The times., 1897-05-28
$500 a MONTH.
For all diseases full treatment and medi-
Daily office holirs-10 to 8; Monday,
Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday tiil
p. m; Sundays, 10 to IL m.
As- CONSULTATION FREE 90

wilfully makes default, or who, having ap-
peared, refuses to answer any question
pertinent to tie question under inquiry
shall be guilty OF misdemeanOr, ETC.
Judge Bradley described the case Of
Chapman as one for contumacy; that it
had been decided that it was within the
jurisdiction OF the Senate; that he had
been asked a question pertinent TO the
inquiry, and not one amounting to an
unreasonable search into his private af-
fairs.
If this Indictment" said Judge Brad
ley, charged the defendant with the re-
fusal TO answer like questions, or questions
pertinent to the investigation OF alleged
Senatorial misconduct, and the testimony
tended to sustain the charge there would be
no question as TO the duty OF the court 10
override the motion. But the situation OF
the defendant with reference tc the char
acter of the question put to him, and which
he is charged with refusing to answer, and
the subject matter to which tie question
related. are somewhat different"
Judge Bradley then dissected the testi-
mony TO the effect that Mr.. Havemeyer
was summoned TO appear before the com
mittee on the ordinary summons to testify
or, ad testificandUm; that he had denied
any knowledge of contributions Of money
by his company in 1892 and 1893 to
influence the election OF United States
Senators or Congressional legislation; nor
had he made any contributions to the
national campaign OF 1892, but only to
State ard taiInicipal campaigns. He could
not immediately give t.Ic- amount bst
ffs.r rs.fe. nm. to fffa.
peBse accounts OF the company.
Judge Bradley then took up the question
which was asked the witness by Senator
Allen, and commenting on il. continued
The indictment charges that ne, Have
meyer, wilfuliy refused TO answer SO Inuen
of the question as related to, and re-
Quired a disclosure from him OF contribu-
tious made in IS92-'93 by the American
Sugar Refining Company to any political
party TO aid in the election OF the candi-
dates of such parties to State and local
Offices"
Does the testimony show that the de
fendant violated the statute under which
this Indictment is found? This depends
upon two main questions:
First, was the subject matter of the
question pertinent TO the inquiry that the
resolution required the committee to make
and, If so, as that inquiry within the Juris
diction OF the Senate?
Second, did the defendant refuse to an
swer question that called for testimony,
facts within his knowledge at the time OF
his examination?
"A negative answer to either OF these
questions Will necessarily require OF the
hot ftat n ruA
Judge Bradley considered the second
question first. He held that tho defendant
did not decline 10 answer the general
question put to him by Mr., Allen He an
swered mo- as TO national politics, but
as to local and State campaigns, he con-
sidered it as something W hich did not
concern the Senate, and therefore ne
did not answer. But that was not
wilful refusal TO answer the question =
He was simply unable to answer ques-
ton for the want of data, and he had not
been summoned to bring such data He
was not before the committee under
subpoena tecum duces. The question is
wheth her having answered all these in
Quiries that were put to him for the pur-
pose of asCertaining his personal kno wi
edge, his refusal to go and get informa-
tion for the committee put him in contempt.
In the light of the statute he would not
be In contempt unless being served with
subpoena he does not appear. or appearing
does not answer But there are two classes
OF subpoenas, as stated, Que merely to
testify, and the other t3 bring papers, etc
Havin g been summoned to give testimony
no court would hold him in contempt f he
Il To-,
to do it, Judge Bradley held that there was
a variance between what the indictment
charged and the evidence, a variation be
tween its a!legata and the probata.
The court referred to the fact that there
was no attempt on the part of the commit
tee to have Mr.. Haveneyer produce the
papers by the proper subpoena, as it could
have done $ a judicial body. Inferentially,
therefore, on this important question the
witness was not in contempt OF the COM
mittee, but of Senator Allen, who had
asked for the production of the full data"
from the books
Summing up, the court said: Upon all of
these grounds, therefore, it appears to NE
that no court in Christendom would find
this witness guilty Of contempt. If the
witness is not guilty of contempt then
this prosecution is baseless and it is IN
necessary to inquire whether the Senate
of the United States was possessed of the
jurisdiction to inquire of any corporation
or individual whether it or he had con-
tributed money for any local or State pur-
poses.
When It becomes necessary to deter
mine that question the court Will deter
mine 1t. Al present it does not seem to be
necessary for the purpose of the disposition
of this case to enter upon that discussion
There are other questions subsidiary to the
main proposition, but the decision of the
main question ends this case, and will re-
quire that the court direct the jury to en-
ter a verdict of acquittal''
The verdict was accordingly entered, and
Mr.. Havemeyer discharged He was. OF
course, congratul ated by his attorneys
first and then by some of his friends In
attendance.
Mr.. Davis desired to go on with the
Searles case, but found that the jury had
been discharged. He announced that 1t
would be taken up this morning.
1t is held that the case against Searles
is stronger than against even Chapman or
Havemeyer The case is brought on the fol-
lowing questions on which be was alleged
to be contunacious:
Senator Allen-What amount was expenfi-
ed BY you (rneaning the American Sugar