The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1897-05-28
NORFOLK vIRGINIAN: FRIDAY MAY 2s 1897

Mr.. Havemeyer's attorneys were M tu-
rally much elated over their victory
This ends The case forever" said Mr..
Johnson, OF Philadelphia. Mr.. Have
meyers chief COUNSEL
The case Of john II. Searles, the sec
retary Of the Sugar T.ust, who was In
dicted with Mr.. IIavemeyer for rscus- s
ancy, VIII be called Tomorrow. Dis
trict Attorney Davis, who will likewise
conduct this case for the government
says that the cases ate not analogous,
and that the SearirS' case should not
be dismissed on Tie same ground, be-
cause Mr.. Searlcs declined to answer
questions OF which he presumably had
knowledge. But in the Sea. les case 1t is
prob able that the main contention as
TO the jurisdiction anu pertinellcy will
De raised and Judge Bradley will be
compelled TO rule on 1t as he to-day an
nounced he would when 1t was raised,
as he dile2t issue
Judge Bradley. III announcing his deci-
sion, said that the proposition upon
which the molten Of the defense was
founded involved questions of great i'm
portance, questions which could not be
decided by the court without the most
careful consideration, especially that
one which related to the bower and iu-
risdiction Of the special committee ap-
pointed by the United States Senate.
1t had been impossible for the court in
the few minutes since the argument ter
minated to consider carefully and accu-
rately the grave questions involved But
holding that question in allegiance the
court had given enough considera ton
10 the other questions involved to en-
able it to dispose OF the motion OF the
defense
Judge Bradley then proceeded careful
ly to review the Indictment He read
tne statute prescribing the punishment
Cine and imprisonment for the default
or refusal to answer questions OF a con
gressional committee, and reviewed tn,
decisions Of the Court OF Appeals and
the Supreme Court in the Chapman
case. The questions asked Of MI. Have
meyer and Mr.. Chapman differed some
what, he said. The facts as shown
Tended TO establish the facts as given III
the Indictment. But, he asked was de-
1endant guilty OF contempt? This. he
said, depended upon two propositions-
tirst, did the committee have jurisdlc-
non. and was the question pertinent:
second. did the question demand facts
within the possession Of the witness? 4
negative to either of these propositions,
the judge said, would require the court
TO sustain the motion. ~
The witness, the Judge said, was not
asked to Erpducsat} lie books which would
sf0w 1the+ datti lis fo 'loc;ri and txstt.
political contributions, but the data
from those books. He was not asked
as to anything within his own knowl-
then read the question in eXtenso. Part
OF that question Mr.. Havemeyer has
answered. Hc had sad that there were
no contributions as to the national mat
ters; as to State and local he said
there were contributions. but of their
particulars he had no personal knowl-
edge. Could 1t be contended the Judge
said. that Mr.. Havemeyer had personal
knowledge of this data? He thought
not. The witness was subpoenaod to
give any facts within his knowledge. -
fte was not called upon to prepare him
self for any questions the committee
might ask. He was only summoned to
| give competent testimony" not to give
data from records and books. Could it
| be held that the witness was in defa MI
when he refused to answer questions be-
yond his knowledge? Could he be held
III default for failure to produce the
DOCKS when he was not served with a
summons?
Judge Bradley said he had sought pre-
cedents and had found case somewhat
in point. a defendant was ordered to
produce his books before referee He
did so and was ordered to leave them for
examination. This the defendant de-
clined to do, and the court held tina; he
was not in contempt because in the
aulilIiolS He WIS not ordered TO leave
the books. Several other cases on the
same lines were cited Moreover the
Judge continued. there was no evidence
that an examination OF the books. had
one be"n made, would have refreshed q
dormant memory.
Mr.. Havemeyer had testified, said the
judge. as to the contributions for State
and local elections; he had stated that
he had no particular data and the law
Gid not require him to produce tho
books. The allegation was that he had
refused to answer the questions. tho
proof was that lie had answered them
mo court IN Christendonl" said the
judge. In conclusion, would hold him
guilty of contempt, and If he Is not gull
~ of contempt then this case IS base
less. 1t is not necessary to decide whe-
ther the Senate committee had iurjs-
diction to inquire whether the sugar
corporation had contributed to State
and local campaigns. When that cues
ton is raised the court will decide It.
There are other subsidiary questions in
support OF the motion Of the defense
but 1t is unnecessary to go into them
now. The court sustains the motion
and instructs the jury to return O. YER
uics OF not guilty. -
brotherhood OF Railway Trainmen
Toronto. May 27.-All this morning the
delegates to the convention Of the Broth
erhood Of Railway Trainmen considered
the grand masters report They an
proved resolution empowering the
grand master ID act in conjunction with
any labor body in leGisla five matters