The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1904-05-06
Continued from First Page.)

Mr.. Worthington asked whether wit
ness had ever heard that an arrange
n.ent had been entered into between Ty-
ner and Barrett for the preparation of
the opinion favorable TO continuation
of business by the bond investment COM
panies then under investigation.
Il never I'D" replied the witness,
smiling. 1T would be a poor way
''Why do you say that?' inquired Mr..
Worthington.
ut would have spoiled the companies
business" witness answered.
IF you had known what the view
of the department would be in the Bar
rett opinion, would you have made the
partnership agreement with Mr.. Bar
rett?'
i would not"
Because, in my opinion. that view
was too harsh on the companies. 1 did
not think It was warranted by the facts
of the situation"
Witness identified and read from
newspaper an advertisement inserted by
himself announcing the formation OF the
partnership between himself and Bar
rett.
Mr. worthington asked for the wit
ness opinion as TO Barretts ability and
qualifications. To this Mr.. Tsggart OBJ
jected, saying witness would not have
formed the partnership unless he had re-
garded Barrett favorably for the work
in view.
Finally. Mr.. Worthington framed a
question TO which opposing counsel did
not object and asked about Mr.. Bar
rett's standing.
II knew nothing of his standing as a
lawyer" witness replied. 81 knew of
him only as he handled matters In the
Postoffice Department, and Of his pa
thence in hearing cases. He sat more
as judge. never knew of him as a
lawyer in any case
The Barrett Opinion.
The views of the witness on the Bar
rett opinion he further explained by
saying that although it was destructive
to most of the companies he believed it
would be helpful to others by bringing
them within the requirements of the
law
Major Conrad reverted to the Nelms
advertisement read from the newspaper
a few minutes previously. and quoted |
statement contained that cases would |
be prosecuted in accordance with the |
ruling of the department in the Barrett |
opinion. The attorney asked whether |
the witness did not thus know In adj
vance what the opinion was to be. He |
said NO" Asked how. then. it was that |
such phrase had been quoted in the |
newspaper, witness said the cases were
TO be prosecuted in whatever way was |
necessary to meet the requirements of |
any opinion of the department.
Witness told of a fraud order issued !
ment Company. OF Louisville. He WAS |
employed to bring a test suit to de- |
termine whether the issuance of a fraud |
order could be defended on cOnStftu- |
tiCnal grounds. and further to ascer
tain whether the plan of the company |
would finance out" The suit vas
brought IN the name of T. B. Hoover |
secretary. against the postmaster at |
Lexington. Ky, and an Injunction waJ |
asked to prevent the enforcement of |
the fraud order.
4.
unconstitutional in so far as II applied |
10 the rights of TIE individual. Out C |
this suit was evolved a change in the |
plans of the company, which, 1t was De
neVed, would bring its policy into har-
mOny with the nos eal laws.
Mr. Worthingtnn asked witness to tell |
all he knew about the formation OF the |
Barrett opinion
Did Not Materialize.
What knew. didn't happen" re-
sponded the witness with a smile
He then told Of seeing Barrett at the
department and of Barrett coming to |
the home of the witness and of their |
casual conversation on the matter from |
time 70 time. At this time, witness rep
resented only one company. he thought |
Barrett had said he would not discuss |
the names of the companies under con-
sideration by the department as they
thought the ~ per cent basis" would |
work outi-that is. the plan promis- |
ing u per cent on the investment. This ]
was In August. 1900. when witness was |
in Europe and Barrett had written him
about it
Later Barrett's view began to narrow
doWn-abOut November 1900. In the lat |
ter part of that month witness knew
the company he represented would have |
TO change its plan. He knew this some /
little time before the opinion was made |
public.
Mr.. Worthington inquired whether the |
employment OF the actuary. d. Parks /
Fackler. TO investigate the promises of |
the investment companies had anything /
20 do with the narrowing down" OF
Barrett's views. Witness thought that i
supposition likely as Barrett had told 1
witness he intended to employ the best |
actuary he could find.
After Major Conrad had addressed the /
court in support of continuing the tes- |
timory, the witness resumed, telling of |
a meeting with Barrett in Baltimore at |
witness home or office on June q, 1900. |
i think he probably told me about that |
time that he was going to write the |
opinion for the Postoffice Department on /
the investment concerns.
The trial dragged along monotonously |
and shortly afterward helms was eX- |
Cused from the stand.
Charles A. Spenney was the next vie |
ness He IS about forty years of age.
and was a director OF the Ohio DeDen- |
manager of the Equitable Debenture |
Company. He identified a printed copy I
of the Barrett opinion.
In January, 1907, witness came 10 /
Washington with new certificate /
drawn up 10 meet the requirements of |
the department. He left Columbus on /
New Year Eve and got 20 Washington |
on the afternoon of New Year Day.
The next day he went to the Postof- |
fee Department and saw General TyneT /
ana had a conversation about his COM /
Lahv's business. Having no attorney. |
he asked General Tyner who WAS a !
good lawyer General Tyner said Mr. |
Parrett who had severed his connec- /
ton with the department, was a good |
man AMI that there were others. \ !
stenogra oher was sent TO see whether 4
Nh Barrett had left the building. BIT /
he could not be found He had been in /
the building a short time previously.
Continuing his description OF this visit /
to WASHINGTON. the witness SAID:
81 went TO Baltimore on January i
and saw Barrett. He asked 81 600 for /
representing the company before the /
Postoffice Department. ] said we were |
a new company, and offered $500. which |
was agreed upon. I was to pay 500 on |
nv return 10 Columbus, and 800 /
month afterward. Three of these pay
ments were made and the last $500 was |
paid afterwards by the receiver of the |
company.
ION January I went to the depart |
ment with Mr.. Barrett, and saw Gen |
eraI Tvner | showed him the Certifi- |
cate I had with me. and Mr.. Barrett |