Evening Star Newspaper, November 13, 1894, Page 3

THE EVENING STAR, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 138, 1894-TWELVE PAGES. SPECIAL NOTICES. W. GT. Uv. ‘ WuxTos “WILL HOLD ITS regular - {Wednentas), 2 622 La. ave. LW. B.D, ite Mra. », for the purpose ‘of voting on the proposed ‘revision of the constitution. By order of the board of directors. L. ECKERT, PCE. x citizens of the District of Petitidding Congress, to order a special election, fo be held In the the question watch repa fs now oe: with C. H. Davidson, J oe to see his friends and the general public; west work possible and charges reasonable. -» iM connection Mer, where he would be E. BLAIR, FORMERLY OF 212 IND. has removed her dressmaking parlors nh nW., Where she will be her former es sn Tall :EDITORN OF All creditors of Jobn potitied that he has made-an assigou for the benefit of his creditors. All persons hay- ing clabus against him will present the sume to the undersigned assignee, named in the deed, or fo my attorney, and all ‘persons indebted to im requested to call and settle without delay. EPHiAi 8. RANSDELL, No. S01 Est. nw Assignee. THOMAS M. FIELDS, No. 507 B st. n-w., ine, — FOR List OF ric than red bric Cotta and Roa od Recutcheoun, ur property. No for sketches and estimates. 20 per cent on Vrought-iron Gas Fixtures. J. H. CO! nol2 Je Shop, “THE LION CHATR the strongest rate on the marke splace Fixtures, in brass, wrought and silver to harmonize with’ all styles ot decoration, sent on approval. J. H. CORNING, __Rol2 522 18t Ww SEAT A ‘SY AS 100 GUESTS at one table. If you vutsh te gives Guaer or in any way entertain your friends around the festive board—give us a call—we will furnish you a nice layout—and % REUTER'S HOTEL AND RESTAURANT. ‘and Penn. ave. L ASSOCIATION D. ©.—AN ADJOU! — of the Medical Association of the Dis- Columbia wil town law w., TI charge you moder- MED) meetli triet_ of SPECIAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Dae nership subsisting between James P. Gaddis and Adam Gaddis, carrying on real es- . Gaddis & ¢ 16th day of November, consent. JAS. ‘P. GADDIS, mutual GADDIS. X GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY— For the balance of 1804 we shall sell RAM- BLERS at ONE HUNDRED dollars, a reduction In Price of 20 per cent.. What few we have left land the ntity is limited) are new and late patterns, and offered at riee to make Toom for 1895 goods. SIX" RAM- only, at $90. No ‘better chance has ever occurred to’ save money on strictly high-grade Bicycles. GORMULLY & JEFFERY MFG. CO., 1325 14th st. n.w. MES. Dit. RENNER Has removed from 131 3d st. To 84 B st. ne., Washington, D. 0. 0¢23-1m! nolo aenclANT Tkaron, Give Bas yor iar ted poe wil be suited. Fall and winter steck now ready. ee21-ti ANNOUNCEMENT, Having remodcled and refitted the studto for- aay, oceupled by the late C. M. Bell, corner hand G sts. nw, we are prepared to make very best work’ in the photographie line. Sve make a‘speclalty of the very finest crayons, colored crayons, pastels, ete. Our copying and en.c.ging department is under the management of & mest competent operator. All work done under my persoual supervision, and guaranteed satis- factory. S. A. TAYLOR, eciS-Im Cor. 15th and G sts. Dw. CALENDARS FOR 1806, Elliott's complete lines of steel- piste calendars; finest ever shows; samples ready Bow. McQUEEN Fine Book ‘and Job Print! ing. Pee 820. 1108-1116 E st. o.w, $i8 < Watches, $12.50. We got this lot of watches from H. Mubr’s Sons of Philadelphia, who were going out of busi They are gold-filled eases, but they warranted for fifteen stemwinding, Elgin or Waltham ent, fancy or plain engine-turned For ladies and men. Geo. W. Spier, 310 9th St. Just _atcve the $35 Isn’t a High Price —to pay for a Beaver Overcoat that will wear two or three seasons. It {s non- sense to pay $15 or $18 for a ready-made coat that won't look well for even one season. We are turning out an elegant Beaver Overcoat for $35. Merchant Gatchel & Tompkins, “™" 418 12TH ST. 15d Low Prices on Stationery Is what makes us popular among business men. Then, too, we have everything they need in endless "varieties. If you are not one of our patrons iet us fill your next Stationery order—you'll find it more satisfactory, and at less cost, than elsewhere. Easton & Rupp, 421 11th St. Popular-priced Stationers. (Just above Ave.) 14d The New “Berlin Truss’’ =1s the only “CORRECT” support for a RUP- TURE. None later—none ter—none indorsed by as many leading surgeons. All kinds of trusses for any kind of rupture. Fit or money back. Physician a charge. Lady attendant. Private parlors. Berlin Truss Co., 1116 F st. Over Loose, the Florist—take elev When durability and preservation is considered Ohio [Mineral Paint Is withont a doubt the cheapest on the market. ‘This ts demonstrated by Its extensive use on «very datidin, y size in the city. 1835_F st. Telephone 15<3. Lace Curtains, 50c. TO $1.00 PER PAIR. Nottingham Curtains, . 40c. PER PAIIt. Blankets, Sec. PER, PAIR. All handwork Je to look Ike new. SWISS STEAM LAUNDRY CO, 1341 F st. aw. BRIEFS, go Cents. 512 Uith st. nw. Shirts to Measure, FOR DRESS. FOR OUTING. FOR BUSINESS. FOR TRAVELIN Quality, style, fit, workmanship and price guaranteed. WOODWARD & LOTHROP, 10th, Telephone 203. 3) Byron S. Adams. branch In the spring, our iminense photo- one roof, 463-465 Pa. ave. “NO BRANCHES!" C. M. Bell, 463-65 Pa. Ave. To-k alon Brandy For Mince [leat Pies. Thanksgiving 1s in the air and visi ns of t of juicy turkeys and savory m! ples. The same b that made ples taste so well last p this year—it comes s cellars—it costs but Fe aaa it 7 p.m.