The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1900-05-02
HEARING IN MEIER
INQUIRY RESUMED.
f. @. Lakeland, Foreman of Febru-
airy Grand Jury. Denies That He
Intended to Prefer Charges.
JAMES DUR0SS ON THE STAND.
Refuses to Divulsc Information Oh.
tanned in Grand Jury Room
Members of The Rcpub-
lie Staff Testify.

The second session Of the hearing on the
charges preferred against Supply Commits
sloner Fred G. Meier WAS held i'm Mayor
Z~iegenhein's office at the City Hal yes
terday afternoon.
Two members Of the February Grand
Jury, which made the report consuming the
conduct of the Supply Commissioners Of
lice and recommending Mr.. Meters removal
oy the Mayor. and several members of The
Republic STAFF were closely examined by
lily counselor Schnurmacher. None of the
witnesses could give any information of
'he KIM and in the way that Mr.. Schnur-
inacher desired. Tie hearing was continued
until Thursday, May 10. at , p. m.
Inc crowd present yesterday was not so
great as on the occasion of the first scs-
sion' but those present appeared To he
deeply interested. Mr.. Meier sat with his
attorneys, Theodore Rassieur and Chester
Ii. hfum. and appeared to be entirely at
case. The Mayor sat behind the long table.
the ends of which were occupied by steroc-
raphers for Mr.. Meier and for the Grand
JURORS City Counselor Schnurmaoh her sat
at the east end of the table. and near hin,
sat Attorneys Blair. Jourdan and Lack
iand, attorneys for the Grand Jurors. As
AT Inc previous session. the attorneys for
the Grand Jurors were not allowed TO take
part as counsel.
MI Schnurmacher appeared exasperated
When Grand Juror Austin T.. Cook. who did
A"t appear at the first session, was called
ana oid not respond. He stated that he
"ouio certainly ask for an attachment for
an Ii ne Gid not appear at the next ses-
sion. Attorneys Blair and Jourdan cx-
pressed the belief that Mr.. Cook had been
unaVoidably detained. and that he would
not fail to be present then
uEa G. Lakeland Examined.
EoSdr T. Lakeland, who was foreman OF
me FEBRUARY Grand Jury. was the first of
the witnesses called. Al the first session
Ar. Lakeland had mis- that he wouIS
at uhis session. give his decision as TO
MHe'ner ne would submit to the Maytr
certain SPECIFIC charges against the Supply
SoHinissioner. which had been prepared,
Hhd winch. ne stated, We're in his possess
SION MT. L~ackland's decision was against
The submission of these charges.
Mr. Lakeland first corrected the CITY
Nouiseior III his statement that the Wit
ness had stated that he had had the spaciic
charges prepared. Il only stated thai they
Lay - Deeh prepared, and that L had them in
my possession he declared. Il had no
hand IN their preparation"
VIII you submit those specific charges
the Mayor asked Mr.. Schnurmacher.
1 viii noI' wa the reply. They were
not prepared at my instance. Ttry wers
Foiuhtariiy handed to me, but not for the
puiPose OF making use Of them in the
manner suggested. Therefore | 90 not feel
1uStlled IN submitting them"
MI. l-acklaIid was asked II he would sub
mt them TO MIR. Schnurmacher for his
sLiuance and not for use as a document.
he declined to do So. Then he stared in
reply 10 a series of questions, that the
ana that he did not know where they were
ne hau given them to his son.. and did not
know what had become OF them.
AT the request OF Mr.. Schuurmachar lIr
I,aeHiand asked his son what had become
OF the charges. MIR. Lakeland, Jr.. replied
that he did not know. They mad gone ONT
OF his possession and might have I,een a.
stroyed. In reply to further questions. ne
stated that they had been drawn up from
DidR't Intend to Prefer Charges.
Mr.. Lakeland was asked to specify where
N the charges differed from those in the
Erand Jury report. Attorney krum OBJ
Jected, contending that the Grand Jury re-
port did not contain charges. but the OBJ
was not noticed. MIR. Lakeland said
he mad not examined the specific charges
OF difference We're.
Ar; Lakeland was asked whether the
facts. and how reliable they We're. He de- |
ciined 10 answer. on the ground that the
Information he had. and which would en-
able him to judge of their reliability. was |
gained in the Grand Jury room. He gave
the charges to his son, because his son
asked for them; He did not know what he
with them, or what he had lone
with them. His son prepared the charges. |
In reply to a question Suggested by MIR. |
!sr nri Lachiand said the charges, SO |
not been printed in The Republic.
Mt. lackland was questioned as to a |
statement, credited to him in an interview. |
z.Ad It NOtls nave YrG12rrDd GhlTwrE 1
against the Supply Commissioner mad not |
ne Mayor done So His answer was that
;harges prepared by his son had been de- |
iyered TO him, and that he said he had
ileih IN ms possession. He had no inten-
Grand Juror James DqIross. who was pre- |
,ented from attending the first session Of
stated that he had no information on the |
n ffter save that which had come to him \
Nhlle = member Of the February Grand
and this ne declined To- divui-., re
stated that he had heard the matter dis
,u.sen on the street and in private con
ny ono who had, or claimed 10 nave. in
or a positive nature. The CITY
,onnsrrer pressed him for the nsn,e Of
but he could not give it.
Mr.. DuT"ss D~isregarded Talk.
Il did not pay any attention to the talk"
he question asked me a short while ago
10 whether the Supply Commissioner or
" 'raHn jury was on trial" |
Joseph A. Graham, managing editor Of
ne Republic, was called to the stand. Mr..
Iraham was asked whether he had any in
on the charges that had been
against the Supply Commissioner.
ie requested a more definite question. stat
ng that, while he did not wish TO appear
aplous, the question was too wide to per
Mt OF a direct answer. yes or no. After
ne City Counselor had explained thar the
uestion had reference to any general in
ormatlOn on the subject that MIR. Graham
have. the witness answered yes"
Mr.. Graham refused to give the names of
hose who h1d given him his first Informal
lon or the condition of affairs i'm the SUP
~ commissioners Office, stating that he
I'd not feel warranted in subiecfing them
, the inconvenience that might result, and
ihich they had not contemplated al The
rae that they gave him the information.
lie detailed the manner of securing the ry-
which led TO the publication in The
.epubiic of the articles referring 10 mis-
engagement in the Supply Commissioners
flee. and frequently corrected the City
ounseior by reminding him that no
harges were made against Mr.. Meier per-
He reviewed the method pursued
Y a reporter in securing copies of the
orchers which showed that favoritism had
cen shown in the purchase of supplies, and
1at acquisitions had been split" so that,
lille in reality they Were for such sums as
ould call for the advertisement for bids.
ley had been made to appear TO be for
inns which permitted lettings without bids.
As to Splitting Reaufsftious.