Evening star., 1922-08-21
THINKS. NEWBERRY
WRONGLY ACCUSED
Conviction of Senator in
Election Case Unjust, Sec
retary Hughes Declares.
CITES FACTS TO INQUIRER
Statement Made Following 1njee.
ton Of "Newberryism" as Issue
in Political Campaign.

with the democrats seeking to make
"Newberryism" an issue in the coming
elections. Secretary Hughes of the
State Department. who appeared as
counsel for Senator Newbefry when
the Michigan senator's election case
came before the Supreme Court, has
written letter to Rev. Hugh B. Mac
Cauley of Paterson, N. j., expressing
the conviction that Senator New
berry was wrongly and most unjustly
convicted" -
The letter has been made public by
the republican national committee, 1t
was written\by Secretary Hughes in
reply to request from DR.. MacCauley
as to the facts" in. the Newberry
case.
Mr.. Hughes gave in detail the find.
1ngs OF the courts, and particularly
that of the Supreme Court, which set
berry.
He said in conclusion:
Attempt n Complete Failure.
Despite the long period of prepara-
ton, the rigid investigation, the care
full choosing of their ground. the
long-drawn- -out trial. the attempt in
every possible way to besmirch, and
the zeal, ability and even bitterness
of his pursuers, their endeayor to esq
part of Senator Newberry completely
failed and, accordingly, Senator New
berry stood as senator duly elected
by the people of the state OF Michigan
and entitled to his seat in the Senate
of the United States"
The conviction of Senator New
berry," he continues, was obtained
under a statute held by the majority
OF the Supreme Court to be invalid:
rested upon ground which did not
involve any finding by the jury Of
moral turpitude; and was ) effected
only by a most serious misconstruc-
tion OF the statute, which exposed him
to conviction regardless Of any moral
offense upon his part and no matter
how high-minded he might have been
in his conduct in the, campaign
Not Convicted ON Fraad Charge,
The Secretary, who. as counsel. for
Mr.. Newberry and his associates, par
before the Supreme Court, further
declared in his letter that ..it should
be borne in mind that Senator New
berry's conviction in the; lower court
was not based on any charge Of fraud
or corruption or of the use OF money
for any Illegal purposes or of any
act involving moral turpitude"
Mr. Hughes then explains that the
conviction of Mr. Newberry was based
solely on the charge that there had
been an expe nditure in his campaign
and election Of more than $3.50, the
limit fixed by the statute by the state
of Michigan, and that the federal cor
rupt practices act made it unlawful
for candidate to spend in excess of
the limit fixed by state law.
Senator Newberry could not have
been convicted" Mr.. Hughes adds,
"even upon this rne;iRffhoufsxltA6
l always regarded. and 80 stated in
my argument to the Supreme Court,
as an. ,extrsordiRaEy.s, ,saisapplieatSum
~of the statute. upon which the
charge was based
Counts Set Asides
Other counts of the indictment re-
turned against Mr.. Newberry. includ-
ing that charging a conspiracy to
commit a number Of offenses. Mr..
Hughes emphasizes. were set aside.
and the jury in the trial rendered
a verdict of not guilty on the charge
of consiracy to, defraud by use of
the malls.
Discussing the decision. of the Su-
preme Court at length. Mr.. Hughes
points out to his correspondent that
the majority opinion of, the court
held that the federal statute was un-
constitutional and. therefore. the
conviction should be set aside and
that the other four justices. while
not, concurring in the ZQuestion Of
constitutionality, Joined in reversing
the Judgment of conviction because
the statute had been seriously mis-
construed by the trial court"