—Saturdays m. T o-Kaion Wine ated "Phone 908. CF West Washington can be filled thre aud M sts. ow. Marogue & Jone The weather is Mkely to be warmer, with rain tonight. Established 1824. The Oldest Firm. OFFICE FRANK LIBBEY & CO. 6th st. and NY. NOVEMBER 13, 1894—10 a.m. Daily LUMBER Bulletin. IF YOU SEE IT IN OUR AD. IT'S 80. Politics don’t af- fect the laws of trade. Theelections are over and still the tendency is to lower prices. TAKE PARTITION —for example: ¥Y-in. Clear Beaded Partition, per 100 it. $1.50 %x6 or %xi2 Partition, kiln dried, small knots, 100 ft. $1.75 Clear Partition, 3-in. face, 8 REEDS IN CENTER, sap stained, kilt dried, 100 ft..... $2.25 Clear Heart, Kiln Dried, Bip face, 3 reed, N. ©. Par- tition, 100 ft... $2.50 We also keep POPLAR, BASSWOOD and GEOR- GIA PINE PARTITION always in stock, Frank Libbey & Co., “in “Lumber, Mill Work and Bullders’ Hardware,’ 6th and New York Ave. And Still They Come! We have another debutante in the Cigar line that needs introduction to the ‘“smok- ers’ set." Those who have had the pleas- ure of meeting “La Grand Avenue” CIGAR Pronounce it one of the best ever smoked. It’s sure to be a favorite—selected Havana filler and genuine Sumatra wrapper. G7 It your tobacconist doesn’t handle it drop us a postal. We'll see you're supplied. Jas. L. Barbour & Son, Jobbers and Importers and Caterers to Hotels, 614-616 PENNA. AVENUE. it Bring Back Your Truss, It it's not entirely satisfactory, amd, we'll re- furn your mone i Wa guarantee, that aed russ) is correctly | adjusted, perfectly | fitted somfortable, cand 50 cENT Charen TAN TESEWHERE. If the guarantee in. not fulitied In any. particular Dring back ‘the ‘Truss and get your money. Gilman’s Drug Store, WF fw. lad We want you to let us estimate on any mantel or tile work you want done. We can save you money and yet give you the most expert service. S. K.’ SPALDING, Manufacturer's Agent, 603 E st. 12a LADIES! To convince the public that we are the only experts in Washington Renovating Lace Curtains, * We will give a discount of 30 PER CENT on our regular prices during the £ month of Novembe * “We lead—the imitators follow.* “Godfrey Steam Laundry, 1257 F ST. PHONE 592. RY DRUGGIST IN WASHINGTO! so Webb's Chiil Cure. If your druggist shoald be out of it when you tall ask im to order it for you. The proprietors of this Celebrated ill Cure Euarantee a positive and effectual cure of Any case of chills and fever OR REFUND ‘THE MONEY. na Only $1—Try It. No Better Restorative —no better medicinal whisky in the world than “Old Reliable Berkeley.” It butids up, the broken down system. $l at. $F gal. Jas. Tharp, 812 F St. = 50 Cent Dinner That Stands Unrivaled. We serve it every day. variety of well cooked and well. served, the approval of every one used to good living A pint “of claret —— included in the menu. HOTEL EMRICH, 465-469 PA. AVE. 124 SUGAR TRUST CASES The Demurrers of the Recalcitrant battccnesh race JUDGE COLE 5 TELIVERS THE OPINION Se A Complete and Exhaustive Dis- cussion of the Points Raised. ee FULL TEXT OF THE DECISION Judge Cole, this rorning, in Criminal Court. No. 2, delivered his opinion in the matter of the demurrers filed by Messrs. John W. Macartrey and Elverton R. Chap- man, Indicted last summer for refusing to answer certain questions asked them by Senator Gray's sugar trust investigating committee. The demurrers were overruled by Judge Cole in a most interesting and elaborate opinion; and, the two Indicted men must, if Judge Cole’s decision is not reversed by the Court of Appeals, stand a trial. It was practically agreed, it is said, that the other indicted sugar trust wit- nesses, Correspondents John 8, Shriver and B. Jay Edwards, Henry 0. Havemeyer and John E. Searles‘of the sugar trust, would abide by Judge Cole's decision, there peing no material difference between the indictments returned against them and those returned against Messrs. Macartney and Chapman. That 1s, to the extent of consenting that the case against the latter defendants should be made a test one. Interest in the Opinion, The annovncement in The Star that Judge Cole would render his decision ‘this morning attracted a large attendance. Judge Cole read his opinion from a type- written copy, occupying nearly an hour in doing so. It was not generally believed that the de- murrers would be overruled, and counsel for the defendants were not a little disap- pointed: The opinion was an elaborate ex- position of the questions ralsed by the demurrers, and was admitted to be one of the most able and learned ones ever de- livered in the District Supreme Court, its great importance and valve being also ad- mitted. The conclusions reached by Judge Cole were that Congress not only may, but has made it an offense for a witness to decline to answer a proper and material question propounded by a properly appoint- ed committee of either house of Congress touching a matter in which it has jurisdic- tion to inquire; that Senator Gray’s com- mittee was a properly appointed one, hav- ing competent jurisdiction; that the ques- tions propounded and mentioned in the in- dictments were proper and material in- quiries; that the defendants were not en- titled to be excused from answering them, and that the alleged offenses of the de- fendants were properly brought to the at- tention of the district attcrrey and the grand jury, although the failure of the in- dictments to set forth the latter fact was _ a fatal defect, nor a necessary allega- Text of the Opinion. The opinion of Judge Cole in full is as follows: “The indictments in these cases, the United States against Elverton R. Chap- man, and the United States against Jona W. Macartney, are substantially alike, and purport to charge an offense against the defendants under cection one hundred and two of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which provides that ‘Every person who, having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either house of Con- ress, to give testimony or,.to produce pa- pers upon any matter of inquiry before either house, or any committee of either house of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to an- swer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars nor less than one hundred dollars, afd impr#on- ment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months. What the Indictments Charge. “Uhe indictments briefiy stated charge in apt and appropriate language that the American Sugar Refining Company is a corporation having a capital stock of $75,- 000,000, divided into shares of $100 each, that its business was, and is, the refining and production of the higher grades of sugar, upon which there was a duty, under the tariff law of October 1, 1890, from cer- tain lower grades of sugar and materials which were upon the free st under said law, and from certain sugars produced in this country upon which bounties were paid under said law, and that said corpora- ton by reason of its great resources and the extensive manner of its business, under the operations of said law was le to control, regulate and fix the price for said higher grades of refined sugar, and that after the passage of the said law and by reason