New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-04-20
CHAPMAN MUST GO TO JAIL.
HIS SENTENCE AFFIRMED BY THE SU-
PREME COURT.
THE sENATE's RIGHT TO COMPEL WITNESSES TO
TESTIFY sUsTAINED-CHIEF JUSTICE

TESTIFY SUSTATNED-CHIEF JUSTICE
FULIER's OPINION.
Washington. April 19-The United States Supreme
Court TO day denied the application for a writ or
certlorari and habeas corpus asked by Elverton t.
Chapman. the broker. who refused to TESTIFY
whether Senators had specialized In Sugar stocks
while the Wilson Tariff bill was before that body.
Chief Justice Fuller. who delivered the opinion.
he'd that the Senate, under Its constitutional right
10 censure and eYpel members. had the right 10
investigate any alleged improper conduct OF Sena-
tors, and could compel witnesses to give testimony
The sentence of the Supreme Court Of the District
OF Columbia thirty days In jail and 500 fine was
affirmed, and Chapman's application for writs of
certiorari and habeas corpus was denied Messrs'
Mccartney and Seymour, brokers': Messrs. Have
meyer and Seares. OF the Sugar Trust; r. j. Ed
wards. OF 1.-The Philadelphia Press" and John s.
Shrver. of THE New-York Mail and Express. all
refused to give testimony before the investigating
committee and are affected by the decision. Mr..
Chapman is the only recacitrant witness who has
been tried by the courts. his being test case.
The Court held that the matter entirely
within the constitutional powers OF the Senate. The
right to expel extends all where the offence
is such in the judgment of the Senate is iDcon-
sstent with the trust and duty OF member said
the Chief Justice and the resolutions under which
the inquiry was conducted indicated that the trans
actions referred to deemed by the Senate repre-
hensibe and deserving of condemnation and pun"h-
ment The Court held also that the refusal 10 an
swer questions was not only a contempt OF that
body, but that II was also offence against the
United States Congress possessed the constitution
al power to enact a statute to compel the attend
ance of wtno sses. and to compel them to make dis
clio ures of evidence enable the respective bodies
| TO discharge their legitimate functions. and II was
TO effect this that the act of 1851 was passed but
this act did not constitute delegation or the
power to punish for contempt. While it was true
that two offences might be involved. IL was inn
probable that in any accumulativc penalties
would be imposed. whether by Imposing penalties
merely or of eiciting the answers desired But
added the Court, it was quite clear that the CON
tumacous witness Is not subjected to Jeopardy
he an offence against one jurisdiction and also
against another; and indictable statutory Offences
| likewise be subjected 10 punishment for the same
acts contempts, the TWO being capable OF stand
| The chief Justice said that the case was entirely
different from the kbourne case The suD} Die
in the of n, The The aars Of the
they do not seek 10 ascertain any facts as to the
conduct methods extent or details of he 1rm IN
engaged in buying and selling stocks. and as to
the particular stock ramed. was II employed by any
whose market price might be affected by the Sen
ate's action? We cannot regard these questions
| as amounting 10 an soma BILE search Into the
private affairs. of the witness. simply because he
may have been in some degree connected WIN Inc
alleged transactions. and cs Investigations OF inns
sort are within the powers Of the two houses they
be dseaeq on %ry WSa he
Senate might do result Of the inquiry was not not
IL W the SENATE eo of what were regarded as
offensive impu,ations while affirmative answers
|
Senate within its constitutional powers.
Elverton r. Chapman said yesterday afternoon,
| NJ the Office OF Moore Schey, bankers and bro
kers No so Broadway, of which firm he Is a men,
Der: The Court has decided adversely on my petit
ton for wrts OF habeas corpus and certiorari mold
n, as I understand 1t. that the law Is constitu-
| tional which makes the refusal OF witness to
answer any pertinent question that may be pro-
| pounded to him by a Congressional committee
pisdemeanor and punishable by both fine and I'M
| nreonment 7 had hoped for different decision.
as the weight of argument and the decisions OF the
Court IN various cases wherein some OF the ques-
lions were involved seemed to be largely in our
favor. The door now appears to be opened for In
vestfsations without limit and witnesses must an
swer or submit to fine and imprisonment. nave.
at heavy expense to my firm. and acting. as l
thought in defence of every business interest. per-
sistently fought this claimed authority for over
three years. and have exhausted every line OF de-
fence that could be devised by of the ablest
and most learned lawyers in this country, but so
far have been beaten at every stage Of the proceed
| ngs 1t will be necessary for me TO he present
when the decision of the Supreme Court reaches
bench warrant. / VIII accordingly go 10 "ash-
ngtOn tomorrow.
The law under which Mr. Chapman was con-
victed says that he must be confined in "a com
mon jail in the District of Columbia. lie was
fined 800 and directed 10 be imprisoned for thirty
days. He is now under 5000 bail $500, 49,, =
Searles secretary and treasurer. OF the American
Sugar Refining Company Sugar TrusOl John D
Shriver Washington correspondent Of the New
croTrr~spondent Of ''rhe Philadelphia Press" are
under Indictment for precisely the same offence as
Mr. chapman. Each is entitled 10 separate trial
! and will probably demand 1t. Under the present
%mIinC Of the Supreme Court. however, il would
seem as if they all must in the end 20 to jail