Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-05-25

| -, "AAASH hS was stl WIFI ndNlnk re-
fused to answer certain questions asked
him by Senator Quays sugar trust inves-
tigating committee the 18th OF June, 1894
| Long before Judge Bradley took his seat
| upon the bench the little court room was
| crowded In anticipation of one of the
| fiercest legal battles ever fought in a Dis
| trict court.
| Statesmen Were Present.
About every prominent newspaper in the
! country was represented. the remainder Ct
the throng being made up of members of
| the Senate and House OF Representatives.
| officials of the American Sugar Refining
Company, of which the indicted man is
president; members of tne local bar jurors
| and witnesses.
| Mr. Havemeyer attired in a business suit
| of black, neat black tie and derby, was
| among the first to appear, being accom-
| panied by his counsel. Nathaniel Wilson of
| this city, John G. Johnson of Philadelphia
/ and John K. Parsons of New York. With
| him was also John Z. Searles. the secretary
| of the American Sugar Refining Company,
| who is under indictment for the same Of
| fense, and whose trial is expected to follow
| that of Mr.. Havemeyer.
Among the witnesses behalf of the
government were Senators Gray, Lindsey,
| Lodge, Allen and Murphy.
Selecting the Jury.
Immediately after the court was opened,
Judge Bradley directed the trial to proceed,
and both sides announcing that they were
| ready, the first twelve talesmen were called
into the jury box and questioned by Dis
| trict Attorney Davis as to their qualifica-
| tons. Each man was asked If he knew the
| defendant, If he had any interest, direct or
| Indirect, in the American Sugar Refining
Company, ard if he had formed or ex-
pressed any opinion to the guilt or inno-
cence Of the defendant. Every man Of the
twelve replied in the negative to each OF
| the three questions, when Mr.. Davis, on be-
| half of the government, stated his entire
satisfaction with the twelve men in the box
The attorneys for the defendant, however
| alter short consultation among them
| selves, peremptoriy challenged Talesmen
| James " Boyer, Richard c. Carr and Alb
ram Fry. Three more talesmen were called
| into the box TO take the places of those
| challenged, and they having answered the
| three questions satisfactorily. both sides
announced that the panel was accept a ble
| and the men were sworn, as follows: Sam
uel Wendell, .chas. II. Dodge, John NJ
White. Richard F. Preusser, A Campbell,
Richard I. Tolbert, Samuel II. King. James
T. Harrison, Henry A. Evans, Woolman
Gibson. E. A. Nauck and w. p. Colley, all
white men.
District Attorney Explains.
Before he opened the case to the jury
District Attorney Davis explained to Judge
Bradley that in the Chapman case Judge
Cole overruled the demurrer filed by Mr.
Chapman against the indictment, holding
that the investigating committee appointed
by the Senate was a regularly constituted
one; that II was duly authorized to make
the inquiry set out in the Indictment and
that the committees questions which Mr.
Chapman refused to answer were peril
nent and proper.
In other words said Mr. Davis Judge
Cole decided that If the jury should find that
the questions set out i'm the indictment had
been asked Mr.. Chapman and he had re-
fused to answer them. then he would be
guilty as indicted, although the indictment
contained much that amounted to surplus
sage Therefore, suggested Mr.. Davis, In
the economy of time, Ii would be well that
In the present the court should SO
rule.
Attorney JOhnson's Comment.
Il would suggest" remarked Mr. John
son, that the district attorney proceed i'm
the present case, irrespective of what was
done in the other, conhning himself, of
course. to what he expects to prove in the
case on trial"
Judge Bradley approved Mr.. Johnson's
suggestion, remarking that in his opinion
the voluminous Indictment could well have
been confined to half a dozen pages.
Wilson Tarin BILL
Mr. Davis, after Mr.. Havemeyer's counsel
had withdrawn the special plea, filed a
year ago, to the indictment, proceeded to
explain the governments case to the Jury.
He stated that after democratic Presi-
dent, Senate and House of Representatives
hal been elected in 1892 the House passed
the Wilson tariff bill. After IL had passed
the House IL was charged that the sugar
trust had secured or was endeayoring to
secure. radical change in the bill by the
Senate. greatly in the interests of the
American Sugar Refining Company
The Senate appointed a committee of five
OF which Senator Gray was chairman, to
investigate these charges, and among
others summoned to testify before the COM
mfttee was Mr.. Havemeyer- He was asked
If his company had made any contributions
for political campaign purposes. state and
local, in 1892 and 1893, and the amount.
After consulting with his attorneys, said
Mr.. Davis. Mr.. Havemeyer. the next day,
stated to the committee that while he was
willing to answer to any material mat
tiers, he would decline. under advice of his
counsel, to answer about outside matters
or about local contributions. He said he
knew Of nothing having been given TO the
national campaign, nor did there exist any
bargain of any nature. He never claimed,
he explained. that the company was en-
titled to anything except what its merits
Having refused to answer the questions,
explained Mr.. Davis. Mr.. Havemeyer was
reported by the committee to the Senate
as being in contempt. and in course OF
time the Vice President certified that fact
to the United States district attorney. who
obtained the indictment of the defendant
the government coiCiuucu NIL Ddfis,
should show these facts, as IL undoubtedly
would, he would ask for verdict of
guilty.
Defense Reserves Its Opening.
The defense reserved its opening. and
then Mr. Davis presented great mass OF
documentary evidence. detailing the cleo
ticn of Senators Murphy OF New York and
Smith of New Jersey, the passage Of the
Wilson tariff bill by the House. and the
appointment of the Senate committee. with
instructions to investigate private charges
that the sugar trust had contributed funds
for political campaign purposes for the
purpose of influencing the acts of certain
senators in relation to the sugar schedule
in the tariff bill.
Most II the documentary evidence was
admitted. the defense Offering no objec-
tions, but objection was made to the certii-
Gates OF the election of Senators Murphy
and Smith. as well as to report made 10
the Senate by Serator Davis Of the investt