thercof its stock became largely enhanced in value because of its profits, and so remained until the proposed passage of the tariff bill introduced in and passed by the House of Representatives during the last session of Congress, and that the proposed removal of the sald tariff and bounties by the last mentioned proposed legislation, should it become a law, would be greatly to the dis- advantage of said corporation and greatly lessen its profits, and that by the passage of said bill by the House the value of the stock of said corporation was greatly im- paired and lessened; that said tariff bill as it passed the House was reported to the Senate on the 2d day of February, -1894, and by it referred to its committee on finance, and that said committee on the 20th day of March, 1894, reported sald bill back to the Senate with certain proposed amendments, the effect of which, if adopi- ed by the Senate and concurred in by the House, would be to place a duty upon the higher grades of refined sugar and the ma- terlals from which the same are manufac- tured, which report caused a great ad- vance in the value of the stock of sald cor- poration; and that on the 7th day of May, 18M, certain other, proposed amendments to the said tariff bill were submitted to the Senate by an individual democratic mem- ber of the said finance committee (to which political party a majority of the Sen- ators belonged), known as the ‘Jones amendments,’ and that said last mentioned amendments were submitted to the Senate in pursuance of an understanding amongst a majority of the democratic members of the Senate, and that one of the proposed Jones amendments provided for the strik- ing out from said tariff bill, as it passed the House, the provision which placed upon the free list the higher grades of sugar and the materials from which the same were manufactured, and placed a duty thereon, the effect of which last men- tioned revort was to further enhance the value of the stock of sald corporation, and that the satd tariff bill and the proposed amendments were before the Senate for its consideration from the times they were respectively reported to it, and on the 17th day of May, 1804, while the same were still pending and undisposed of, the Senate adopted the following resolutions: “Whereas, It has been stated in the Sun, a newspaper published in New York, that bribes have been offered to certain Senators to induce them to vote against the pend- ing tariff bil', and, “Whereas, It has also been stated in a signed article in the Press, a newspaper published in Philadelphia, that the sugar schedule has been made up as it now stands in the proposed amendment in consideration of large sums of money paid for campaign purposes of the democratic party; therefore, “Resolved, That a committee of five Sen- ators be appointed to investigate these charges, and to inquire further whether any contributions have been made by the sugar trust, or any person connected therewith, to any political party for campaign or election purposes, or to secure or defeat legislation, and whether any Senator has been, or 1s, speculating in what are known as sugar stocks during the consideration of the tariff bill now before the Senate, and with power to send for persons and papers and to administer oaths. The Investigation Resolution. “Resolved, further, That said committee be authorized to investigate and report upon any charge or charges which may be filed before it, alleging that the action of any Senator has been corruptly or improperly influenced in the consideration of sald bill, or that any attempt has been made to so influence legislation.” “It is further alleged in the snatetments that in pursuance of said resolution Sena- tors Gray of Delaware, Lindsay of Ken- tucky, Davis of Minnesota, Lodge of Massa- chusetts and Allen of Nebraska, were ap- pointed the committee auhorized by the resolution, with Mr. Gray as chairman; that in the article referred to in the second para- graph of the preamble to said resolutions, it was charged that some of the officers and managers of the sugar trust, meaning there- by of said corporation, while sald bill was before said finance committee, and before any of said amendments had been reported to the Senate, had established themselves in Washington; that in a conversation betw2en Henry O. Havemeyer, one of the officers and managers of said sugar trust, and cer- tain members of the Senate, it was sald that if such a sugar schedule as ‘would be satis- factory was adopted or even reported to the Senate, the price of the stock of said trust would advance $30 per share in thirty days, and that on the very day that the chairman of the finance committee denied in the Sen- ate that any amendments were to be pro- posed to the Senate bill as originally re- ported by the finance committee, the list of some 400 amendments as prepared by Sen- ator Jones was in the hands of one of the members of the firm of Moore & Schley, stock brokers, with offices in New York and Washington; ‘that on the Sth day of June, 1894, the said investigating committe: was duly assembled for the purpose of making inquiry into the subject matter of said res- olutions, and the defendants, by the author- ity of the Senate, having been duly sum- moned, appeared as witnesses before said committee and were duly sworn as such, and testified that they were members of the said firm of Moore & Schley, stock brokers, but declined to answer questions put by a member of said committee, whether the said firm had bought, sold or carried any sugar stocks for or on acount of any member of the Senate, digectly or indirectly, while said bill had beert pending in the Senate, the questions having been put so as to cover the months of February, March, April and May, separately. Contention of the Demurrers, “To these indictments demurrers have been filed, and in support of them the de- fendants’ counsel contend, first, that the facts charged in the indictments do not constitute an offense under the statute above quoted, and, second, that the report and certificates mentioned in section 104 of the Revised Statutes are jurisdictional facts, and should have been set forth in the in- dictments. In support of the first conten- tion in behalf of the defendants it 1s argued that section 102, while its language ts broad enough to include and cover all matters whatsoever, should be construed to include only