The New York herald., 1921-01-08
HUGHES ARGUES
NEWBERRY APPEAL
Tells Supreme Court COnvic-
ton Was a Gross Perver-
sion Of Justice.
QUESTIONS FROM BENCH
Justices Frequently Interrupt
Counsel for Information on
Specific Points.
QUESTIONS FROM BENCH

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7.-Conviction OF
Senator Truman H. Newberry of Michi-
gan and sixteen others of conspiring to
violate the corrupt practices act was
denounced as a gross perversion OF
justice" by counsel for the Senator. and
was upheld by the Government as a
salutary lesson to those who would pur-
chase an election "by paid propaganda"
before the Supreme Court to-day, when
arguments in the appeal were heard.
Charles e. Hughes. former Associate
Justice of the Court, who headed coun-
sci for the defence. asserted that only
through a 'grotesque' construction of
the law had the Government been able
to present any case to the jury. He
quoted the Government brief as show
ing that 1t was admitted that no re-
striction was placed b. law on the ex-
rendtures IA political committee In be-
half of any candidate. nor on the
amount such committee might raise
for a campaign. and further. that no
attempt was made by the Government
to show that Senator Newberry had
himself contributed in excess of the
legal limitation of S3.750. The entire
basis of the Governments case. Mr..
Hughes told the Court, was that ''this
legal committee. having legally raised
a legal sum of money for a legal pur-
pose. became an Illegal conspiracy be-
cause its candidate was aware that more
than $3.50 was being expended
"Mr Newberry and the other defend
ants Mr. Hughes said. have suffered
q grievous wrong through processes of
so-called justice which this court should
correct.
Apart from the direct attack on the
conviction as Illegal and uneustained by
the evidence, the defence attempted to
show the court that the corrupt practices
act itself. so far as it attempts to limit
campaign expenditures for legal objects.
was constitutional.
Solicitor-General Frierson, presenting
the Governments case, took issue with
the theory presented by the defence as
to what constituted a violation of the
corrupt practices act. Senator New
berry, according to Mr.. Frierson, being
desirous of entering the race for Senator
in 1918, called a conference in New York
of Paul H. King of Detroit. afterward
his campaign manager, and Frederick
Cody of New York, former superinten-
dent of Detroit schools. At this confer
cnce the quee.ion of the campaign cost
arose and. Mr. Frierson said. Newberry
was told it would require the expendi-
ture of "S950.000 or more" Having
agreed to enter the race on the express
condition that this sum would be ex-
pended. the Government held that he,
Cody and King had entered a conspiracy
to defeat the provisions of the statute.
Mr.. Frierson added that more than
s176000 was shown to have been spent
by the report filed by the campaign man.
ayers and this sum did not include
moneys spent in behalf of Helme, n
| candidate for the nomination of the
Democratic party" Deposits and with
| drawals from banks made in behalf OF
| the campaign aggregated in excess OF
! $500, 900. the prosecution asserted.
In the absence of Chief Justice White
who was detained at his home by q
| slight indisposition, Justice McKenna
presided, and with practically every
| other member of the bench. interrupted
counsel frequently to ask questions or
! specific points.
Replying to question from the
Bench as to whether each of the seven
| teen defendants had been equally iden-
tilted with the conspiracy. Mr.. Frierson
! said. "All save one." and named George
! s add of Sturbridge. Mass. as the
| exception
While he was not prepared to confess
error in the case of Mr.. Ladd, Mr.
Frierson said, he was frankly doubtful
| as to the Governments position" the
! evidence against him having been frag-
mentary. Ladd. a former master OF
Massachusetts, State Grange. was SEN
fenced to a fine of $1,000.