The times., 1897-06-22

notification TO appear only being by tele-
graph, there might be difference in the
cases.
The District Attorney--Ye your honor,
in this case there was a formal subpoena
issued The defendant came TO Washington,
took the witness stand and testified. His
recusancy was reported by this committee,
and the form of the subpoena and character
Of its service are set forth In the report.
1t has been shown that the subpoena was
issued and placed In the hands of the ser
geant-at-arms for service.
The Court That appears to be proving
by secondary evidence the contents of a
paper which may be in existence.
The District Attorney-I propose TO show
thatit is not IL existence. You don't ques-
tion it's existence, do you?
This latter interogatory was addressed
TO Judge Wilson.
Judge Wilson-Not until / may be nee
essary. We won't say anything about 1T
now. / submit that there is no difference
In the cases, whether they had served
subpoena put in the hands of the sergeant
alarms, or not.
Judge Wilson was about TO proceed with
district attorney remembered that Judge
so far, and intimated thatthe Judge wanted
to have two strings to his bow.
The District Attorney Ito Judge wilson,
You haven't cross-eXramined the wit
nesses, and we don't propose to let you
experiment with the court.
Judge wilson, am not experimenting.
You have asked the court to order an ac-
quittal. II the court rules with you, you
will stop; and il 1t doesn't, you will go on.
You had better cross-examine the witness
now.
The court thought 50 too, and Judge Will
son went on. He cross-examined Mr.
Prentiss, with the object of discrediting
his accuracy. Mr.. Prentiss, however,
explained that the only change made to
the notes was as TO whether word should
be ''I'' or we Mr.. Seymour requested
that it should read IT, and the stem
ogIapher made the change, When this
was repcIted TO the committee it In
dorsed the word we and it Was re-
stored te the record.
Mr.. Prentiss also testified that Mr.. Sey-
mour also desired to withdraw all Of the
Testimony given on certain day.
Mr.. Seymour said that en- that day he
bad stated that he had not sold stocks to
Senator Gray. That, having made an ex-
ception, he did not desire to testify in that
way
a dispute having arisen as to the form OF
the summons to Mr. Seymour, the district
attorney had a subpoena tecum duces is
sued TO the secretary of the Senate To
produce the subpoena form and TO testify.
In hcinterim Judge Wilson ortinued his
argument for the order for acquittal,
III the course ofhis argument he referred to
Senator Quay, stating that he had bought
sugar stock.
The Court-And what are you going to
do about it?
Judge Wilson-And there were others
who contemplated in gauzy way" that
money might have been made out OF stocks
There was also humorous reference to
Senator McPherson's celebrated telegram
about sugar stocks which his cook sent off
by mistake
After the argument of Judge Wilson, TO
which there was no reply by the district
attorney. the court asked:
Leaving out the question of the sum
mons is there anything on which the prose
cutioa would ask the jury 10 render a
verdict of guilty."
The District Attorney 1 don t
think there is, under your honor ruling as
to the question Of pertinency. This de-
fendant appears at first TO have declined a nj
afterwards answered the questions whicE
would he regarded under the ruling Of the
court as relevant Frankly, l don't think
the defendant ought to he convicted.
The Court-That seerls to lie the neces-
sary conclusion, even if the defendant were
summoned legally, and it would be waste
of time to take further Testimony and hear
further argument. Tie fact remains that
the question pertinent 10 the subject matter
of inquiry, whether any Senator bought
or sold sugar stocks pending the considera-
tion OF the tariff bill, was eventually an
swcred, though the defendant declined 70
answer at first: but any time before the
report was certified to tie Senate would
be sufficient.
The court directed the jury TO acquit.
and the defendant was discharged.
After this verdict the Government an
nounced that it would take up the case
against Mr.. John w Mccartney at l p.
the defendant being represented by Judge
Wilson.
The preliminary proceedings Were identi-
cal with those in the Seymour case. The
chief charges in the indictment were read,
including the questions of the Senate
committee which Mr.. Mccartney declined
to answer, these questions being similar
to those asked Mr.. Seymour.
Mr. Harry Smith, clerk of the Senate
committee ofinquIry, was put up to prove
the summons TO Mr.. Mccartney to appear
before the committee.
Mr.. Smith identified all the original
Senate records, copy of the subpoena to
Mr.. Mccartney ordered by the committee
The return on the back of the summons
was made by Stenographer Prentiss. The
witness was present when Mr.. Mccartney
appeared and testified
Mr.. r W. Layton, of the office of the
sergeant testified next. Witness
knew that he subpoenaed Mr.. Mccartney at
his office on F street. MIR. Layton reccg-
original subpoena. He was directed by the
sergeant alarms TO serve the subpoena.
Stenographer Prentiss was again put on
the stand to prove that Mr.. Mccartney
appeared and testified He took steno-
graphic notes of Mr.. Macartney's testi-
Ilony, and had with him the original
notes.
Judge Wilson made the statement that
the stenographer had supplemented his