matjers into which the Senate has lawful jufisdiction to make inquiry, and counsel for the government do not contro- vert that position, and doubtless that is the proper construction of the section. It was not the intention of Congress by that sec- tion to enlarge or attempt to enlarge or define its own jurjsdiction, but to provide a method of punishment of a witness who should attempt to impede in the manner stated in that section either house in the _ exercise of its constitutional author- ity. “Counsel for the defendants contend, in support of the demurrer, that the Senate committee had no risdiction under the terms of the resolution set out in the in- dictments to inquire into the subject wheth- er Senators had been dealing in the stock of the said corporation, generally known as sugar stocks, during the pendency of the tariff bill in the Senate, and that the sald questions set forth if the indictments have no materiality or pertinency to any other question before the committee, and that con- sequently the defendants are guilty of no offense in declining to answer the juestions put to them. It is not denied that the Sen- ate might have jurisdiction to inquire into this subject, under certain circumstances, and, by a proper resolution, confer that jurisdiction upon a committee; but the ob- jection is that the facts and circumstances under which that jurisdiction might be ex- ercised do not appear in this resolution, “Tt is said that in order to the proper exercise of this jurisdiction of inquiry in- to the private affairs of the citizen, so as to constitute it an offense on the part of a witness to refuse to answer a question, it should appear on the face of the resolutions that the information sought {s material and pertinent for the consideration of the Sen- ate in the aid of its judicial or legislative functions, and that it is the purpose of the Senate to make such use of it when ob- tained; that while formal pleadings are not necessary, there must be a substantial dec- laration or avowal in the resolutions of a definite object to be attained, such as the trial of definite charges against some desig- nated person whom the Senate has the jurisdiction to try and punish, or the en- lightenment of some specifically defined sub- ject of legislation within its jurisdiction, and that the present resolutions contain neither of these requirements. No Inference of Use of the Information Sought. “It is also argued that no inference can legally be drawn that the Senate mtended to make any use of the information its com=ittee was seeking from the indicted ‘witnesses in afd of its jucicial or legisla- tive functions; that the existence of such purpose {s jurisdictional and must appcar in the record of the proceedings in the Ser his last proposition is probably the most important one upon the consideration of these demurrers, for if it is well taken it is necessarily fatal to these indictments, there being no express avowal or declara- tion by the Senate in these resolutions of a purpese to make any specific use of the information when obtained. It is claimed by counsel for the defendants that this doc- trine was used by the Supreme Court in the cese of Kilbourn vs. Thompson, 103 U. S. The first question decided in that case was that neither house of Congress possesses any general power to punish for contempt, and the second was that the subject matter of the proposed investiga- tion by the House, considered in that case, was judicial tn its nature, to wit: The col- lection of a debt due the United States, and rot legislative, and that the House had no power to legislate upon the subject mat- ter of the investigation, and therefore had no jurisdiction to proceed with it, and that consequently Kilbourn was not in contempt in refusing to answer the questions of the House committee. The first question de- termined in the Kilbourn case, to wit, whether either house of Congress has juris- diction to punish as for contempt a witness failing to appear or testify before such house or one of its committees, and if 80, under what circumstances such power may be exercised, does not arise in these cases. The first question tm these cases is whether Congress may declare it an offense, punish- able by indictment In a court of competent jurisdictign, for a witness to decline to answer a proper and material question pro- pounded by a committee of the Senate, act- ing under a proper resolution of that body touching a matter in which it has the juris- diction to inquire. Justice Harlan’s Opinion. “That the Supreme Court considers this a very different question from the first cne decided in the Kilboyrn case is apparent frcm its decision in the case of the inter- state commerce commission vs. Brimson, 154, U. S., 447. In that case it was held that while Congress rhay not confer upon the interstate commerce commission the power to compel witnesses to testify before it, or punish them for contempt fer failure to do so, that it 1s competent for It to con- fer upon the courts the jurisdiction elther to compel such testimony or to punish for contempt for the failure to give it, or to punish the failure by indictment. See page 485, where Mr. Justice Harlan distinguishes between these questions and comments upon the Kilbourn case. If Congress may make it an offense to fail to give proper evidence before a commission which it creates it certainly may make it an of- fense to fall to do so in proper proceedings before either of the houses of Congress. The interstate commerce act conferred upon that commission the power to inquire into the business and methods of all persons and corporations engaged in interstate com- merce. In the case last above referred to it was contended among other things on behalf of the witnesses who refused to answer that they could not be required to disclose their private affairs before the commission, and thft the effort to compel them to do so was in violation of private right, as it is contended in these cases. Mr. Justice Harlan, answering. that argu- ment, uses the following language: ‘As every citizen is bound to obey the law and to yleld obedience to the constituted au- thorities acting within the law, this power conferred upon the cominission imposes upen any one, summoned by that body to appear and testify, the duty of appearing and testifying, and upon any one required to produce such books, papers, tariffs, con- tracts, agreements