The times., 1897-06-02

UP TO the point of the motion by Mr..
johnson, of counsel for HaveIueyer and
SeaTles, that the defendant be acquitted
on three grounds. which were fully set
forth currently in The Times.
All OF the counsel for the trust were
on hand betimes, probably to avoid any
accidents in the way OF an adverse de-
cision. Mr.. Havemeyer also came over Tor
the round up, so far as the trust defendants
are concerned
Judge Bradiey's opinion " as very elab-
crate. He commenced by counplimenting
the ability and learning fwith which the
case had been argued on beth sides, and
which had been OF much assistance to him
in arriving at his conclusions. The court
had not proceeded far with the opinion
when it was stated that the Searles' case
was practically duplicate of the Have
meyer case This left no doubt on the
audience, not only OF the result OF the
opinion, but the nianDer il which it was
to be reached.
The greater part of the opiliol was hec-
essarily history of the case. He reviewed
the appointment of the Senate Committee
of inquiry, the reasons for its appointment.
the instructions to the committee. the
testimony of Mr.. Searles, the majority and
minority reports OF the committee, and
finally the points made by the counsel for
the prosecution and the defense. Judge
Bradley made much use of the fact that
the committee itself declared against sew
eral OF the contentious of the prosecution.
lie considered the case in the light of four
propositions, as follows:
First. Whether bribes had been offered
to Senators.
Second. Whether the sugar sche dule, as
amended, was made up by the Committee
on Finance, in consideration of large sums
of money paid for campaign purposes
Third. Whether any contributions had
been made by the sugar trust or by any
persons connected Herewith FOR campaign
purposes to secure or defeat legislation.
Fourth. Whether any Senator had been
specializing in sugar stocks.
The court paid very little attention to
any OF the propositions except the third,
as it involved the suggestion that the con-
tr!butions were used to secure or defeat
Legislation pendingbefoie the Senate which,
il proved, would have given the committee
Jurisdiction of tie subject.natter.
The Important utterances of Judge Brad
ley were substantially these;
To determine whether this motion should
be granted it becomes necessary to decide
whether the questions were pertinent to
the subjcct-matter, aud whether they were
within tic Jurisdiction of the Senate. The
statute, he said, by "any matter" meant
clearly matter within the jurisdiction of
the Senate
The right Ola person or corporation to
contribute to campaign purposes is es-
sentiaiiy private matter and iustifiable.
so that the real inquiry of the Senate
was to find cut whether the 'contribu-
tions were to secure or defea Legislation.
He held that the Senate had no broad
power to pass On the acts OF persons or
corporations as TO their individual lights
As ito thebribery of s Senator's. a.. tn atw was
settled by the Senate reports themselves
There was nothing in il, for all the SeEa-
tors denied IT. The committee reported
that there had teen no Influence brought
to bear on The making up Of The sugar
schedule by the sugar trust.
The only questions Of which the COM !
rnittee did rot have knowledge were as to |
how much Searies had contributed. Such |
questions were not pertinent. because it
was not show that the money was ased to
affect the election Of any particular SEN
atnr !
The act of the legislature in electine