The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-01-16
Court Holds, in Case of Machen,
ct AL. that Charge OF Conspir-
acy Must Be Supported.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Must Be introduced to Show There
Was a Plot TO Defraud
the Government.
MR.. HEATH'S TESTIMONY
Salt Lake Editor Tells of Admin
istrative Methods of His
Former Office.


day of August w. Machen. the Croft Broth
ers and DR.. and Mrs Lorenz. charged with
conspiracy 10 defraud the government the
defense scored an important point with
spect TO the character Of evidence 10 be in
troduced at this time by the government.
The defense insisted that the government
had not brought forth any documentary
evidence showing the existence OF con-
spiracy 10 defraud the government, and
that that which was being offered naturally
should follow the evidence OF conspiracy
so as TO specifically connect the defendants
with the various transa ctions which had
been referred 10. The court sustained the
point. At one point in the trial Mr.. Doug
lass, for the defense, called on Justice
Pritchard 10 reprmand First Assistant
Postmaster General Wynne for volunteering
the statement that a former employe Of
the Postofiice Department recently had been
sentenced in Baltimore TO a term of two
years in the peniteRtiary. The suggestion
was not complied with. but the justice
instructed the jurors that their minds must
not be prejudiced by the statement of Mr..
Wynne.
On cross-examination by Mr.. Kumler Mr..
Wynne said he did not know whether the
Gron fasteners were attached TO rural free
delivery letter boxes or not. There were
many things connected with the Postofice
Department, he said. that he knew nothing
about. Il am trying TO learn." said Mr..
Wynne, sarcastically, 'and am doing the
questions calculated TO test his knowledge
of a number OF details OF the rural free
delivery service. but they were met with a
frank: Il don't know"
MR.. HEATR'S TESTIMONY.
Perry S. Heath. former assistant postmas-
ter general. who was subpoenaed from his
home in Salt Lake City to state what he
knew about the administration OF his Of
fee, was on the stand during the day.
When Mr.. Heath took the stand he first
testified as to his service in the department
from March, 1897, to July. 1900. and said he
knew of the Groff fastener, which had been
adopted and was in use when he entered
the office. The practice of the office in the
matter of the purchase of supplies. he said,
was continued after he entered upon his
duties. He was shown order for festen-
said:
That's my name and my signature, but
see it is signed with rubber stamp"
The stamp. he said, was used only for
formal matters, and IL had not been his
ing for the expenditure OF money. He said
that without his attention being particular
~ called 10 reouisition from Machen's
division he would pass IL ia formal man.
ner. He declared that he never saw either
of the Groffs until he came into the court
room and said that he did not remember
ever having attached HIS signature with
the rubber stamp TO the order for fasten-
ers in question.
Mr. Heath then described the Office cir
cumlocution of an order for supplies and
| also explained that under the law the chief
/ clerk Of the first assistant postmaster gen.
eral would act first assistant postmaster
! general in the latters absence.
The witness was shown a bill for fasten-
ers signed by Machen and marked cor
rect He SAID he was governed I'm placing
/ his own signature thereon I'm approval by
the fact that the voucher seemed In reg
/ ular form properly initiated
DONE BY SUBORDINATES.
On cross-examination Mr.. Heath said he
could not speak regarding the signing OF
Machens initials by Miss Liebhardt.
Machen's stenographer and chief clerk. but
he did recall having been informed that
she signed Machens name. He was then
led through a long line of questioning the
fact being brought out that in Machen's
division subordinates prepared certain
papers for Machen's initials.
| Mr.. Douglas objected TO the admission Of
| papers such as had been offered in evidence,
/ saying the government had not even laid its
/ foundation for the charge OF conspiracy He
contended that the significance Of these pa
pers will be dependent upon the evidence
/ which should precede them IL an was be-
/ ing done, he said. to confuse the mind OF
! the jury and OF the court. He demanded
1 that the government now produce its evi-
dence of conspiracy TO defraud. TO
meet Machen with specific knowledge OF the
/ transactions referred 10. Counsel for each
| OF the other defendants made a similar de-
/ mand.
Mr. Taggart replied that he was trying TO
illustrate the methods of busines in the
| Postoffice Department. and with respect TO
the initials OF Machen. the papers had a
tendency TO show that Machen was con-
/ nected with that transaction 10 which they
related. Answering query by Justice
| Pritchard, Mr.. Taggart said he did not offer
/ the documents TO show the guilt OF the de-
PENDANTS but to make clear the office prac-
| tice.
The defense scored when the court decided
/ that the evidence was not competent at this
| time. THE governmnt," said Justice Pritch-
| ard. has il within its power 20 bring this
/ evidence within the rule. / do not think IL
/ has done so. and. therefore. for the present
! effect OF the decision is that the government
now must prove its case.
After a recess Mr.. Heath. replying 20
| questions by Mr.. Taggart. said the number
/ OF fasteners required would be determined
/ by acquisitions of postmasters. The price.
/ however, would be fixed in the department
\ and would originate with the superin.end-
ent of the rural free delivery division.
THE CROFT FASTENERS
| Cross-examined by Mr.. Douglass Mr.
| Heath said that after an article had been
adopted by the department and its price
/ fixed. and IL had become a standard article
! Of supply. the signing OF acquisitions would
/ be matter of routine. He was unable to
/ say for how long a time before ne came
] into the ONCE the GrOH fastener mad been
/ regarded standard He admitted that on
I the face OF some OF the documents shown
/ him the reduction In the price OF the fasten-
/ ers from Sl.50 TO sl3 each was a vOlnn-
\ tary and spontaneous act OF Machen's Re
garding the number OF boxes needed Mr..
/ Heath said IL would be a matter OF calcula-
tion by some clerk in the free delivery di-
vision. and not necessarily by the superin-
/ tendent. He then detailed the rapid growth
/ of the rural free delivery service and said
he regarded Machen a very competent
/ man.
He was the very father OF the system,
was he not2" Mr.. Douglass asked
AT least one OF them. the witness re-
/ piled Mr Heath admitted that In view
/ OF the various duties OF Machen that on
/ Ger had the same right TO rely his
| subOrdinates as did the first assistant post
/ master general Machen.
On redirect examination MIR. Heath said
! Machen did not have the right 90 establish
/ the standard OF article or its price with
out consultation with the first assistant
postmaster general. nor would any clerk
have that right. Having thus established a
/ standard" Mr.. Heath said. replying 10
further questioning. any proposition in