New Britain herald., 1922-08-21

berry stood es a senator duly elected
 by the people Of the state of Miehi- gan and entitled to his seat in the
 senate of the United States"
 Mir. Hughes pointed out the nature
 Of the indictment against Newberry and others as having violated the fed eral statutes making it unlawful for
 q candidate to spend more than the amount fixed fin the state statute in
 procuring congressional nomination, which was $3.75o in the case of nom nation and election of United States senator from Michigan. Newberrys conviction in the lower court on this charge, Mir. Hughes declared was re- versed unanimously by the supreme court.
 Tt should be borne in mind" con- tnued the secretary of state, that Senator Newberry's conviction in the lower court was not based on any charge of fraud or corruption or the use of money for any Illegal purpose or of any act involving moral turpi- tude."
 Secretary Hughes proceeded to say that the charge was one Of spending more than s3,750, regardless of how the money was used or how innocu- ous or proper the purposes of the eX- penditure may have been and that this was the nature of the case was demonstrated by the explicit instruc- tons which the trial judge gave the jury. This point. MT. Hughes con tinued, was, brought out clearly by Justice McReynolds in giving the opinion of the court, in which it was stated that upon such interpretation the conviction of Senator Newberry had been asked and obtained
 Of the six counts, or charges. in the Newberry indictment Mir. Hughes said commit a great many offenses consisting of giving money and things of value to persons to vote for Sen ator Newberry and of giving valuable considerations to persons to withhold their vote from Henry Ford.
 Despite every effort of the prose- cution to show corruption" proceed ed Mir. Hughes, "the trial court dis posed of this charge and refused to permit the jury to consider it, as there was no evidence to sustain it."
 Mir. Hughes then quoted Chief Jus tice White upon this point, as fol- lows:
 "At the trial, before the submission of the case to the jury, the court put the fifth count entirely out of the case by instructing the jury to disre. gard it. as there was no evidence whatever to sustain it. The bribery charge, therefore, disappeared"
 Upon the sixth count that charg- ing conspiracy to defraud by use of the mails, the jury repdered verdict Of not guilty Mir. Hughes continued, leaving four counts involving sub stantially the same charge, these be- ing either eliminated or consolidated with the first counts.
 Thus" proceeded Mir. Hughes, "the question came down to one point, as I have said. the expenditure or con- spiracy to expend an amount of mon- l 4y in excess of the statutory limit of s3,75o. That was all that was left | If the case.
 Senator Newberry could not have ] been convicted, even upon this charge ! without what l always regarded, and | ,o stated in my argument to the su oreme court, as an extraordinary mis- l application of the statute upon which he charge was based"
 Going on to the appeal taken to the | supreme court by Senator Newberry | md the other defendants, against the conviction thus obtained. MT. Hughes old of the opinion of that court, Writ en by Justice McReynolds in behalf l ,f a majority of the justices, that the ederal statute was unconstitutional as |