Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-05-11

the Fayette Investment Company. Lexing-
ton. KY, was the next witness. He testi-
fed that his company, In January. ioVi'
employed the firm Of Nelms & Barrett to
represent It before the Post Office Depart
ment. having previously received one OF
the Barrett cards announcing the proposed
formation Of the Nelms- Barrett partner
ship
The prosecution called David Parks Each
Ter of New York to the witness stand. He
stated that he was consulting actuary OF
forty years experience. 1t was explained
to the jury that an actuary Is an expert IN
the theory and practice Of Insurance, an m
dividual who makes diagnosis of financial
schemes for the purpose of determining the
possibility of their successful operation
The witness stated that he had been en-
ployed by the Post Office Department to
investigate the plans Of operation of seven
bond investment concerns.
Regarding Reports to Department.
Inquiry was made regarding the nature
Of the reports submitted to the department
by the witness as the outcome of his in
vestigation of the seven concerns referred
to. At this point the lengthy colloauy
cited In the foregoing. and based on a
question regarding the materiality of the
testimony. occurred
]. P. Williams. connected with debe9-
ture company of Louisville. KY, testified
that he received a Nelms-Barrett partner
ship card. Later he wrote to Mr.. Barrett
in reference to the status of his company
before the department. In the course of
the reply that was received by the witness
In December. 1900. Mr.. Barrett announced
that after January l. 1901, he and Mr..
helms would be in a position to look out
for the company before the department.
Their fee would be 81 900 down and 500 a
month for twelve months.
Mr.. Barrett's Letters.
The prosecution showed by Mr.. Williams
that Mr.. Barrett had written letters in
which he displayed interest in the affairs
of the Mutual Fidelity Company. This
was considered important in view of testi-
mony that had been brought out by the
defense to the effect that when he made his
partnership contract with Mr.. helms. Mr..
Barrett refused to take the annual salary
Of 5000 that had heretofore been paid
Nelms as attorney for the Mutual Fidelity
Company, it being stated by Mr.. Barrett
that In his opinion the company would not
comply with the rulings of the Post Office
Department.
The next witness, W. B. Cardell Of Balti-
more. Md. who had been treasurer of the
Mutual Fidelity Company of that city, tes-
titled regarding correspondence he had with
the Post Office Department. In one of his
letters Mr.. Barrett. then acting assistant
attorney general for the Post Office Depart
ment. had informed the witness that Mr..
helms was personal friend of the writer,
and, as helms was attorney for the wit
ness company, the writer would take no
action affecting the company until the re-
turn of helms from a trip he was then en-
Joying.
John E. Tappan Of the Investors Syndi-
cate" of Minneapolis. Mimi, also appeared
as a witness, at the instance of the prose-
cution.
The witness testified, among other things,
that upon the occasion Of a visit he made
to the Post Office Department Harrison J.
Barrett was recommended to him by Cen
eral Tyner as being 1.-The best informed
man on bond investment concerns in the
United States" Mr.. Barrett was later con-
suited in Baltimore as attorney by the wit
ness.
Samuel Hadley Smith of Detroit, Mich,
formerly connected with the Michigan
Debenture Company. next called as a wit
ness. testified that he had received one OF
the Barrett cards. announcing the forma-
ton Of the partnership with Nelms
w. B. Snow. post office inspector, was
also on the stand. He identified a state
ment made to him last summer by Mr..
Barrett. relative to the charges against
the latter.
Frank A. Little. post Office inspector,
was next called. He identified a report he
had made on the Mutual Fidelity Com
pany. The report was read to the jury.
Adjournment was then taken until to-
morrow mnrnipp a ~