The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-05-05
CASES ON TRIAL.
Policy of Department as to Invest
 ment Companies.

Policy of Department as to Invest
 ment Companies.
 Washington. May 4.-Richard M. Webster resumed the stand today in the trial of James N. Tyner and Harri- son J. Barrett, on charges of conspi- racy in connection with their duties as Assistant Attorney General and As- sistant to the Assistant Attorney Gen eral of the Postoffice Department.
 A. s. Warrington, counsel for the defense. cross examined the witness in regard to his testimony as to the pro- cedure in lottery cases and the rule by which the fraud orders are recom- mended. and asked if his testimony be- fore the gSand jury had been the same as on the stand today. Assistant Unit ed States Attorney Taggart objected, but Justice Pritchard permitted the question, for the purpose of impeach- ing the witness and on no other grounds"
 MT. Warrington argued that if 1t could be shown that the testimony of the witness had varied on the two oc- casions. he would be bound to quash the indictments. The witness declared that his. answers before the grand and petit juries were intended to convey the same meaning.
 The witness said that the cases of suspension, reported from the office of the Fourth Assistant Postmaster-Gen- eraI, were first submitted to Hueber, a member of the office force. In regard to the bond investment companies un- der suspicion, MT. Webster said he had little knowledge
 w. E. Cochran, Chief Inspector for the Postoffice Department, testified in regard to an accumulation of litera- tA fF4U fTan companies. which was obtained for use of the Assistant Attorney Generals of- flee at the request of MT. Barrett. in Investigating the character of the busi- ness performed by several concerns which were named. MT. Cochran said he had often discussed the business of the concerns with MT. Barrett. He quoted Mir. Barrett as arguing that the business of the companies was growing and that 1t was probably that many of the companies were engaged in fraudu- lent business. By this argument MT. Barrett obtained an appropriation for the employment of an actuary to ex- anime the companies. Mir. Cochran was not cross-examined
 Hayes Morgan, formerly a clerk in the office of the Assistant Attorney General for the Postoffice Department identified a list which he had prepared, of bond investment companies which were under examination at the request of MT. Barrett.
 At the afternoon session of the court. Mir. Taggart examined Hayes Morgan in regard to the policy pur- sued in the department in regard to bond investment companies and he was asked why there had been reversal of policy in regard to the companies. MT. Morgan said he could not say that there had been a complete reversal Of policy and in explanation stated:
 q did not know what the policy would be about the middle of Decem- her. 1900. After MT. Barrett had rem dered his general opinion in classify ing the investment companies. he ap- peared to cease to take an active part in conducting the cases. Mir. Christi- ancy came to the department at the time and General Tyner instructed him to take up the work where Mir. Barrett left off"
 A number of letters were received from concerns. said the witness, in regard to whether certain companies would be permitted to use the mails so long as they made no new contracts. MT. Morgan answered these letters in the absence of Messrs. Christiancy and Barrett, basing negative reply on the general opinion which had been pre- viously issued by MT Barrett concern ing bond investment companies. When Mir. Barrett and MT. Christiancy re- turned, Mir Morgan told them of his answer. to the letters and he was in- formed that he had taken the wrong