Kansas City journal. [volume] (Kansas City, Mo.) 1897-1928, 1897-05-28
JURY INSTRUCTED TO ACQUIT III. O.
HAvEMEYER OF CONTEMPT.
QUESTION WAS NOT PERTINENT.
SENATE COMMITTEES JURISDICTION
NOT PASSED UPON.
Dir. Havemeyer and His Attorneys
Greatly Pleased at the Outcome
Trial of Secretary John L.
SearIes to BE Called
To-day.

Washington, May 27.-"Certainly I am
satisfied with the verdict" said Henry o.
Havemeyer to an Associated Press reporter
n few minutes after the jury had returned
verdict OF not guilty this afternoon. THE
verdict" he continued. ought to be salts
factory to every decent man in this and
every other community" That was the
only expression the president of the Amer
ican Sugar Refining Company would make
upon the result of his trial. which had been
in progress for three days before Judge
Bradley.
The verdict was the elimination Of a
long legal battle which began three years
ago, when Mr.. Havemeyer declined, as a
witness before the senate sugar investigat-
ing committee. to furnish the committee
with data as TO the political contributions
made by the company Of which he is pres
ident TO the local and state campaigns Of
1892 and 1898. Broker Chapman, around
whom the preliminary battle waged, was
found guilty and is now serving a thirty
day sentence in the District jail.
The conclusion of the trial was abrupt.
The defense produced no witnesses. When
the government rested its case yesterday
the defense moved that the court instruct
the jury to order an acqulttal on six
grounds, the principal one of which was
that the committee didnot have Jurisdiction
nent. This morning the District attorney
made a valiant attempt to induce the pre-
SIDING Judge to overrule the motion. But
the court, after taking an hour and half
TO weigh the arguments, sustained the mo-
1ion.
In rendering his decision, which was very
lengthy and consumed over an hour in its
delivery, Judge Bradley declined to rule
on the main question as to the Jurisdiction
of the senate committee. He said the Ques-
tions involved in that proposition were Of
rule on that point without further and
more careful examination. But he held
II was unnecessary TO rule on the main
contention. Practically he sustained the
motion upon the single ground that the
question (calling for data of state and local
contributions), demanded information not
within the knowledge of the witness, which
he had testified he had no personal knowl-
edge Of, and which, If given at all, must
have been procured from books, and of
which the books themselves were the best
testimony Although the verdict of mot
guilty was given by the jury, it was a
verdict returned under the courts direc-
tion and amounted practically to the
judges throwing the case out of court.
Mr.. Havemeyer's attorneys were naturally
much elated over their victory.
The case of John Z. Searles, the secre-
with Mr.. Havemeyer for recusancy, will
be called tomorrow. District Attorney
Davis. who will likewise conduct this case
for the government, says that the cases
are not analogous, and that the Searles
case could not be dismissed on the same
ground, because Mr.. Searles declined to
answer questions of which he presumably
had knowledge. But in the Searles case 1t
is probable that the main contention as TO
jurisdiction and perunency Will be raised,
and that Judge Bradley will be compelled
TO rule upon il, as he to-day announced
he would when 1t was raised as the direct
issue.