The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1899-01-22
MR.. DAVIS STATEMENT.
The District Attorneys Explanation
of the Perjury Cases.

The statement published exclusively in
The Evening Times of yesterday that
charges OF neglect of duty had been filed
against United States Attorney for the
District Henry Z. Davis was generally dis
cussed last night The consensus of opiu-
ion seemed to be that if such charges have
been filed they are not based on n founda-
ton of fact ard if the matter is invosti-
gated it would be found that Mr.. Davis
has not been derelict in the performance
of the duties Of his office.
\ representative of The Times called
at the Office OF Attorney General Griggs
yesterday afternoon but was unable to see
him on account of his absence from the
city at the time. The reporter was. how
ever informed by Mr.. Griggs' private sec
rotary. through the assistant chief clerk
that charges referring to the conduct OF
his office had been filed against Mr.. Davis.
Neither the names of the persons present.
ing them nor the nature of the charges
against Mr.. Davis were given at the Office
of the Attorney General.
District Attorney Davis was seen at the
Concord last night and shown the state
ment in The Evening Times that charges
had been fled against him at the Depart
ment of Justice for alleged failure to bring
perjured testimony TO the attention of the
grand jury. Asked II he would speak for
publication on the subject Mr.. Davis re-
piled:
IF any charges have been fled against
me do not know it," he said. But" he
added, Il know to what the article refers.
and have no hesitation in telling you the
whole story.
Several years ago a certain physician
was sued by his wife for divorce. The suit
was brought in Maryland and the circuit
court OF the county issued commission
to take testimony in this District on behalf
of the wife. The District witnesses ap-
pearcd voluntarily before the commission
ers, were sworn and testified. The hus-
band won the case in the Circuit Court
but lost it in the Court of Appeals of Mary
land, which granted the wife a divorce
subsequently, as | recollcct, some nine
or ten months ago. the husband called on
me and charged that some of the witnesses
who testified here had committed perjury
and he asked me to present them to the
grand jury. After patient examination
Of the case | declined TO do as requested
for the reason that | found the law to be
that false swearing under the circum-
stances assigned was not perjury. 1t is
needless to go into the technical explana-
ton of this fact, but fact it is
About the LIST of December the HIS
band called on me at my home and asked
me if | would give him and his attorney
a further hearing in the matter. to which
| at once assented. Accordingly. on the
day following his visit, he called at my
office with his attorney and they called
my attention to the case OF Battle Minor
and others, convicted OF perjury in the
Belt divorce case during Mr.. Worthington's
incumbency of office of district attorney
for the District of Columbia. That was
suit instituted in Baltimore. and the con-
victed persons had testified as witnesses
in this city. But in that case counsel or
the commissioners themselves. had taken
the precaution to have our court order
the local witnesses to appear to testify, in
accordance with the provisions of our
statutes in that behalf. | pointed out TO
the doctor and his attorney how this dis
tinguished that case from his. and in ad-
dition. l called into the conference my as
sistant, Mr.. Taggart, and read to the doc