and documents, the duty of producing them, if the testimony sought and the books, papers, etc., called for re- late to the matter under investigation, if such matter is one which the commission is legally entitled to investigate, and If the witness fs not excused, on some personal ground, from doing what the commission requires at his hands. These }ropositions seem to be so clear and indisputable that any attempt to sustain them by argument would be of no value in the discussion.” Was the Senate Committee Entitled to Investigate. “Under this rule the first question 1s whether the Senate committee was ‘legally entitled to investigate’ the subject matter menticned in the resolutions. That necessi- tates the determination of the question dis- cussed with so much ability in the argu- ment, whether the resolutions show juris- diction, and, as connected with that, wheth- er the court is at liberty to draw any in- ferences upon that subject. And, as before stated, the counsel for defendants argue that the negative of this proposition was decided in the Kilbourn case, and in support of this refer to the language of that opinion wherein it s said: “If, indeed, any purpose had been avowed to impeach the secretary, the whole aspect of the would have been changed. But no such purpose is dis- closed. None can be inferred from the pre- amble, and the characterization of the con- duct of the secretary by the term ‘improvi- dent,’ and the absence of any words tmpiy- ing suspicion of criminality, repel the idea of such purpose, for the secretary cuuld only be impeached for ‘High crimes and misde- meanors.’ The language above quoted does not seem to have the broad effect claimed for it. It does not seem to be a declaration that no inference can legally be drawn in any case in favor of jurisdiction, but that the terms of that particular resolu- tion precluded the inference that there was any intention on the part of the House to impeach the secreta: Can it be doubted that had the preample recited that it was alieged or represented that in creating this liability the secretary had been guilty of an impeachable offense, ‘that the court would have held that the cimmittee had jurisdic- tion to proceed with’ the investigation into all facts relating to the conduct of the sec- retary in the premises, and his relations to the real estate pool in question? “Another quotation from the opinion in the Kilbourn case, relied upon by counsel tor defendants as showing that in erder to confer jurisdiction upon the committee the resolutions should have contained a recital or declaration of some intended final action of the Senate upon the information sought, is as follows: “The resolution adopted as a sequence of this preamble contains no hint of any intention of final action by Congress on the subject. In ali the argument of the case no suggestion has been made of what the House of Repres2ntatives or the Con- gress could nave lone in the way of reme- dying the wrong, or securing the creditors of Jay Cooke & Co., or even the United States. Was it to be simply a fruitless in- vestigation into the personal affairs of indi- viduals? If so, the House of Representa- tives had no power o in the nvat- ter more than any e ber of gentle- men interested for the government of their country. By ‘fruitless’ we mean that it could result in no valid legislation on the subject to which ihe inquiry referred.’ It Was Constita nally Incompetent. “This language does not scem to admit of the interpretation that in order to confer jurisdiction the resolution should have ex- Pressly declared the final action contem- plated by the House, but rather that there was no possible constitutional action that the House or Congress could take in rela- tion to the subject matter of the inquiry. Having previously held that the language 0! the preamble excluded the idea of im- peachment, the court holds that it was con- stitutionally incompetent for Congress to legislate upon the subject matter of the resol@tion, as that was the collection of a debt due the United States, and the subject of judicial and not legislative action. That this was the ground of the decision is ap- ge from a statement of it by Mr. Jus- ice Field in kis opinion at the circuit in the case of In re Central Pacific Railroad Company, 82 Fed. Rep. 241, where, in com- menting upon the decision in the Kijbourn case, he says: ‘In the Supreme Cor the questicns involved received great considera- tion, and it was held that the subject mat- ter of the investigation was judicial, and not legislative, and that there was no pow- er in Congress, or in either House, on the allegation that an insolvent debtor of the United States was ipterested in a private business partnership, to investigate the af- fairs of the partnership, and, consequently, no authority to compel a witness to testify on the subject.’ 32 F. R. 252. “The case under consideration by the learn- ed justice arose upon an application by the Central Pacific railroad commission, ap- pointed under an act of Congress to invest!- gate the affairs of that company, to the United States circuit court for California for a rule against the president of that company to show cause why he should not ke required to answer questions put to him by the commission, similar in nature to those in the Kilbourn case, and it was held that the Central Pacific railroad commission had no jurisdiction to make the inquiry, as the only relation existing between the Unit- ed States and the company was that of creditor and debtor, bringing the case clear- ly within what was decided in the Kilbourn case. A Similar Case. “In the case of People ex rel. McDonald vs. Keeler, 0) N. Y., 463, the court of ap- peals of New York had before it a question in all substantial particulars like the one raised by these demurrers, relating to che jurisdiction of the Senate committee under these resolutions, and the case of Kilbourn vs. Thompson was pressed with great earn- estness upon that court as having ‘decided the point contended for here, to wit: That no inference could legally be drawn in sup- port of jurisdiction beyond what was ex- pressly avowed or recited in the resolution authorizing the investigation; but that court, in stating the question decided by the Supreme Court in the Kilbourn case, uses the following language: “In Kilbourn vs. Thompson the court said: ‘If any pur- pose had