Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-11-19

was dealing-on margins and the stock
was not really purchased or transferred to
afiant, nor wasit anticipated that 1t would
be.
"Afiant further says that the said Robin
son never complained to him In relation to
the matter but both of them accepted 1t
as an Inevitable loss-the failure of a spec
ulative transaction. Affiant further says
that that is the only business transaction
of any kind or character he ever had In
connection with the firm of Lilly & Robin
son, or either member of It,"
The Testimony.
Commissioner mcfarland began the ex
animation of Mr.. Robinson. In reply to
questions Mr.. Robinson said that he did
not mention at the fprmer hearing that he
had given stutlsr AMY money. although he
mentioned that he had given him a box Of
cigars and a turkey at different times.
Ibid you ever give Mr.. Stutler any
money! asked the Commissioner.
II did," replied the witness.
WAS it gift or loan?''
"A loan"
"Why did you not mention this at the
last public hearing?'
Because Mr.. Lilly did not want 1t men
toned. He did not want any notoriety
caused. And then didn't want that case
prejudiced by the assertion that was sore
because Stutler had failed to pay his notes.
wanted to respect Mr.. Lilly's request
Was the reason you mentioned Mr. LII
ly's principal reason for keeping this mat
ter quiet?'
THAT was the reason he gave me in per-
sonal conversation and in letters"
Were there any other loans besides these
mentioned In your affidavit?"
Mr. Robinson said there was none other
that he could recall.
what were the facts and circumstances
that brought your minds to the conclusion
that Mr.. Suffers request for loan was an
attempt to blackmail?' Mr.. mcfarland
asked.
WELL" replied Robinson, I'VE were bust
ness men and strangers here and just pc
ginning the contract, and we thought that
such a request was an attempt TO black
mall
Never Heard of Stock Deal.
Witness said that neither himself nor Mr..
Lilly had met Stutler between April and
June Is, 1889, but saw him several times
after June Is, before the date of his alleged
request for loan. Robinson declared that
he had never heard of any railroad stock
deal between him and Stutler prior to the
reading Of Mr.. Suffers affidavit He saio
he never had any stock TRANSACTIONS IN nus
life, either legitimate or on margin deais.
The $500, the amount of the alleged nrSt
loan, witness said, was given to Stutler IN
cash by Mr.. Lilly. and Stutler gave note
to Lilly, which was afterWard assigned 10
the firm of Lilly & Robinson.
act terms of the note, but believed 1t was
payable in 100 days after date. About SIX
months after the first loan witness salu
Stutler asked him for $50 to pay interest
on real estate investments. He SAID tnat
several days later he gave Stutler $50
and the latter gave witness a note. which
was later assigned to the firm. Lilly, salo
the witness, had no connection with the
second note but he was informed of the
loan by Robinson. Witness said that Mr.
Lilly is now in Paris France, and will not
return until next April. He said Lilly did
not deem it necessary to remain In TINS
country so as to testify with regard TO the
note transactions alleged by Robinson.
II didn't know that 1 would have to come
here to testify in this matter continued
Robinson.
sioner Mcfarland that the Commission
ers would search this matter to the bottom,
and you knew you would be expected to
support any charges made.
Nothing to Support Statements.
Robinson stated that he had nothing to
support his statements, unless it could be
found in some of his correspondence at his
home in Indianapolis.
In reply to question witness said he
evaded loaning :Stutler $1OO on his third re-
quest for loans. because he thought that
the firm had invested enough in Mr.. Stutler,
and that 1t was time to call halt.
Mr.. Stutler, In giving US these notes,
said Robinson, had rather placed himself
in our hands,"
With reference to the West Virginia cam
paign fund, Robinson said that stutler told
him Contractor Rusk had contributed to
that fund = fflr BIS III
What reason did Mr.. Stutler give for
asking you to contribute to the campaign
fund.-"
He said that Senator Elkins was his
hacker, and If he was defeated 1t might re-
suit in his (stutler's) losing his job.
Mr. Dol tod 1,ff a
umentary evidence in support of his nu-
merous statements that he informed Lilly
by letter of the various alleged occurrences.
Rough Language Alleged.
In telling of his protest to Mr.. Stutler
against the small area his firm was al
lowed to sweep Mr.. Robinson said that
Mr.. Stutler used "a little rough language"
about the mater and threatened to re-
duce the area still further If the firm
made another protest. He said that both
of them became somewhat heated and
that at the close Of the interview Stutler
"savagely" demanded the return of the
notes.
You stated while ago that you
thought Stutler was in your power be-
cause you held those notes. Did you
Il believe l said the notes might get
him into trouble.
How long after this interview did you
the notes to Mr.. Stutler?
Next day or the day after, in his of
fee"
Why did you surrender the notes with
out any considerations"
Because Mr.. Stutler was superintendent
of the street cleaning department. ana I
wanted to keep on good terms with him."
AT this point witness said he had re-
freshed his memory relative to the notes
by looking at his books at home. He said
the total amount of the two notes was
$500, but that at Suffers request the
amount was reduced by Lilly & Robinson
$500. and a new note for $3.50 was given by
Stutler 1t was that note for $3.50, he said,
that he gave back to Stutler. This was in
the early part of 1902.
Why did you surrender the evidence of
his obligation to your
We'll we never had expected to collect
that $3.50 from Stutler.''
But you said that the reason YOU re-
fused his request for 500 was because YOU
thought you had him in your power. And
yet you gave him the sole evidence of his