St. Paul daily globe., 1891-06-18
WOMAN IN The CASE.
The Dry Bones of the Wheat
Investigators Stirred up
a Little.
Witness Scott Refused to An
SWer Some Awkward
Questions
And Was Temporal rily Placed
Under Arrest by Senator
GeiSSel.
He Had to Quit st. Paul and
Would Not Explain
Why.

Gated by Attorney Erwin before he
could proceed with his testimony. The
climax came in the forenoon session.
Scott was asked to explain the nature of
his conversation with Frank Irons, in
which he (ScotD had stated that he was
compelled to leave st. Paul. Why had
he been compelled to leave ST. Paul?
That was what Attorney Severance
wanted to discover.
Before the question was reached the
young Sleuth of the elevators had
reached a condition of agitation that
was almost alarming.
Here is where it became apparent
that there was the inevitable lady in
the case, and that this lady was re-
sDonSible for Mr.. Scott'S desire to leave
St. Paul.
Being pressed to give an answer, the
witness jumped to his feet, and in a
vehement manner declared that he
would not answer the question.
Il want this committee to understand he
said, that this is a purely private matter,
and that l cannot answer any further"
r. j. Hall. in behalf of the Grain
Growers association, requested that
the further examination of the witness
be deferred until Mr.. Erwin could be
in attendance.
Mr.. Severance objected to postpone
ment of the examination. The objec-
ton was sustained, and Scott was asked
the same question.
He looked fiercely at the attorney and
replied:
Il refuse to answer the question"
His Arrest Requested.
John Day Smith moved that the SER
geant-at-arms be instructed to place
Scott under arrest.
Mr.. Hall requested private consulta-
ton with the witness, which was ac-
nouncemeht was made that Scott would
not answer the question until he had
obtained further legal advice.
The witness wanted to make state
ment to the committee. but Mr.. Smith
objected and said 81 insist on my
motion to have that witness placed
under arrest"
Scott arose from the witness chair,
looked unutterable scorn at the COM
mttee and the attorneys, and strobe
out of the room. If the sergeant-at-
arms was anywhere in the building he
kept discreetly in the background.
The committee thereupOn subSided
into the less exciting business of exam
ining the transcripts made by Expert T..
S. Dickey at the Duluth elevators.
At the afternoon session Witness
Scott showed up again, supported by
Mr.. Erwin and r. j. Hall. The former
stated that he appeared as attorney for
the witness. He asked the nature of
the disputed question.
The question being repeated, Scott
was about to reply, when Mr.. Smith in
terposed an objection. The witness
was under arrest, he said, and could
answer no questions.
Mr.. Erwin contends that Scott's posi-
ton in the matter is correct one, and
says that he advised his course in refus-
lug to answer questions of personal
nature. There could be no proceedings
in contempt before the committee.
Mr.. Erwin finally said that the witness
should answer the question so far as
any previous conversation with Irons
was concerned. The question was re-
peated, and Scott answered that he had
never told Irons that he was
Compelled to leave
st. Paul on account of girl or her
fathers anger.
Mir. Erwin here conceded that Scott
had acted as detective.
Through his disclosures" said the attor-
HeY. we nave lHe elevator COmDlQG Dy the
throat"
The examination of Scott being con-
tinued, the same question regarding his
connection with certain young lady
was asked, and again the witness re-
fused TO answer.
Mr.. Erwin objected. He said the mat
ter was of purely personal nature. A
tilt between the attorneys followed, and
Mr.. Erwin at last advised his client to
go ahead, and tell all he knew if the
committee was anxious to hear it. Moth
ing was got out of the witness on the
desired point, however.
Continuing i'll the effort to impeach
the testimony of the witness. Mr.. Sev-
erance recalled the statement made by
Mr.. Scott that he had seen wheat
shipped out of the elevators in which
there was one and a half pounds of
dirt to the bushel.
''Do you desire to say that wheat was habit
ually sent out as dirty as you say in spite of
Mr.. Preston's denial?'
The witness gave an evasiye answer.
being evidently deSirous of avoiding a
conflict with the testimony of Preston.
You persist in the statement as to Crosse"
Yes Isaw him do it myself, and am
sure
You stated that you didn't know the av-
Yes"
1.-The wheat of this year you refer to only
averaged dockage of 1ss pounds In the
face of that do you state that there was from
1pound to 112 pound of dirt to the bushel as
sent out? That 1ss pounds would have been
the fair dockage in the wheat when it went
into the elevators, wouldn't it?''
''Yes, if the records were correct it would"
Have you any reason to doubt that the
records were correct?"
Not that | know Of
Then why did you suggest Justification
of the records?'
Because tested some myself and 1t was
dirtier than that. 1t would go from a pound
and half to two pounds TO the busheI.''
Assistant Attorney General Childs
questioned the witness on several points
III his testimony, and he was excused.
BjOrge on the Stand.
II. p. Bjorge, of the Farmers eleya-
tor, said he and I: Sjordal were en-
ployed to run the elevator as agents of
the company. They had run it since
the ele vatOr was built.
was asked.
when we first started we handled about
10000 bushels: not so much now, thought
How much grain have you handled on
the average since the first year?''
From Is, 900 to $1,000 bushels
DO you ship each farmers grain sepa-
rately, or mix it?''
''We put it in bins holding carload esch.
Each farmer hauling to the elevator gets a
receipt for his load. showing what bin it is in
and what the character of the grain is.''
How do you ship?'
Each bin makes a carload We settle
with the owners of each bin of wheat after
shipment dividing any loss or dockage pro
rata among the owners Of the grain.''
''Have your consignments to Duluth held
out as to weight?''
mo, scarcely ever"
'Have YOU complainedT'
Yes; but we gained nothing
DO you place any dockage on grain as q
ruler
mo, sir. Only where dirty wheat is placed
in bin where there is clean wheat we
dock the former to make it conform with the
latter
''Then how do you know what the correct
dockage at Duluth in Minneapolis should
be?'
I'VE don't complain of the dockape We