been avowed to impeach the Sec- retary, the whole aspect of the case would have been changed,’ but the court held that the recitals in the resolution repelled any such idea, and that no hint of any intention of final action by Congress on the subject appeared in the resolution, and that on the argument no suggestion had been made of what the House of Representatives, or Con- gress, could have done in the way of rem- edying the alleged wrong; und they held that that was simply a fruitless investiga- tion into the personal affairs of individuals, which could result in no valid legislation on the subject to which the inquiry re- ferred, and that, therefore, the House had ho authority in the matter.” After reciting the resolution in the New York case, ‘he court of appeals proceeds as follows: “If the resolution had shown upon its face that the only purpose of the investigation was to satisfy the taxpayers of the state as to the truth of the charges, or to relieve the de- partment of public works from reproach, and no further action was contemplated or could be had in the matter by the legisla- ture, the cause would fall within the de- cision in Kilbourn vs. Thompson.” It seems, therefore, that the only matter de- cided in the Kilbourn case as to the juris- diction of the House to proceed, was that it had no legislative jurisdiction of the sub- ject matter proposed to be investigated, and as the preamble of the resolution was couched in such terms as to preclude all idea of an intention to impeach, it had no Jurisdiction to proceed with the investiga- tion. It cannot be considered as an au- thority that no presumption can legally arise favorable to jurisdiction, or to the intention of the legislative body to proceed to final appropriate action, where the terms of the resolution are such as not to repel such presumption. It would seem to be inappropriate to apply to the Senate the rule governing in determining the jurisdic- tion of courts and other bodies of inferior, special and lMmited jurisdiction, by holding that every material fact necessary to con- fer jurisdiction should be set out in the record of its proceedings. On the con- trary, the more reasonable rule would seem to be that where the Senate has jurisdictioa to investigate a matter for any purpose, the presumption should arise that it intends to make a final appropriate use of the in- formation cbtatned in the course of the in- vestigation. And this is in accordance with the holding of the court of appeals of New York in the case above referred to, where the prince! languag ‘We are bound to presume that the action of the legislative body was with a legislative object, if it is capable of be- ing so construed, and we have no right to assume that the contrary was intended. The same principle which renders it the duty of the courts to hold legislative action illegal when it unduly encroacnes upon the province of the judiciary, forbids inter- ference by the latter with the action of legislative bodies or the exercise of their discretion in matters within the range of their constitutional powers.” Jurisdiction Suffictent. “The conclusion, therefore, ts, that in or- der to confer jurisdiction on the committee, it was not necessary for the resolutions to set forth or avow what fipal action the Sen- ate had in contemplation upon the informa- tion to be obtained. It is sufficient to juris- diction if it appears that the Senate had lawful authority to take any legitimate ac- tion, unless it also appears affirmatively up- on the face of the resolutions that no final action was contemplated, and that the in- vestigation was to be carried on simply for the purpose of vindication or animadversion, and it cannot be contended that there ts anything upon the face of the resolutions mentioned in the indictments to justify such aconstruction. It was said in argument by defendants’ counsel that the resolution in Keeler's case required the committee to re- port with recommendations, thereby indi- cating an intention of further action, while no report is required by the resolution men- tioned in the indictments to which The ques- tions asked defendants applied. But if the principle stated by the court in the Keeler case, that if any future legal action is pos- sible it should be presumed that it Is 1 tended, is correct, the question whether a report is required is immaterial, as that only tends to show that future action 1s in- tended. But it is immaterial upon another ground, Under parliamentary law ani usage, a committee is required and expected to report its proceedings to the body from which it receives its appointment, whether the resolution of appointment requires a re- port or not. The only object of the appoint- ment is to obtain a report. The principle is thus stated in Cushing’s Parliamentary Law, paragraph 1930, second edition: ‘The great purpose for which committees are ap- pointed being the taking of such measures with reference to the subject matter re- ferred to thelr consideration, that when their acts and proceedings are agreed to, they become the acts and proceedings of the house, it is consequently the duty of com- mittees both to proceed under the authority given them and to report their proceedings to the house.’ What It Was Intended to Ascertain. “The investigation ordered by the resolu- tlons was intended to ascertain, first, whether bribes had been offered to certain Senators to induce them to vote against the pending tariff bill; second, whether the said amendments in relation to a tariff on sugar had been reported to the Senate in consid- eration of money paid for campaign pur- poses of the democratic party; third, whether any contributions had been made by the sugar trust or any person connected therewith to any political party for cam- paign or election purposes, or to secure or defeat legislation; fovrth, whether any Sen- ator had been speculating in what are known as sugar stocks during the consid- eration of the tariff bill then before the Sen- ate; fifth, whether any Senator had been corruptly or improperly influenced in the consideration of said bill, and, sixth, whether any attempt had been made to corruptly or improperly influence legisla- tion. “That the facts sought in the fourth and fifth subdivisions of the subject-matter of the investigation would be pertinent, ma- terlal and important Information for the Senate in the ald of both its judicial