The Washington times., 1904-05-05

panies. requesting that if any changes
III their contracts were required they
should be small in order that the con-
tracts might be fulfilled as nearly as
possible as they We're entered into.
This was matter Of business policy.
they said
Mr. Worthington at this point got
into the record a letter Of General
Thomas. predecessor OF General Tyner.
of January l6. 1896. and got witness 10
assent to its accuracy az the policy of
the department when Postmaster Cen
eral Bissell was in office IN 1896 The
letter was addressed TO JudsOn Harmon.
then Attorney General of the United
States. In effect. it announced that
concerns should be permitted to set
tie up their old business through use
Of the mails without department in
reference
This was the general practice Of the
department. witness admitted. and also
agreed that the order he had prepared
(Which. as he testified yesterday, was
sent out with General Tyners ap-
provaI. and recalled by telegraph the
next day. would have changed the
practice in vogue
II was developed that the department
had followed such a plan for a dozen
years or more. of permitting concerns
to modify their plans so as to conform
to the rules OF the department, before
the department proceeded TO the is
suance Of fraud orders. This was
brought out by Mr. Worthington t.
further suhstantiate his contention that
his clients had not changed the method
of procedure in their terms of Office
Rapid Legal Work.
Mr. Worthington asked the witness for
his view of the qualifications OF Mr. Bar
rett to prepare an opinion on the bond in
vestment companies. Witness gave as
his opinion that Mr.. Barrett was the
best qualified man he knew.
Mr. Conrad took exception TO this
cross-examinatiou OF what Barrett's
qualifications were.
After an argument by Mr. Worthmg-
Ton in opposition. the court sustained
Mr. Conrad's objection. ordered the
question and answer struck out Of the
record. and Mr.. Worthington took an
exception to the ruling of the court.
In the course of Mr.. Worthington's
argument to Judge Pritchard, he men
toned the fact that as the prosecution
had said they did not expect TO convict
on direct evidence. but through circum-
stantial evidence, Barretts Qualifica-
tions were essential.
This caused Mr.. Conrad 70 comment,
IN an aside: But we did not indict Mr.
barrett for beirg a fool"
over the submission of a printed
pamphlet to the jury for perusaI in the
course of the trial, Counsel Conrad and
WOrthington had a brief tiff.
Mr.. Conrad objected TO having the ev-
idence go to the jury piecemeal. and
wanted TO know if Mr. Worthington in
sisted. The latter said he certainly did,
as it was a matter which might send
two men to the penitentiary.
This aroused Mr.. Conrad. who de-
clared such a statement might find
OF the jury In way no other evi-
dence could overcome.
Judge Pritchard said the court could
not wait until all the members of the
jury peTused printed pamphlets in the
course Of the trial.
Did, Not Write Opinions.
Witness said that so far as he knew.
General Tyner took no part in the for
nation of the opinion of the depart
ment. saying the basic principle was
sound, In the operations of the bond
investment companies
HE took no part except to confer
Continued on Ninth Page.)