The San Francisco call., 1901-10-29

III morning, DOln pSlOI6 SOl1lllAiS-
u sioner Heacock and the Circuit
Court of Appeals. 1t was a day
for the lawyers to play the batteries OF
speech. and they indulged themselves un-
til the curtain fell
True to his promise, Anxious Curiae
Pillsbury put Deputy Marshal Burnham
on the stand and the examination of this
witness ushered in the day. His testi-
mony was adduced for the purpose of
contradicting Thomas J. Gearys state
ment that Judge Noyes and Mckenzie and
himself did not confer on the day OF Nc
Kenzies arrest. Geary was recalled, and
, following him on the witness chair was
William F. Britt, at present reporter on
The Call, but who at the time of the Nc
Kenzie-Noyes regime was a reporter on
the Nome Chronicle. Britt told his story,
which concerned a meeting between
Noyes and Mckenzie in Gearys S office the
very day Mckenzie was arrested. This
provoked the temper of Attorney Francis
). Heney, who, in the absence Of Judge
Mclaughlin, played the part of cross-ex-
aminer.
Heney came into the courtroom yester-
day morning, his heart surcharged with
indignation and his temper bristling at all
points. In yesterdays Call there appeared
on the last page an article concerning
Judge Noyes, Mckenzie and the rest of
the Nome tD4d ring Heneg had read it. befS %c
Laughlin and the two sang duet, Scan
dalous! Scandalous!' every time The
Calls article came to their attention.
When Heney reached the tail end of his
cross examination he asked Britt:
Did you write that article in to-day S
Call headed Wedding Out Noyes' Gang
Up at Nome'?' ..
Britt declined to answer, and neither the
soft cajolery of Heneys voice nor his
brusque, impatient manner could induce
the witness to go further. Heney'S Jpa-
tience gave out finally and he took the
matter before the Circuit Court of APP
peals for a certification. The court sus-
tanned Britt in his refusal to satisfy the
obtain information which he thought
should go into the record.
Sustain Britt's Refusal.
According to prearrangement the attor-
neyS for respondent NoyeS and the amicuS
curiae were to appear before the Court of
Appeals and argue whether or not con-
tinuance should be granted the respOn-
dents in the present examination. That
matter and the Britt refusal came up sue
cessively. So, after two hours Of haggling
and testimony taking before the Commits
sioner the lawyers and witnesses f1ocked
out of one courtroom and settled them
changed from a rather informal court to
the dignifed procedure of the Federal tri-
bunal, with the three Justices, Gilbert,
Ross and Morrow, on the bench.
Heney made a statement Of the Britt
episode and asked the court to issue an
order compelling the witness to answer
the question. FOR the sake OF argument
Heney was willing to consider the ques-
ton whether Britt was biased or preju-
diced, as already asked. The reason of
the question, Heney stated to the court,
was to attack the credibility of the wit
ness. The three Judges put their heads
together and Judge Gilbert announced
that the objection was sustained.
Then the court had to listen to another
argument from the wranglfng attorneys.
Judge Mclaughlin wants a letter which
he thinks E. S. Pillsbury has in his pos
session. During the taking Of testimony
in the morning Judge Johnson of Nome
was recalled to the stand and cross-ex-
amined on letter which he signed and
which it is claimed was sent to Pills
bury, asking for the protection of w T.
Hume and his immunity from punish
ment on account Of his efforts to furnish
information against the Noyes regime.
Mclaughlin demanded that the letter be
produced. Pillsbury. without denying or
admitting the receipt of the letter said
he didn't see by what right the respon-
/ dents should ask for private papers
Letter for the Court.
This was the second contention aired
before the court. Pillsbury said he would
cheerfully present the letter to the court