and legislative functions seems clear. The first, second, third and sixth subdivisions are simply auxiliary to the others—in the na- ture of circumstantial evidence from which the main facts recited in the fourth and fifth might or might not be inferred, ac- INDEX TO ADVERTISEMENTS. ACCOUNTANTS .., AMUSEMENTS ...... AMUSEMENT HALLS ATTORNEYS .. AUCTION SALES. BOARDING .. COMMISSIONERS ‘OF DEEDS COUNTRY REAL ESTATE. DEATHS Hittite) iJ EE Ff i age FOR SALE (Miscellaneous) FOR SALE (Pianos) HORSES AND VEHICLES. = rer erry AFM Patan ae FP Saatoaaaat DE SasaAAAaaee eee aaeoboarses bee cadre MANICURE MANICURE MEDICAL .. OFFICIAL NOTICES PERSONAL ..... PIANOS AND ORGANS. POTOMAC RIVER BOA’ HAILROADS .. SVECIAL NOTI STEAM CARPET CLEANING. STORAGE ... SUBURBAN PROPERTY. UNDERTAKERS . WANTED (Help). WANTED (Houses). WANTED (Miscellaneous). WANTED (Rooms)... FINANCIAL. EQUITABLE CO-OPERATIVE BUILDING ASSOCIATION. ISSUE OF STOCK. OPEN FOR S8UBSCRIPTION AND FIRST PAYMENT, SHARES, $2.50 EACH PER MONTH. Subscriptions for the 28th issue of stock ‘and first payment thereon will be received Gaily from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the office of the Association. $1,165,909.50 212,486.44 Active stock. .....e00 Net earnings and surplus....++. Pamphlets explaining the advantages and benefits of the Association and other in- formation furnished upon application. ce: EQUITABLE BUILDING, 1008 F st. n.w ‘Thomas Somerville, President. A. J. Bchafhirt, Vice President. Geo. W. Casilear, 24 Vice President John Joy Edson, Secretary, no6-tt U.S. BUILDING AND LOAN (ABSOCIA TION. Withdrawal value of shares, 5, 6 and See eg ee pata Ts Sum Gate postt. Money loaned on fist trust in the District of ealtrent your {ile money where every dollar will “No, ‘adinesion vu. 8 BOWING AND LOAN ARBOCIATION, au20-21 st. nw. Hooper, Helphenstine & Co., BANKERS. BERS N. Y¥, STOCK EXCHANGE) BONDS, GRAIN, PROVISIONS AND 144 ADAMS BUILDING, 1383-1835 F ST. cording to the niture of the facts and cir- cumstances; whether the reporting of the Proposed amendments to the sugar sched- ule were influenced by the facts recited in the fourth and fifth subdivisions would be important information for the Senate to aid it In the exercise of its legislative functions on the question of the adoption or rejection of the amendments. It would also be im- portant and material information to aid the Senate in the exercise of its judicial func- fico in deciding whether any Senator had been guilty of conduct justifying his cen- sure or expulsion, of which the Senaté is the sole judge. As a legal use of the in- formation sought by the investigation was possible, the court is bound to presume, in the absence of anything in the resolut! to the contrary, that the Senate intended to make use of it when and if obtained. The Pertinency of the Question. “The next point for consideration is whether the questions put to the defendants by the Senate committee were pertinent to the subject of inquiry before it. The object and tendency of them was to develop whether any Senator, and, if so, who, had been dealing in sugar stocks during the pendency of the tariff bill in the Senate. That was directly in point upon the fourth subject of inquiry, and might have had a circumstantial or collateral bearing upon the first, fifth and sixth. If issues had been joined in any court upon the first, fourth, fifth and sixth subjects of investigation, it cannot be doubted that the court would have ruled the questions set forth in the indictyaents propounted to the defendants relevant, material and pertinent upon each issue. But it is said that the committee had no jurisdiction upon the two questions embraced in the second resolution, because the record does not show that any charges had been filed against any individual Sena- tor, Whether any had been is probably not a jurisdictional question, but one of regu- larity of proceedings in control of the com- raittee or the Senate. But, whether this be so or nct, it is not material to decide, as the questions were pertinent, under the first and fourth subdivisions, which require no charges to be filed other than those con- tained in tne preamble. Were the Defendants Entitled to Be Excused? “The next question is whether the de- fendants were entitled to be excused from answering the questions upon grounds per- sonal to themselves. This was not directly claimed in argument, except so far as it was insisted that they could not be com- pelled to disclose their private business, ond the case of the United States agt. Boyd, 116 United States, and similar cases were cited and insisted vpon as applying to this case. But in the United States agt. Boyd it was sought to compel the defen- dant to make a discicsure of evidence to be usec in proving and enforcing a forfeiture against him. Th2 Supreme Court held that this could not be dons. And it is also well established that a witness cannot be re- quired to make any disclosures that will tend to crimirate him or bring him into public scandal or disgrace. But it is not contended that the defendants would, b; answering, make discicsures having ths § tendency. The nature of the subject of in- quiry is such as to negative any such sup- Fosition. Their business was and is a per- fectly legitimate one, and they were as much at liberty to deal with Senators as any one else. If there were any such deal- ings, and any impropriety in them, that im- propriety was not on the part of the broker. The sole objection is that they cannot be compelled to disclose their private affairs, except in regular judicial proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction. But this objection is squrrely met by the emphatic language of the Supreme Court in the case of the interstate commerce commission agt. Brimsen, hereinbefore quoted. “The conclusion from the foregoing con- siderations is that the Senat ecommittee had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the investigation, and that the questions put to the defendants were pertinent and material thereto, and that, failing to answer them, if they did as charged in the indictments, they are guilty of a violation of section one hundred and twd of the Revised Statutes of the United States. “The only remaining question is whether the report of the committee to the Senate, and the certificate of the President of that body to the attorney of the United States for the