The times., 1897-06-27


rights or personal liberty. In the Chap
man ease the Supreme Court did net pass
on this question, because not necessary TO
decide the case, but in addition to the
subject-niatters stated in the decision in
the kilhourne case it did recognize gen.
eral power of an inherent nature in a
legislative body TO protect itself against
a scandal and the presence OF unworthy
members, and it would seem to follow
that there could be no exception as to
questions asked, If pertinent to the sub
ject-n,atter of investigation.
The eravamen OF the charge or scandal
sought 10 be investigated was the alleged
fact of money contribution by the officers
OF the sugar trustin the nature of a bargain
with the Democratic party to secure votes
in the United States Senate favorable to
the interests OF the sugar trust in fixing
tie sugar schedule in the tariff till, as
charged by two reputable newspapers OF
the country. Without going into the ques-
ton OF the jurisdiction OF the Senate in the
HaveIneyer case, Judge Bradley lets him
off on the ground that be had not been
served with u subpoena duces tecum, and
was not, therefore, obliged to produce the
books OF the company or TO examine them
to qualify himself TO give his testimony,
and was Justified in refusing 10
answer the questions of the com
mittee. 1t was not refusal TO bring
in the books OF the Sugar Refining Conn
pany, or TO examine them to refresh his
memory, or to ascertain the amount OF
the contributions; that constituted Mr..
Havemeyer's defense, but a refusal TO
answer the questions touching certain po-
liticai contributions. He had already ad-
mitted with brutal frankness,' as his
counsel said in his argument, that he mad
personal knowledge OF all contributions
for political purposes at the times, and In
the States specified, but could not give tile
amount without an examination OF his
books.
Upon the request and direction OF the
committee to furnish data showing both
the cont ribu tions and the amount, he
consented to do SO, but when he returned
hefore the committee to continue his ex-
animation, after consulting his counsel, he
declined to answer any question either as
to the contribution or the amount OF it
for State and local purposes, on the ground
that this was a private matter into which
the Senate had no right to make any in
curry. This is the record as / understand
it. When the questions We're put, Mr..
Havemeyer had personal knowledge of
ali tbs facts, whether obtained from books
or otherwise, and there was no possible
use for q dlces tecam in such case. His
claim that the questions related TO
private matter was no excuse, because that
was the very question involved In the
investigation, and was for the Senate
to determine from all the evidence in the
case, not the witness. The witness is not
without remedy in case Of arbitrary and
Illegal action by the committing body.
He may refuse to answer, go to Jail, and
test the question by habeas corpus, or if
indicted under the statute for contumacy
he may raise the ques. N in his defense
IL would certainly never do TO allow q
witness IN advance to determine for him
self whether a question is impertinent or
not The presumption must always be in
favor of the pertiDency Of the questions.
His refusal &c answer was therefore re-
cusan2y. which brought the witness fairly
and squarely within the provisions Of the
statute under which he was indicted
The decision in the Scales case proceeds
on the un warranted assumption that be-
cause these contributions We're for State
and local campaign purposes, there WAS no
relation shown to any subject-matter
over which the Senate had constitutional
Jurisdiction. and, therefore, the questions
put TO Scales concerning them were n,-
pertinent This is begging tie question,
as logicans say. Why, the very charges
under investigation were to the effect
that the object of the contributions vas TO
secure the election of Senators from New
York and New Jersey in the interest Of
the sugar trust. Tie Il q quest:cN, in its
last analysis, is not whether the contribu-
tions might not have been In the usual
legitimate way to political parties, but
what their real character and purpose
might have been shown to he if tie wit
nesses had resronce to the. hterrogatories
charges alluded to were true or false is
wholly immaterial. 1t was subject matter
over which the Senate had rightfal iuris-
diction to make inquiry, because If 80 had
been shown that Mr. Murphy, the elected
Senator from New York, and Mr.. Smith,
the elected Senator from New Jersey, had
been elected through money contributed
by the sugar trust, the Senate would have
had the undoubted right to refuse them ad-
mission to the Senate, IL the facts had
if these facts had been developed by an in
vestii,ation.
Mr.. Seares was a m mber OF the board of
directors of this Sugar Refining Company,
and was its secretary and treasurer, and,
presumably, if he made any contribution,
he did so in the interest OF his company;
and &c the contributions were not m ade Of
ficially, as charged, but ON his own pri-
vate account and as his own private busi-
ness, * devolved on him To show that fact
before his refusal TO answer the questions
put tc him by the committee, on the ground
that tEey were impertinent, could be justi-
fled In the absence OF any explanation it
must be said that it was solely a question
for the Senate to decide. whether the con
tributlons were IN ade in the interest Of his
company or individually, and whether or
not any bargain as charged had ever been
ma lie would have been a question for the
Senate TO consider and determine. What
reports were made 10y the majority or mi
nority of the committee on the testimony
taken. as TO the value oft, or what action
the Senate took or failed to take In the
matter has nothing to do with this case,
because the only question to be considered
is whether or not the Senate had proper
jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the
investigation, and did the witness refuse
TO answer questions pertinent to that SUBJ
jecU-matteT. Nor is 1t any answer to say
that corruption in State elections or vio-
lations of State laws by the use of money
to bribe voters at the polls, or to bribe
members of "a State legislature in the cleo
tion of United States Senators, are not Of
fen ses ptmiShat hy Federal laws hut h,,-