The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-06-22
TOBACCO TRIAL EPISODES.
CAsEsPRoMIsEs TO LAST "A MONTH
WITH EA8E.

&C. Leuis Discovered-Dofsnss digs up q Letter
from the D~tstrictsAttorney Signed ssPsV
N. G.n-seeha to SHOW That AN. ~ II
Cepnsei for the Rival Tobacco Company.
There are many things more exciting than the
judicial investigation OF the business methods Of
the American Tobacco Company in the General
Sessions appears to the listeners TO be. There IL
every probability that the trial will not be con.
cluded for q month Mr.. Choate says that he
has made his will and said good-by to his family.
When court opened yesterday morning Peter
Hnuptmann, a jobber in cigars, cigarettes and
tobacco in ST. Louis. was recalled and District
Attorney olcott asked him:
Did not tho American Tobacco Company owe
you for rebates when 1t offered to make further
c~onsignmcnts Of goods in 1887
well. l tell you how that was" the witness
began In answer. when Mr.. Choate jumped up
and snid:
Just wait a moment, Mr.. Hauptmann, before
you answer. Now. I object to this, II your Honor
please. We have been indicted upon tho charge
OF restricting trade. Now. what earthly differ
ence does 1t make, so far as this trial Is con.
cerned. whether We owed Mr.. Hauptmann or
anybody c!sei We want to be tried on the In
dictmcnt OF We want your Honor's distinguished
permission to go about our business"
The objection wns sustained. Then Mr.. Choate
began his cross-examination
Q.-Mr. Haiptman, you're from st. Louis, !
understand. That, l am told, Is a city some.
whore in Missouri. Tell us something about 1t.
Has 1t a population OF 50,OOoi A.-Tree hun.
dert und fifty tousandt. sir! 1.-The answer was
s"ah Thank you," said Mr.. Choate. I'm
glad to learn something definite about your city.
a contract with the NATIONAL Cigarette and To.
bacco Company to sell their goods, you were as.
aured that you would not lose any money. were
Mr.. Hauptmann admitted that the company
had guaranteed to make good any difference be.
American Tobacco Company and the profits Of
handling the goods of the National Cigarette
in addition to this guarantee his firm was to get
% per cent. commission on oil sales and = per
cent, discount on all cash purchases.
Q.-Have you not contributed to the expense
OF prosecuting this suit. as well AS to suits
brought against the American Tobacco Com
pany in the States OF Illinois and New Jersey :
A.-Sot Il cent.
Q.-When you get back to St. Louis will you
not send me the contract your firm made with
the National Cigarette and Tobacco Company .
ADO | have to do thatl
The WitnessNWeiI 1 won't, then. I DON:
have to, show you my business.
Mr.. Choate-Iknow you don't. But won't you
do so. in the spirit OF fairnessi
but l don't think it will. ALREADY:
i. Allen. who says he organized the American
Tobacco Company. was recalled to tho stand.
~ nuu Dttu lHSlTuCttu ~ UTlnR Win nlU Ill
letters he had in his possession from members OF
the Jaw firm of Einstein & Townsend. counsel
for the National Cigarette and Tobacco Company.
The defence hoped to prove by these letters that
Einstein & Townsend are behind the prosecu-
ton of this case and have collected money to de-
fray the expenses OF the trial. Mr.. Allen pro-
duced what he said were all the letters he had
from Einstein s. Townsend.
When Mr.. Fuller had examined these letters
he selected one signed by NJ. :. Guitcrman, one
OF the members of the law firm. Then he took
up u letter that had been produced by the
former witness, Mr.. Hauptnann. which tho
latter had received in the latter part OF May.
The latter was written on the letter paper OF
tho District Attorneys Office and signed Wv.
". X. Olcott, District Attorney. per NJ. g."
Tho,letter was a request to Mr.. Hauptmann to
come to New York and testify at the trial. the
pledge being made that the witnesses expenses
would be paid.
Mr.. Fuller. for the defence. sought to have Mr..
Allen compare his own letter from NJ. S. Gutter
man with that which Hauptmann had received
;!on the District Attorney, for the purpose Of
saying whether the initials ~. G." on The let
ter to Hauptlnann were not in the handwriting
Of VI. :. Guiterman. The object of this compar-
ison was, OF course. to establish. II possible, that
FInstein IS Townsend were procuring the peo-
pies witnesses for the District Attorney. The
District Attorney objected TO the comparison
being made. and the. objection was sustained,
the Court holding that the witness was not an
expert in handwriting. .
As indicated above. the case will SO on to-day.