The daily star-mirror. (Moscow, Idaho) 1911-1939, 1921-01-22
NEWBERRY CASE IN
THE SUPREME COURT
HISTORY OF CASE NOW PEND
ING BEFORE HIGHEST TRI-
BUNAL OF THE u. S.

; WESTINGHOUSE A. P.)-Tht
y case of United States Senator Tru
: man H. Newberry of Michigan and
sixteen of his political associates
reached the supreme court Of the
I trct court at Grand Rapids, Mich
where the appellants were found
: guilty March 20, 1920, of criminal
!, conspiracy to violate the federal cor
! rupt practices act
The senator was sentenced by the
district Judge, Clarence W. Sessions,
! to two years imprisonment at Fort
, Leavenworth and fined $4,000. This
the extreme penalty of the law was
also placed against two others, the re-
manning sentences running down to a
fine of 81 900.
The case started with 1876 indict-
ments returned at Grand Rapids No
vember 20, 1919. 1t was called for
trial January 27, 1920, and lasted
eight weeks, IS of the original list
j of defendants being still before the
bar when the jury retired. One man
was granted separate trial because
of illness and one was never arrested,
having gone to South America before
the indictments were returned. Twen-
| ty-three were dismissed on motion of
Frank G. Daley, special assistant at
torney general, at the close of the
government testimony on March 2,
1920, and the next day Judge Ses-
sions freed fifteen more. Seventeen
were found guilty. SO acquitted and
the cases of ten who pleaded nolo
contendere were dismissed after the
jury returned it's verdict
The sentences of those found
guilty with Senator Newberry fol-
low:
Frederick Cody, of New York, for
mer superintendent of Detroit schools
two years in Leavenworth and $10,-
900 fine
Paul H. King of Detroit, manager
of the Newberry campaign, two years I
in Leavenworth and $4,000 fine.
Charles A. Floyd of Detroit assist
ant manager of Newberry campaign,
two years in Leavenworth and $4,000
fine.
William j. Nickel of Oshkosh, Wis,
formers deputy state food and drug
inspector in Michigan, two years in
Leavenworth.
Allan A. Yempleton ex-president of
the Detroit Board of Commerce and
several chairmen of the Newberry
committee, one year and six months
in Leavenworth.
Roger M. Andrews, editor of the
Menominee Herald-Leader, one year
and six months in Leavenworth
Milton Oakman Detroit, former
sheriff, one year and six months in
Leavenworth.
Richard H. Fletcher Bay City, state '
labor commissioner, one year and
three months in Leavenworth.
James F. McGreggor, Detroit one )
year and three months in Leaven-
worth. ,
Fred Henry, Flint, deputy state
factory Inspector, one year and three
months in Leavenworth.
Mich, clerk in the U. S. Senate,
Washington, one year and one day in
Leavenworth. II
E. v. Chilson of Ann Arbor, a re- T
publican national committee en- F
3loyee, one year and one day in T
John S. Newberry, Detroit, brother T
# the senator $4,000 fine.
Harry O. Turner Detroit, former \
.hief deputy marshal, $4,000 fine. s
B. Frank Emery Detroit, former I
Jerk n the Wayne county treasurer's f
'ffice, $4,000 fine. F
George S. Ladd, Sturbridge, Mass, G
ormer master of the Massachusetts T
state Grange, $4,000 fine. is
All the convicted men have been at r
liberty on bonds since their indict- I;
nent.
The specific charge against Sen :
tor Newberry was that between De-
lie "unlawfully and feloniously did
IN hJva0 onv1fnHorofn
gree with divers persons" to violate
he Act of June rs, 1910, by contri-
uting sums aggregating 100000 to-
5ard the expenses of his nomination
nd election. 1t was not necessary, the
overnment asserted, that Newberry /
hould actually give this amount or
hat he should have had personal
supervision of it's expenditure, but
was sufficient if he had guilty
nowledge that contributions to an
legal aggregate were being accepted
Or the purpose in view.
Included in the scores of expendi-
Tres set forth in the indictments
ere "appropriating and converting
, the use of the defendants them
Elves, large sums of money under
lie guise of payment of their ex-
enses and compensation for their |
'TVlcoS, DT1DeTy OF elocClOn OIL l
RS; unlawful assistance of election
Ulcers; bribery Of voters; expenses
i'd compensation of Democratic OBJ
ructionist candidates; dinners, ban |
lets and other entertainments III
No less than 1853 alleged errors were
by the defendants in their
'plication for appeal to the highest
urt. Beginning with the refusal of -
e district court to sustain demur-
r to the Indictment, these errors
How the course of the trial
the last in order being a
iticism of the court for refusing the
plication for a new trial
The brief submitted to the Supreme
'urt by Charles Hughes, Martin w.
ttleton, George E. Nichols and
mes 0. Mudfin, counsel for New
rry and the sixteen co-defendants,