New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-06-16
FOURTH RECUSANT WITNESS.
ANOTHER OF THE SENATE 1NVEsTl-
eating COMMITTEE TRIALS.
JOHN s. sHRIvER A NEWSPAPER CORRESPOND
ENr. AT THE BAR--ARdUMENT ON THE

ENT AT THE BAR-AR0UMENT ON THE
MOTION 10 DISMISS.
Washington, June 1.-THE trial OK Jonn ..
shriyer correspondent OF THE New-fofk Mail anu
EXPRESS" the fourth OF the recusant witnesses pc
fore the Senate Sugar Investigating Committee Oh
1884, began before Judge Bradley this morhihs. VI
the other three witnesses. similarly charseu eve
ton r. Chapman was convicted ana mas serVeu -
thirty-day sentence In jail. and Messrs. haVeme'
and Searles president and secretary respectively -
the American Sugar Refining Company "e''
Quilted by order OF the court
Mr. ShrIyer was represented BY ex-Judge a D.
Dntenhoefer OF NewYork, and Judge Jere "hson'
Of this city. r. J. Edwards, New-York CORRESPOND
ent of THE Philadelphia Press. whose trial VIII
follow that Of Mr.. Shriver was In the courtroom
as were a number of Senators and prominent o"'-
Gals subpnnaed to testify in the case. Mr. ShriveT
was asked by the Senate Committee to give ue-
tailed information regarding some dispatches sent
by him to his paper In when ~ was s'ateu '
during an alleged conference between some oiioi''
of the Sugar Trust and certain senators AZ ue
Arlington In March. 1894. there was lodged IN 'ne
next room a certain wire manufacturer, VINO over
heard the alleged conference and the next morning
reported II to a certain ConGressn an teilihs MN
that from the conference he knew the wilson Dill
never would pass and that the sugar schedule o,
the House bill would be changed After cohs'oei
able examination IN regard to the story publisheo
by Mr. Shriver. as to how he verified the ahege'
facts all of which were answered the committee
asked the name OF the Congressman. which NIX
Shriver refused to give. He also refused 10 give
the name Of the wire manufacturer lie deemed
to give the name on the ground that IL wouio W.
late confidence and involve his reputation as
newspaper man. Mr. Shrivers nhai answer W."
a refusal in these words:
'On the ground that 1t would degrade me-
promised not TO give his name
No trouble was experienced in securing jury.
District Attorney Davis. who conducted the caSo
OF the Government made his opening statement
concluding with the assertion that upon the peril
nencv OF the questions TO which answers were re-
fused he was willing 10 rest his case Inc oe'e"1'
reserved its opening The District'Attorney ih'io-
duced the several documents introduced III tne
other cases. with the understanding that an op'
iactons and exceptions should be considered niade
and noted The SINAI. show OF resistance MAUI
by tho defence to the admission OF the Govern
ment's proof seemed TO indicate strong pei'ei oH
their part that the case would not go 10 the Jui''
but would be thrown out Of court on the MOTION
h,oh ,hov exnected 10 make after the Government
rested. wi, A..
Senator Gray was the first witness. Inc hrS'
intimation OF tho line OF defence was oiSoios H
when during the testimony Judge Dlttehhocie'
made a general objection to any evidence resaiu'e
the article in Tho Mail and Express which ne
nonted ont was not published until two days aiter
the resolutions of investigation were passed =!
the Senate. These resolutions contained 10 iei'
ence the article In The Man s hnn Ho in with
the general exception noted; soro,o- GRAY II one
Senator (Mr. quay had not admttcl ,hat nc
speculated in sugar STOCK IA onJeciD ,tenhoefei
qgued thsi there could have purpose IL
asking nSwsraPeT man no,d wn Examine tho senate
themselves. Judge Bradley sustained 'hs o'Jo~
ton -, a., Aoror.o IN cross examila
ton were an attempt show that NJ Sh h era al
his 6rs, examination only declined lor INC pr
questions
called declined to answer another and totally az, Il
is s i1aime Senator GRAY the record
TO show that the second day ne as c,a ,b r CON-
mites NIT now renewed the question which he 'Mr'
shriyer1 refused the day before to answer. hors
Of the Sugar nvestgaiins Committee testified ,,s as
to the sxnOn Of Mr. shTiy ,n c J%agS .Sh did
not afterward obtain the name OF the tbe wire
(Mr CadnTs Of New-Je,seN "a s"' Wilkesbarre
PENN District-Attorney Davis ooJec'ec' anu '''
obec0 nc wS the Government rested Its case and
Judge DittenhoeTer moved the Court 10 ,Stn1
the juryrtp dismiss the case OIL ''e '0''O"'"9
Frst@Ths committee had no authority or Jut ,hc
dction to nterrogate the Defendant eoncesss ''o
articIe published in The Mall ana Express; oo,
Second-There being no JURISDICTION ~, ~ eaid
nr.cle as Is contained in said extract the ques'ph
put the defendant was not SAID rommtes
qThrd"Tne defendant was not directed or required
to ansTer m defendGni did decline or refus
to answer the question forth in the indctmen,
psuar the ouestion he is charged in the indlct
ment with having refused to answer. , no, % dis
Sixth-The defendant was privileged no' " '''
close the name OF his informant. No. ,orovs.
caG M ShT hS %an was him by tas
congreSsman In md con,,y y0c newspapers have
ben for long time performing the duiy Of invest sb
eating ana ae5eSps WTS0g e and to her sKas
The Court viii take judicial notice Of the fact Act ma
fsrn Of sory have been exposed and brought to
punishment through the agency OF the rev pexs
Ina csp he c5mpeed 10 disclose the sources Of
It, Information To bring about the discovery 6 od
GovNrnment and will not compel the name OF IN, the
person giving the Information 30 be reveaied. me nc,
formation ca be compelled would tend 70 prevent
the dscoyeTy Of crime scs wS ana herefore would be
against public policy As the newspaper IS mo-.
and the correction OF wrongs the same rue snon ~
be applied for the same reason' y me name %, ne
that this most effective ad in the discovery OF crime
Judge Dittenhoertr had not concluded MS are GU
ment on the motion 10 order an acauittai when Inc
court adjourned for the day.
Flverton r. Chapman. the New-York stock broHer
| rh, snent month IN the Washington jail because
| he would not answer questions put 10 him by the
| United States Senate Committee In the sugar IN
yestigation. was at his Office az No. 10 BROADWAY
Yesterday His appearance showed that MS conilhe-
ment had not disagreed with MIN. lie was attteu
In a new summer suit. and wore pink In his
but;onho,e He visited by many wan stree
men He said: The Washington incident If ciosed
stand II Is not strange that Messrs. Havemeyer
and Searles OF the Sugar Trust were not sent 10
So is the case OF Messrs Shriyer and EDWARDS, inc
newspaper men.
AMERICAN ALCOHOL FOR JAPAN.
r. ro,soo luna 15-Alcohol IL now being