Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-12-06
TRIAL OF FOREMAN DICKSON.
Proceedings In the Police Court.
DISCUSSION AS TO PRODUCING PAPERS FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

DISCUSSION AS TO PRODUCING PAPERS FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
When the hearing In the Dickson case was re-
stunned this morning Mr.. Wells stated that subpeenas
had been Issued by tie defense upon the Department
Of Justice TO furnish the original aidavits taken
by the assistant district attorney. He maintained
that the department could not be forced to pro-
duce public documents where only the interests OF
citizen were concerned. 1t could be required to
produce certified copies only He was willing as
matter OF courtesy to allow the defense an op-
portunity to examine the originals.
Mr.. Smith said that they wanted to see the origf-
mails. and wanted to know what return had been
made to their subpoena
Mr.. Cuppy stated that they also wanted certified
copies OF the Fall reports and the jury affdavits
Mr. Wells then handed TO the counsel for the de-
tense the original OF the Dickson afridavit and Mr..
smith and Mr.. Dickson then compared the certi-
fled copy produced yesterday with the original.
right of the department to make any rules in re-
gard to the custody OF their papers. All applica-
tons for official papers must be made In writing,
stating the object for which they are wanted.
taken in his office. and the defense
t a NO ,o use ooF SuGn ex pare ssaement unless
stand. 1t they would make an explicit demand
for papers, it would be granted He did not think
that the Fall and Taylor reports were material to
this case
Mr.. Cuppy said that they must be judges as to
whether these papers would be material to their
ton when the matter was brought up In the trial.
The court suggested that the counsel for the de-
tense made their request for papers In due form.
Mr.. Cuppy said that they would do so, but II
they depended on the government to decide what
they could legally have they would get very little.
Mr.. Dickson returned the original paper or his
afhdavlt with the statement that IL was correct
JUROR ToBRINER CONSTRAINED
Juror Tobriner was called to the stand. He gave
substantially the same account of the reception
by the jury and the reading of Dickson's paper as
the others had done. Then MIR. Smith cross-ex-
amined him.
show an Intention On the part OF Mr.. Dickson to
corrupt the jury.
Mr.. Wells-I object, because the witness is
asked to judge as to the effect Of fact.
The Court sustained the objection.
Mr.. Smith.-Did Mr. Dickson do anything to In
fuence you?
MIR. Wells-I object
The Court.-Let the witness state what Mr..
Witness.-Mr Dickson said to me that he did not
wish to influence me. He was going to vote as he
pleased, and he wanted me TO vote as pleased.
He recOllected that McNelly did withdraw his OBJ
lection TO the reading Of the paper.
Mr.. WellS.-What did McNelly Say?.
Witness-He said that it was not right.
Mr.. Wells.-You call that withdrawal, do
you?
The witness, under the questioning of the court,
denied that McNelly had withdrawn his objection,
and the witness said he meant by withdrawing"
that McNelly sat down without saying anything
more after he had objected.
JUROR MAINS TESTIMONY.
Juror McLain was then called, and said that
after the jury retired reference was made to at
tempts to bride the jurors, and then two votes
were taken A discussion on the attempts to bride
occurred, and remarks were made by Tobriner
Holnead and others, and then Mr.. Dickson's
paper was read.
Mr.. McNelly made the first allusion to the sub
jet by saying that he heard some Of the jurors
had been approached. He favored the reading of
the paper. lie could not rec0llect whether Mr..
Dickson offered the paper to be read or some one
asked him TO read It. After 1t was read some in
timationS were made that the paper was not true,
and then Mr.. Dickson appealed In some way to the
Deity He could not remember the substance OF
the conversations which he said he had held at diff
1erent times with Mr.. Dickson relative to this
paper.
Mr.. Smith objected to the manner of questioning
employed by the government counsel as at
tempt TO torture from him something against Mr..
Dickson.
The court said that If the witness appeared to
be hostile TO the party putting him on the stand,
right to question him to bring the Information.
The witness did not appear TO be hostile.
to NH Ih WeS enen renewed MS question In regard
objection being made, the court asked him If he
had any recollection OF the conversations and he
said that he had not, although he was perfectly
willing to tell Gov. Wells anything.
THE WITNESS WAS CROSs-BxAMINED
by Mr.. Smith, and said that he could not recolect
whether Mr.. Dickson preraced the reading of the
paper by saying that he did not wish to influence
the jury.
Mr.. Smith.-What Is your impressions
Mr.. Wells objected to this question.
The witness went on to say that 1t was mere
Impression, and he would not like to say
Mr.. Smith.-Did it influence your mind?
Witne5S-NOt in the slightest
Mr.. Wells.-I object
Mr.. Smith.-The answer has been made
Mr.. WellS-I ask that 1t be stricken out.
The court directed the answer to be stricken
out. similar objection was made to the question
as to whether the reading changed the vote OF any
man on the jury.
ton In this case We are going to get at the truth
II possible, and bring out everything
Witness did not hear any juror say that the
paper had influenced his mind Neither did he
consider 1t evidence Mr.. Dickson had never
tried to control or influence his vote, nor did he
endeavor to ascertain how he was going to vote
In answer to Mr.. Wells he said that he meant
by Mr.. Dickson not trying to influence him, that
he never asked him how he stood.
JUROR MURRAY ON THE STAND.
Juror HIT. Murray was then called to the stand,
and testified that Mr.. Dickson took the paper out
Of his pocket and said that he would like to read
1t. He had heard the paper read on ~ street about
week before the trial closed, and Mr.. Dickson
said at that time he thought 1t was an effort to
find out how he stood. Mr.. Olcott and Mr.. Cox,
who were present, said then that they did not be-
lieve IL. He did not vote the same way with Mr.
Dickson on the question OF guilt and innocence.
Mr.. Smith, In the croSS-examnation, asked If
other members OF the jury had anything to say
about bribery.
The witness said that Messrs. McNelly, Hol-
mead and Olcott spoke Of approaches. He did not
recOllect what they said. Mr.. Dickson had never
endeavored to corrupt witness or influence his
action as juror.
Witness did not recollect whether the two men,
bers that objected to the reading OF the paper
withdrew their objection before it was read. His
personal relations with Mr.. Dickson had always
been, and were still, very pleasant Mr.. Dickson
told him In regard to his vote that he voted &C
cording to what he thought was right, and was
going TO stick TO It
Nh. SMITH THEN QUESTIONED THE WITNESS
about what Mr.. Dickson said in court about the
investigation OF the bribery.
"You were scandalized yourself asked MI.
Smith, ''were you not?"
81 was" said the witness
"By the statements" continued Mr. Smith, Tin
of Justice"
Mr.. Wells-I object to an insinuation that the
Department OF Justice has any papers in its SER
vice.
The question was ruled ont