The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-01-20
GRAFT OF THE GROFFS,,
FASTENERS THAT COST
2OCENTS SOLD FOR$I.5O
Price Was So High the Govern
ment Finally Was Given a
Rebate of IS Cents.
FURRY IN COURT ROOM
During Trial of Machen Et Al
Postoffice Inspector Accused of
Talking to Witnesses.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 19-The trial of
August w. Machen and the others indicted
with him for conspiracy to defraud the
government proceeded rapidly to-day. The
government put in evidence a number OF
documents having direct bearing on the
dealings of the Groff brothers with Ma
chen's division in the Postoff1ce Department
and bank officials gave testimony concern
ing the deposits of the Groffs and the
checks drawn against these deposits. The
fact was brought out by two witnesses rep
resenting firms which manufactured the
Croft fastener that the price to the Groffs
of the complete fastener was Is cents, with
rebate Of cents on each fastener con-
ditioned on prompt settlement of bills. The
price at which the fasteners were furnished
to the government at first was fixed at s1.5O
each, but later it was reduced TO S125 each.
A furry was created during one stage of
the proceedings when Attorney Kumler.
representing the Lorenzes, complained to
the court that Postoffice Inspector Walter
S. Mayer had been talking to witnesses be-
fore they came on the stand Mayer denied
the charge. When, subsequently, the mat
ter cropped out again and Attorney Kumler
said he had positive evidence that Mayer
had committed the offense. Justice Pritch-
ard rebuked the inspector and warned him
| against its repetition. District Attorney
Beach demanded an affidavit to prove the
assertion, which Mr.. Kumler said he would
furnish later in the day, but the matter ap-
parently was allowed TO drop, as the affi-
davit was not presented.
John F. Clark, letter carrier, related
how in 1895, he had been directed to report
to Mr.. Machen, superintendent OF free de-
livery, who ordered him to go to Baltimore
to explain the working of the Croft fasten-
er. Later. he said, he had been ordered to
perform similar work in New York, De-
troit, Jersey City, Buffalo, Toledo, st.
Louis and Richmond, Va. A number of let
ters purporting to be signed by Machen and
| addressed to the witness authorizing GER
| tain persons to pay him for repairing,
painting and erecting letter boxes and at
| taching Croft fasteners were introduced,
and precipitated lengthy argument as to
their admissibility. The witness could not
| identify Machen's signature attached to
the letters, remarking that on at least one
Of them there was a vast difference in the
| signature. Justice Pritchard ruled that the
| letters could be admitted
| On cross-examination by Mr. Douglass
witness said he had been reinstated as a
| letter carrier by Machen some time before
| the Croft fastener was introduced in the
service He declared that he regarded his
| trips to the various cities perfectly
| necessary for the proper installation of the
| boxes with the Croft fasteners. There was
| nothing unusual, suspicious irregular
| he said about his work. Machen, he said
| simply discharged the duties of his office
| as superintendent the same any other
| superintendent would have done. The pay
| for his work, he said, would come from the
| postmaster of the city where 1t was done
on authority from the office of the first as
| sistant postmaster general. Out of this
money, he said. he paid his own living ex-
penses. The Croft fastener. he said, was a
perfectly satisfactory arrangement.