Washington, May 2--Conviction of United States Senator Truman H. Newberry in Federal courts in Michigan for conspiracy to violate the Federal corrupt practices act was set aside today by the Supreme Court. The conviction of 16 other defendants also was set aside. The court held that Congress was without power to regulate primaries. Justice McReynolds read the opinion, to which Justice McKenna withheld his opinion as to the power of Congress, but agreed as to the decision.
Chief Justice White also dissented from the decision that Congress did not have power to control all elections, but agreed that the statute had been "grossly misconstrued."
Justice McReynolds said that the lower court erred in dismissing the demurer of the defendants.
"Obviously the corrupt practices act covers also the primaries and other preliminary acts preceding an election," the court said, "the one question here is whether Congress may limit expenditures of a candidate. Tlhe source of this power is in section four, article one, of the constitution. This gives Congress the power of regulating the "manner of holding elections" and not of "elections."
Chief Justice White, in his dissenting opinion, traced in detail the growth of th eelection system to show that Congress was given the power under the constitution to regulate senatorial elections.
"It is essentially a Federal matter, not existing before the constitution," he said.
CORRECTIVE LEGISLATION
Chief Justice White predicted that legislation would come which would set aside today's decision as to the power of Congress over primaries for otherwise "government cannot live." He called attention to those states in which the primary had been made the controlling feature of the election. In such cases, he said, "election is stillborn and the vote without power or weight." The direct election amendment to the constitution has not changed the provisions of section four, article one, of that document, the court held.
News of the Newberry decision reached the senate chamber in the midst of a heated argument between Senator Underwood, democrat, Alabama, and Senator Penrose, Pennsylvania, and other republican senators over reference of a bill to committee. Immediately senators gathered in groups in the rear of the chamber, manifesting undisguised interest in the ruling of the court. FAVORS NEW TRIAL
Chief Justice White said he concurred in the reversal of the conviction, but thought that a new trial should be held. Associate Justice Pitney also read as opinion dissenting in part from the court's decision, and announced that Associate Justices Brandeis and Clarke had concurred in the opinion he held.
Upon learning of the court's decision, Chairman Dillingham of the senate elections committee, which has charge of the Ford-Newberry contest, said the committee would meet in a few days to consider the effects of the court's decision on future senate action. Senator Dillingham said it appeared that, with the corrupt practice law held void, the committee would be without further juristiction.
Senator Dillingham said the majority and minority opinions would be studied carefully by the committee.
Senator Newberry has not taken his seat in the senate nor participated in senate business since his conviction. He was in Detroit today.
HISTORY OF THE CASE
The case United States Senator Truman H. Newberry, of Michigan, and 16 of his political associates reached the Supreme Court of the United States from the Federal district court at Grand Rapids, Mich., where the appellants were found guilty March 20, 1920, of criminal conspiracy to violate the Federal corrupt practices act.
The senator was sentenced by the district judge, Clarence W. Sessions, to two-years' imprisonment at Fort Leavenworth and fined $10,000. this, the extreme penalty of the law, was also placed against two others, the remaining sentences running dow to a fine of $1,000.
The case started with 135 indictments returned at Grand Rapids November 29, 1919. It was called for trial January 27, 1920, and lasted eight weeks, 85 of the original list of defendants being still before the bar when the jury retired. One man was granted a separate trial because of illness and one was never arrested, having gone to South America before the indictments were returned. Twenty-three were dismissed on motion of Frank C. Dailey, special assistant Attorney General, at the close of the government testimony on March 2, 1920, and the next day Judge Sessions freed 15 more. Seventeen were found guilty, 68 acquitted, and the cases of 10 who pleaded nol contendere were dismissed after the jury returned its verdict.
All the convicted men have been at liberty on bonds since their indictment.
CONSPIRACY CHARGED
The specific charge against Senator Newberry was that between December 1, 1917, and November 5, 1918, he "unlawfully and feloniously did conspire, combine, confederate and agree with divers persons" to violate the Act of June 25, 1910, by contributing sums aggregating $100,000 toward the expenses of his nomination and election. It was not necessary, the government asserted that Newberry should actually give this amount or that he should have had his personal supervision of its expenditure, but it was sufficient if he had guilty knowledge that contributions to an illegal aggregate were being accepted or the purpose in view.
Included in the scores of expenditures set forth in the indictment were "appropriating and converting to the use of the defendants themselves, large sums of money under the guise of payment of their expenses and compensation for their services; bribery of election officers; unlawful assistance of election officers; bribery of voters; expenses and compensation of Democratic obstructionist candidates; dinners, banquets and other entertainments."
153 ALLEGED ERRORS
No less than 153 alleged errors were "assigned" by the defendants in their application for appeal to the highest court. Beginning with the refusal of the district court to sustain a demurrer to the indictment, these errors follow the course of the trial throughout the last in order being a criticism of the court for refusing the application for a new trial.
Te brief submitted to the Supreme Court by Charles E. Hughes, Martin W. Littleton, George E. Nichols and James O. Murfin, counsel for Newberry, and the 16 co-defendants, made two distinct attacks on the proceedings at Grand Rapids. The conviction should be reversed, it was contended, because the statute invoked was not supported by any constitutional provision, and because if it should be held constutional, the statute did not cover the alleged overt acts of the defendants.
NO LIMIT ON FRIENDS
The Corrupt Practices act, the defense averred, was drawn to limit the amount a candidate might spend to obtain public office, but not to limit the amount his friends might contribute should they consider the necessity fo rhis election justified extraordinary expense.
The second attack was directed against Judge Clarence W. Sessions, who presided at the trial. Not only was the defense handicapped by the court's ruling in the preliminary proceeding counsel for Newberry averred, but throughout the trial Judge Sessions acted in a manner prejudicial to its interest. Specific criticism was made of the selection of the jury after the talesmen had been questioned regarding the case, the refusal of the prosecution to show a list of its witnesses, and the refusal of the court to permit evidence which, the defense declared, would have conclusively proven fair intent on the aprt of Senator Newberry.
"The court so construed the statute," the brief said, "as to make it a violation for Mr. Newberry to become a candidate if he knew that the campaign would require more than $3,750 to be expended."
From The Charlotte News, May 2, 1921
No comments:
Post a Comment