Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-12-08
Fill D A B RE {
Suffers Attorneys Argue
His Side of the Case.
ATTACK ROBINSON
CLAIM HIS TESTIMONY NOT EN-
TITLED TO CREDIT.
Review of the Evidence Submitted at
the Hearing-The Different
Witnesses.

MeSSrS. Cole & Donaldson, attorneys lor
Warner Stutler, superintendent of street
sweeping today filed their brief in the sup
Elementary investigation of charges made
to the Commissioners by Royal Robinson.
The gist of the brief is summed up in the
statement:
.'Robinson's testimony is got entitled to
credit,
| ''First-Because it is unreasonable.
"Second-Because he admits that he has
knowingly sworn falsely in relation to
material matter In this investigation.
"Third-Because he admits that he under
stood that he was giving money to Stutler
to influence his official action, which is a
confession on his part that he intended to
commit the crime of bribery.
observation-disclosures his evidence is not cor
roborated in any substantial particular.
"Fifth-Because he is contradicted upon
material points by other witnesses whose
names he suggested as witnesses who would
corroborate his testimony
The brief makes a statement of the recent
charge of Robinson that Stutler secured
certain money from the firm of Robinson q
Lily and the absolute deniel of Stutler, and
then under the heads stated above con-
siders and discusses the evidence in detail.
Called Unreasonable.
Under the head "Robinson's Story is I'm
reasonable the brief says. in part:
Robinson says that when the first loan
was asked for he and Lilly consulted and
agreed that it meant blackmail, but con-
| cuded to submit to it; that he thought the
same when the second loan Of $3.50 was ap-
piled for but also concluded to submit to
| that; that when the third loan of 500 was
| applied for, according to his testimony first
given, he declined to make 1t, and gives as
| a reason therefor that having Suffers note
| they thought they had him in their power;
| that subsequently at Suffers request they
gave him the two notes amounting to $500
and took one for $3.50 without receiving any
money, thereby giving him $500; that this
was in the latter part of the year. 1901;
that matters rested in that shape until early
in the year 1902 when some difficulty arose
between Robinson and Stutler in the office
of the latter, in relation to the work of
street sweeping, which led to angry words
between them, and that Stutler closed the
interview by demanding the note, and that
on the following day Robinson returned it
to him. The mere statement of that story
is it's own refutation. No reasonable or sane
man in either the position of Stutler or Rob-
iEson would have done what Robinson says
was done. If Robinson had the notes of
Stutler, as he says, for loaned money, and
Stutler was demanding the return of them
without paying anything therefor he .Rob-
| inson). suggested in his testimony, had
Stutler in his power, and could have gone
to the Commissioners and exhibited the
notes. If he had Stutler in his power in that
way is 1t at all reasonable to suppose that
| II Stutler and Robinson early in 1902 were
angry with each other. and Stutler demand
ed the return of the note without paying It,
Robinson would have acquiesced. The
natural thing for Robinson to have done
| under such circumstances would have been
to have exposed Stutler to the Commits
sioners. and If the situation as he describes
| 1t had ever existed he would unquestionably
| have done
1T is a familiar rule of law frequently
| stated by text writers and courts that one
| of the tests of the truthfulness or untruth-
| funess of a story is it's reasonableness or
| unreasonableness. An unreasonable story
| always raises suspicion of its truth and a
! story may be so unreasonable as to require
| a fair mind to reject it for that reason
| alone.
| ut is submitted that any fair mind would
| reject the story of Robinson upon the face
of 1t because of its unreasonabeness
Alleged Conflicting Testimony.
! Under the second head, Because he adj
mits that he has knowingly sworn falsely
| in relation to a material matter in this in
vestigation," the brief says:
1T will be remembered that in the prin-
| cpal investigation last summer, when it
| was developed that Robinson on one occa-
| sion at Christmas time had presented some
| of the District employees, including Stutler,
| with a turkey, and that he had also given
| Stutler box of cigars, he asked by
| one or more of the Commissioners whether
| he had ever given Stutler any other pres
| ent, or any money other thing of value
| at any time, which he denied having doue
| in as broad language as 1t was possible for
| him to have used. In his recent testimony
| in relation to this subsequent charge his at
| tention was called to his former testimony,
| and he was asked If he had not so testi-
| fed, and he admitted that he had. and when
| asked why he testified and why he had
| not at that time told the Commissioners
| about this alleged transaction, the only ref-
son he gave for it was that his former part
ner, Lilly, did not want publicity given to
| it, and that he did not want to prejudice the
| other charges by bringing this forward at
| that time The brief then argues that If
! the testimony in the last investigation was
| true that of the former was false, and vice
| versa and says that a man who will SO
testify lis not entitled to credit upon any
point
| 1.-THE Commissioners, it would SEEM upon
| principle authority and common sense CAM
not do otherwise than reject Robinson's t.s-
| timony as a whole, and as his Is the only
| testimony tending to establish the charge
| that Stutler accepted bride, the charge
must fail.
Lack Of Confederation.
/ -. to-, ,of