The Washington times., 1904-05-05
SCORE
IN THE TYNER CASE
Prosecution Witness Admits That Rule Re-
garding Investment Companies Had Been
in Force Ten or Twelve Years.

Tha 'ryner I2arEett ccalarsracy trial be-
fore Judge Pritchard in Criminal Court
No l. was continued today with the
additional testimony of Hayes Morgan.
law clerk I'm Tyners office several years
ago. but not now in the department
He told of the incidents attending the
Issuance Of the Barrett order in rela-
tion to the bond investment companies
and the practice in vogue in the de-
partment on such matters.
In this connection one Of the most i'm
pOrtant admissions OF the day was
made. when the witness testified that
tie rule of the department had been
tee same for ten or twelve years. This
was drawn out by the counsel for the
defendants 10 Offset the contention that
the defendants had been guilty OF ar
ranging a new rule to suit their own
purposes.
One OF the interested witnesses at the
trial today was Marilla Young Kicker.
a descendant of Brigham Young. the
noted Mormon. and constant attend
ant at the recent Smoot hearings.
Undsr CTOss-Examination.
When Mr.. Morgan resumed the stand
this morning Mr. Worthington con-
tinued the cross-eXamination Witness
said he was twenty-eight years of age,
and an attorney practicing before the
District of Columbia and West Virginia
courts. He had resigned his position Ia
the Postofiice Department last fall,
when he returned TO West Virginia and
took up the practice OF law
Mr.. Worthington introduced in evil
dence the form Of authority issued by
General Tyner to special agents going
into the field to make investigations
into alleged fraudulent companies. 1t
was identified by the witness. He as
sented 10 query of Mr. Worthington that
he had made reports on all cases in
vestigated, and that they should now be
on file in the department The attorney
thereupon asked for copies of all these
reports.
Going into details. Mr.. Worthington
ELECTED from the witness the propor-
ton Of cases which were worked M"
by inspectors and those which came be-
fore the department on the voluntary
reports of the companies. in response
to the circular sent out from the depart
ment. From July l. 1900 to June 30.
1901. there was only one fraud order is
sued. while about seventy-hve cases
were pending before the department
OF this number only about 10 per cent
were worked mp by inspectors.
Mr.. Worthington inquired as to what
sort Of attorneys had appeared before
the department in connection with these
cases. and witness named John c. Car
Isle, Ex-Governor Bradley, of Ken
lucky; Dudley & Michener, Of Wash
ington. and others. Attorneys appear
ing before the department were Of the
reputable class. the witness assented. in
answer TO Mr.. Worthington's query.
Inquiry was at once made by Mr..
Worthington as TO why there had been
only one fraud order issued In an en-
tire year. and witness explained it as
due to the lack of reports from inspec-
tors of the department In most in
stances the data furnished the depart
ment was not sufficient to warrant the
issuance of a fraud order.
This information was of importance
IN the case, because of its bearing on
the contention of the prosecution. in
presenting the case in the opening ad-
dress TO the jury. That years record
was pointed TO as showing that Mr.
Barrett delayed action by the depart
ment In anticipation OF his resignation
and in order TO further the interests of
the concerns before the department.
Letters were read from several COM