Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-02-09
CHANDLER A SURPRISE

CHANDLER A SURPRISE
The most interesting feature of the Sem
ate committee investigation of the bribery
charges against Clark of Montana is the
opportunity it affords for the study of
character. To the curious its sessions are
the most attractive thing about the Capitol.
The guides are beginning to point the COM
mittee room out to strangers one of the
interesting features of the congressional
display. If the room We're four times as
large it is it would generally be crowded
during the sessions. AS it is, the crowd
usually extends into the corridor and peo-
pie so situated that they can neither see
nor hear what is going on still linger in the
hope of an opportunity to satisfy their Gu
riosity.
The Opposing Counsel.
The cross-examination of witnesses by
members of the committee is the thing of
greatest interest. The cor, mittee IS COM
posed for the most part of good lawyers
and men of recognized ability in the SEN
ate. and two of the attorneys are men Who
have served with some distinction in the
Senate. Edmunds, the chief Counsel for
the prosecution, Is I, striking figure III any
assemblage. With head like Homer and
tall erect figure which gives the appear
ance of youth to the white hair and nigh
forehead of wisdom, he stands much of tie
time in silence overlooking the committee
and the assembled counsel and witnesses,
his hands clasped behind him and a look of
profound penetra ton upon his face. lie
neither examines nor cross-examineS Wit
nesses, but now and ,hen 'aiseS his voice
to a suggestion, fnterposes an objection or
makes a side remark which serves to point
attention to something beneficial to his side
of the case. His principal place IS IN coun-
Gil and in generally overlooking the pr1-
ceedings.
The burden of the defense rests upon the
shoulders of ex-senator Faulkner. who has
not only to conduct the case at the Capitol.
but to study and prepare it at night. and he
is beginning to show the effects of the drag
upon him. The struggle between him and
the opposing counsel has about ii the eX-
citement of a wrestling match, and the
locker on can imagine the strained muscles
and hard breathing.
Two Great CrOss-Examiners.
Each member of the committee has his
own peculiar methods of studying the case'
as it proceeds. Harris and Pritchard listen
to the testimony day after day almost with
out a word. Caffery, who asked some ques-
tons of witnesses at the beginning, is now
absent good deal, and when present gen.
orally observes perfect silence. The two
great croAs-eXaminers of the committee are
Hoar and Tur,ey. Both are good lawyers
and wonderfully scare hing in their methods
of probing witness, but their manner diff
fers greatly. In fact, no TWO members of
the committee have the same way of put
ting a witness to the test. Each has his
own way of approaching the matter he
wants to get at. and the witness who goes
the ordeal of rigid crOSs-examina-
ton has an experience compared with
which the much-dreaded police sweat-boX
gives but pleasurable sensation.
Turley has way of picking up the wit
ness just at some point in his testimony
where he seems to be hurrying over some
thing, or where the manner of his testi-
mony might admit of omissions or of diff
ferent Interpretation or of being made more
explicit. and of asking d series of sharp
questions which analyZe and reduce the
subject to its most minute details. His
questions are all SO concisely worded and
so direct as not to admit of any evasion in
the answer, and there is about them that
air of suspicion which warns the witness
that il would not be worth while to attempt
d bubble
Mr.. HOar's Method.
Mr.. Hoar has a quaint way of getting at
what he wants, and his method more than
that of any other member of the committee
Is liable to lead to the Impeachment of the
witness There Is an amiable simplicity.
about his manner which is apt to secure the
confidence of the witness and leave him
unsuspecting until he has committed him
self too far to be able to retire. 1t is diff
cult for a witness to determine whether
the questions have friendly or a hostile
purpose until it is too late for the knowl-
edge to be of any good to him Most of
those who have had their testimony put in
doubt owe it to Hoar- The sudden trans
formation of the senator's face from an
expression of benign simplicity to one of
indignant disgust when ne is convinced
that a witness is not telling the truth would
make a study for an artist. A study of his
countenance is enough to absorb the at
tcntion of an observant man. and one of the
humorous features of the inveStiga ton is
the mystificat!on which some of the pecu-
liar western forms of speech have for him
He invariably asks the meaning of unusual
slang expressions, and the answers to his
questions on this point would provide mate
rial for an instructive slang dictionary.
Hoar is the man who, when Senator Jones
of Nevada was making his great silver
speech some years ago and referred to the
fact that oyster shells had at one time been
used as money, retOrted that it was a good
idea; man might order oysters on the
half shell and pay for them with the shells
Quaint conceits of such delicate humor as
this are characteristic of Mr.. Hoar. and
his side remarks are source of amusement
in the committee.
Burrows, who sits directly opposite the
seat reserved for Witnesses asks few aues-
tiCns, but if after the rest are through he
is not quite satisfied, he has a way of ask
most invariably bring out something of
consequence. The questions of McComas
are almost all directed toward keeping the
record clear and getting answers put in
such form as not to admit of two inter-
pretations. The judge and technical law
yer is shown in all his questions, and he
shows little interest in trying to trap a
witness into an admission.
Chandler d Surprise.
witness who is trying to hold back
something or to deceive is utterly al dis
advantage with Chandler, unless he is a
man of remarkably quick wit. His every
turn is surprise He always hits in un-
expected places. and when he is least ex-
pected to strike al all. Sometimes when a
witness is about to leave the stand he will
turn suddenly as If he had forgotten some
thing and say: "Oh! before you go l think
will ask you one more question" and
then will follow perhaps the most pointed
question of the whole examination.
He puts all his questions in a quick,
nervous. explosive way, and sometimes
asks an unimportant question on one phase
of a subject only to make more sudden an
other of great Importance having no pos
sible connection with the first. At the be-
ginning of the investigation one of the wit
nesses against Clark, who had been in the
committee room few minutes before being
called to take the stand, disappeared hav-
ing inst before his diSa ppea ra n 20 from, tho