Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1897-05-29
SUGD' >..llES ON TRIAL.
. 80 Il Trust Secretary Arraigned
$ in Criminal Court.
The Case Was Robbed of Much Of
It's Interest by the Decision in
Favor Of Havemeyer-Members
Of the Senate Investigating Com
mittee in Attendance.

Washington, May 2S.-The trial of
John E. Searles, secretary of the Amer
lean Sugar Refining Company, began
before Judge Bradley in Criminal Court
No. to-day. Judge Bradley's decision
yesterday, which threw the case against
Mr.. Hayemeyer out of court, robbed
| the Searles trial of much of its interest,
| despite the assertion of District Attor-
ney Davis that the cases were not an
alogous and that the contention set up
| by the defense in the Havemeyer case,
! upon which the judge ordered the YER
dict of acquittal returned, would hold
( in the Searles case. The general belief
was that the main question as To per-
| tineTcy would be raised by the defense
in this case, and that the judge would
| be required to rule on that Question be-
fore the defense opened. The indict-
ment found against Mr. Searles was
| very similar to the Jne found against
| Mr.. Havemeyer, except that the qucS-
/ tiOns asked of Mr.. SeafleS we're sUme-
what different. The inIictment recite5
that by resolution Of the Senate d
committee was appointed TO investigate
certain charges made jy the press con-
! cerning the election If 1892. The COM
mittee summoned Secretary Searles.
| He was asked by the committee:
What amount was expended by your
company in the campaign ol -S92?'
Il decline to answer the question"
said Mr. Searles, giving as his reason
! for declining TO answer that he did
not believe it within the province OF
| the committee to ask such question.
The committee then asked What
sum did you (meaning the American
I Sugar Refining Company contribute
| to the Democratic campaign fund in the
State of New York in 1892 that was
used for the purpose of conducting the
! campaign in that State, at which time
| Cleveland and Harrison were candl-
dates for President of the United
States?"
Il decline to answer that question,
was Mr.. Searles's reply, and 70" the
same reasons as given in the decilna-
/ ton to answer the first question.
Did YOU contribute TO the Demo-
cratic campaign fund in New York;
was asked. He again declined to an
swer.
The same lawyer who appeared tor
/ Mr.. Havemeyer had charge Of Mr..
Searless defense. Mr.. Havemeyer sat
/ by Mr. Scar es's s.de in The rear u l.-o
table occupied by his eminent counsel.
/ The members Of the Senate invesiigat-
/ ING committee and other distinguished
persons were present. Before The trlal
/ began District Attorney Davis, Who
! conducted the case for the government.
! asked that in the event the trial OF the
| case was not concluded to-day ;hat II
/ he adjourned until Tuesd1v. He gave
as a reason important engagements OF
/ the counsel for the defense. 10 tnls
/ Iudge Bradley agreed. None OF the
/ first twelve talesmen were challenged,
/ but one was excused Tie indifference
of the defendants cOunse! 10 The COM
nosition of the Jury seemed 10 indicate
| their faith that the case would be e'@a-
/ tnaIIv taken out of the hands u the
/ iur,- as that of Mr.. HavemeYer ; was.
At 11:40 the government rested iIS
case and the defense moved that She
iurv be instructed to bring II verdict
! of acouittal on three grounds:
! "That the questions MI oedllc9
fused 10 answer were irrelevant to- the
inquiry. that they were individual, not
committee questions, and that even If
thew we're authorized by the Senate
/ resolution. the Senate did not possess
| jurisdiction
The motion was argued at length by
the counsel on both sides, after which
the court adjourned until Tuesday
when Judge Bradley will deliver his
! ruling.
\ very strong impression exists that
tho iudge will sustain the motion and
throw the case out of court.