John E. Searles Free

Washington, June 1. - In ths case of Jchn E. Searles, the sugar trust witness, Judge Bradley Tuesday ordered the jury to bring in a verdict of acquittal, holding that the questtons asked the witness by the senate committee were not pertinent, and if so were not within the jurisdiction of the committee. The judge's opinión was exhaustive. It had been reduced to writing. He pointed out that Mr. Searies had testified specifieally that no rr.or.py had been contributed by the sugar trust to the national campaign or for the purpose of influencing legislaticn er the election of United States senators. As to the local contributions Mr. Searles had testified that he did not kr?Gv how th? centributions had been used, by whom or for what purpose. ClaimeU To 15e fcertínent. The questions put to the defen3ant were c!ain-.ed to be pertinent te the second and third divisions cf the senatorial inquiry, namely, as to whether the sugar trust had contributed sums to campaign funis with the purpose of Influencing the electicn of a United Statea senator and whether any ssnator had been a party to a compact, with the sugar trxfst. Certainly, the judge said, a simple investigation as to whether the, sugar trust had contributed to a campaign fund would be an unwarranted search into the private affairs of tha company and plainly beyond the power of the senate. The senate committee had reported that no testimony had been produced to show that the sugar trust had made any contributions to any na- tional campaign fund or for the purpose of affecting legislation. If money had gone for the purpose of electing members of the state legislatures who in time would elect a United States senator, it was beyond the power of the United States senate to go behind the election of legis-lative members. If this were true as to state matters, how much more true was it of local elections. It would be the wildest conjecture to assume that the money so contributed in any way had gone to make up the sugar schedule. Not In Possession of Faets. It appeared from the report of the committee that they were not in the possession of any facts upon which they could base the most remóte hope of showing an ultímate connection between the sugar trust's contributions and the sugar schedule. Under these circumstances it must be held that the questions asked were net pertinent, and iS construed to be pertinent, that theywere an unwa.rrante3 prying into the private affairs of the eompany, and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the senate. Judge Bradley therefore sustained the motion cf the defense and ordered the juryto return a verdict of acquittal. The jury accordingly rendered a verdict off not guilty, and Mr. Searles was free. The cases of E. J. Edwards and John S. Shriver, the newspaper eorrespondents, were postponed until next Mondav.