New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-05-27
AIR HAVEMEYER'S TRIAL
TUE PROSECUTION RESTS AND THE DE.
FENCE BEGINS.
vxrRAcTs FROM THE SENATE JOURNAL AID.
M1rTEp ~ EvIpENcE-GRoCNps on WHICH
AN ACOUITTAL Is ASKED

washington, May 26.-The trial Of Henry o.
payemeyer, the president of the American Sugar
refining Company. indicted for refusing to an
aver questions asked by the Senate Investigat-
ing Committee in June, 1894, resumed this
morning The attendance was almost as large
as on yesterday. DistrictAttorney Davis again
offered in evidence the extract from the Senate
journal showing the recreancy Of Mr.. Have
never to which the defence objected unless the
other journals showing the whole action OF the
Senate upon the case be admitted Judge Brad
lev agreed to admit all relevant extracts from
the Senate journals and Mr. Johnson withdrew
his objection. Accordingly the extracts showing
the three reports Of the committee to the Sem
ate detailing the fact of Mr. Havemeyers con-
tumacy were admitted Mr.. johnson objected to
the admission of the printed report OF the COM
mittee evidence, and long legal debate fol-
lowed on this point.
The Government insisted that II was admissible
rs an official Senate report Mr.. Davis said he
was driven to the necessity OF Offering this
document as evidence because the original
stenographic notes Of Mr.. Havemeyers testi-
mony had been lost. The defence offered TO ad-
nit the whole printed record. but objected to
the extract relating to Mr.. Havemeyer's testi-
AN OBJECTION SUSTAINED
Judge Bradley said that II the contention Of
the Government was correct then the whole
record was evidence and much time of the
Court had bee, wasted. He referred sarcas-
tically 10 the ''sanctity with which the Dis
trict-Attorney had clothed the proceedings OF
the Senate In Apostolic days. he said, clothes
taken from the bodies Of the Apostles were sup
posed to have healing virtues, and even the rags
that subsequently came in contact with them
"but those days" said the Judge. ARE passed
The Court sustains the objection"
This ruling compelled the District-Attorney
again to call the Senate Committees stenoe-
rapher. Mr. Prentss to the stand. over half
an hour was consumed in comparing printers
record with the testimony as given ir the IN
dictment The attorneys then announced that
they had agreed that certain extracts from the
printed report Of Mr.. Havemeyer's testimony
should go in as direct evidence. The extracts
admitted showed the purpose of the defence 10
contend that Mr.. Havemeyer had answered all
pertinent inquiries and had refused II furnish
only data as to political contributions IN state
and local elections.
The Court held for the defence that. these
extracts having been admitted, 1t was compe-
tent for the defence to bring out all other
things in the testimony. In making the ruling
the Judge remarked significantly: Suppose 1t
can be shown that Mr.. Havemeyer in substance
gave the committee the information asked for in
the question to which answer was subsequently
refused" Immediately following this the de-
fence offered Mr.. Havemeyer's denials, para
graph by paragraph. of the newspaper article IN
The Philadelphia Press" written by Holland
All the other portions Of Mr. Havemeyers
testimony before the committee. selected to cover
the scope of the Senate inquiry, were also intro
duced by the defence The Court then took a
recess until o'clock
After the recess Mr.. johnson continued 10 read
Mr.. Havemeyer's testimony TO the jury. The
defence agreed TO the admission of the records
and journals Of the Legislatures of New-York
and New-Jersey, which the Government offered
yesterday with the admission Of the fact of
county and municipal elections in those States !
in 1892 The files Of the newspaper articles upon !
which the Senate resolution providing for the
Investigation was based were also admitted At
this point the Government rested its case.
THE ARGUMENTS FOR THE DEFENCE.
Mr. Johnson Immediately moved that the jury
be instructed to find the defendant not guilty. on
six grounds as follows l. That the question
asked as to contributions TO local and State cam
paigns TO which answer refused, was not
pertinent 2 That IL was not the duty OF Mr.
Havemeyer TO examine records in order to be
able 10 answer questions he could not answer
from memory. 3. That the question to which
reply was demanded compelled the production
Of the data by the witness from books. and that
the proper method to secure such testimony was
the production Of such books. T. That the ques-
ton put to the witness was too broad, including
matters concerning which he had no possible
right to answer 8. That before conviction it
must be shown that the committee, Of which
alone he could be in contempt, instructed him
that the question 70 which answer was demanded
If he committee and not OF
an individual member. 6. That the indictment
does not disclose cause Of action
Mr. Johnson made an exhaustive argument
in support Of his motion. dwelling particularly
on the fact that 1t was not in the province or
Jurisdiction of q Senate committee TO go beyond
the scope of its inquiry and 10 ask imperti-
nent questions. With regard TO the real
objects OF the committees inquiry, with regard
to every question affecting the honor Of the
Presid ,nt or the Senate. with regard 10 all ques-
tions Of National administration, said Mr.. John
son. Mr. Haven ~ .r had been "brutally frank"
He had held back nothing. If.as matter Of fact,
Mr. Havemeyer had testified that State end local
contributions had been made. and II 1t had been
proved that they had affected the elections the
offence would have been against the States not
against the United States. Mr.. Johnson was bit
ter in his sarcasm. He declared that the alleged
"pursts" should devote some Of their virtue and
time to attending H. their own bl siness The
questions put TO Mr.. Havemeyer as to his con-
trlDutiOnS 10 local CdiHpdISHS, Hc SoIu' NciS 40
inpertinent as If ne had been asked how many
children or how much money he was possessed of.
SARCASM FOR THE SENATE.
While admitting the right % legislative in
vestigation, he argued that the purpose of such
Investigation must be remedial legislation, not
senseess prying into the private affairs OF the
citizen Even the Senate Of the United States
said he, in closing his argument on the first
cause for the dismissal of the indictment, Wnlcn
is a somewhat sensitive plant did not consider
Mr.. Hayemeyer's refusal TO answer the question
when Il was reported to that body an infringe
ment OF or an encroachment upon their rlghts
and prerogatives" With regard TO the second
Proposition he argued that no court on earlh