District of Columbia, mentioned in section one hundred and four of the Re- vised Statutes, should be set forth in the indictments. The Demurrers Overruled. “It is claimed in behalf of the defendants that these are jurisdictional facts, and therefore should be averred in the indict- ment, and authorities to the point that where a new offénse is created by statute and a mode of prosecution provided nf other mode can be adopted are cited. But section one hundred and four does not point out a mode of prosecution, but only a mode in which the fact of the commis- sion of the offense shall be called to the attention of the district attorney and the grand jury. There are several other simi- lar provisions in the statutes requiring particular officers of the government, whose duties give them pecullar opportunities of knowledge of certain offenses, to call them to the attention of the proper dis- trict attorney, and it has never been held that such requirements are constituent parts of the offense or of the methods of their prosecution. Section one hundred and two makes refusal to answer a pertinent question a misdemeanor. The occurrence of the facts mentioned in this section con- fers jurisdiction on the grand jury to in- dict and on the court to try the delin- quent party. Neither the report of the committee nor the certificate of the Pres- ident of the Senate is necessary to com- plete the offense or the jurisdiction. They are simply convenient methods of infor- mation to the district attorney and grand jury, and not indispensable prerequisites toa prosecution, and were doubtless provided as @ means to Insure a prosecution, as, other- wise, the facts mignt not come to the knowledge of the district attorney and grand jury, the proceedings before such committees frequently being conducted with some degree of secrecy. But there seems to be nothing in the two sections to Indi- cate any intent on the part of Congress that there should be no prosecution until and unless the repoft and certificate men- tioned were made. “It follows that the demurrers to the in- dictments should be overruled.” An Appeal Will Be Made. Upon the conclusion of Judge Cole's de- cision, Mr. Jere M. Wilson, of counsel for the defendants, arose and stated that he wished it to appear of record that the con- The National Safe Deposit, Savings And Trust Company ‘ Of the District of Columbia, OORNER 15TH ST. AND NEW YORK AVE ao, OE FS, Poet. fbo8e and Feb, 108 DEF Al Rente safes inside burgiar-proof vaults at $8 savixcs” HANK DEPARTMENT, S upward, ite_recel; and’ Interest’ allowed on $6 and ‘Loans money on real estate and “collet security. ‘Bells first-class real esta te and ot securities In enfoa of $500 and IST DEPARTM! . ‘This co legal depository for court and owt i Runde and acts as Administrator ont ecut sooares, nomenee and executes of all’ ki by a com attorney in daily attendance. it. OMAS. HDI JAMES M. JOM RSTO, Second Vice Trew! demts pe ‘Third Vice President. ._Preamurer, ALBERT L. ANT, Secretary. JOHN ©. WILSON, Trost Officer. DIRECTORS: P, 3 jeorge Albert i. Sturtevant, nae o wee He int, Andrew ba wis Cleplinne, Matthew G. Emery, eory A. Willard, EK. Francia ames M. Johnston, William EB, try, Jona g. le, John F. Willlam E. Gark, R. Jones, og joltaman, Woodbury Blair. It is Not What a Man Earns ‘That makes bim rich, It is What He Saves. The Union Savings Bank, 1222 F ST. N.W., Pays four per cent interest on savings accounts. (Open until 6 p.m ee ee Saturday evenings from 6 to 8.) PARTIES WITH SMALL OR LARGE ree securities in pod = approval before eting ane ce orm ere ry oc28-im* et] oe ENDOWMENT AND —— INSURA POLICIES nee pope Fair DISCOUNT. Mone: —? loaned on o16-tf EDWARD N. BURNS. 1807 Eat, aw. C. T. Havenner, — Washington Stork Ex: Botate snd Stock Broker apd, 11. Atlantic Watling, Investment ‘Securities. cater Fonts spf Grate bought ont wid Om Gotten Sought and ola in New York or New Cbrtraie wires New YX Red optttaie ,wiree to New York, Chicago re ‘OORSON & Sere ‘TNEY, MEMBERS CF THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANG! 1419 F st., Glover ts of Messrs. Moore & Schley, 88 vernment Ronda, end Telephone Stock dealt in. ‘Smperican Telepbone tention had been made on behalf of the defendants that Congress had not the pow- er to make the thing complained of in the indictment an offense, and that Congress had not the power to delegate its right to punish for contempt to the courts. Judge Cols remarked that it appeared him that the first matter had been cover by the decision, and District Attorney Lir- ney explained that as the demurrers com- plained that the indictments were bad in substance, both points were covered by the decision. ‘At the suggestion of Mr. Wilson, the for- mal entry of the overruling of the demur- rers was delayed until next Saturday, { order that the appeal which he noted would set forth both points. While it is not the general practice of the Court of Appeals to consider an appeal on demurrer previous to the trial of the case, it is the general impression that in the present instance the court will make an exception, as it did in the Ainsworth case. If so, it 1s more than probable that the ap- peal will be heard the earlier part of next month. Should the Court of Appeals af- firm Judge Cole's decision, an appeal will be in order to the United States Supreme Court; provided, of course, there is a con- stitutional question at issue. Until the ap- peal is finally disposed of, there will no! of course, be a trial of any of the indict parties. ‘The “Kia” Ino. alias “Kid Thompson, the alleged Roscoe train robber, who led the railroad detectives and sheriff's officers such @ merry chase through the Arizona desert, has at last been landed in jail. After the capture of the “Kid” by cowboys he was taken to Phoenix. The outlaw, upon whose head a reward of $1,700 stands, consented to waive extradition papers and at once started for this city to face his accusers. — Castoria For Infants and Children. CASTORIA DESTROYS WORMS. CASTORIA CURES CONSTIPATION. CASTORIA ALLAYS FEVERISHNESS. CASTORIA CURES DIARRHOEA AND COLIt, CASTORIA RELIEVES TEETHING TROUBLES. CASTORIA PREVENTS VOMITING SOUR CURD. “The use of ‘Castoria’ ts so universal and tts merits so well known that !t seems a work of supererogation to indorse it. Mew are the intellt« gent families who do not keep Castoria withig ak peace CARLOS MARTYN, D.D., ‘New Xork city, =