the nser-
tion of the sugar schedule in the tariff
bill as alleged. He was proceeding to
speak OF the report OF the committee ex-
onerating the Senators when District At
torney Davis interrupted somewhat
breezily.
If my honorable brethren will permit
me- said he, II would like to say that
like the flowers that bloom in the spring
what the committee did or did not report
has nothing to do with the case''
Mr. Johnson replied at some length to
the arguments advanced by the District
ATTORNEY, going substantially over the
same ground traversed by him yesterday
When he concluded at 80, Judge Brad
ley adjourned the court till one o'clock to
give him opportunity to take defendant
counsel motion under advisement
After recess the Court sustained the
motion Of the defense. The case against L