Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-02-10

week." retorted Attorney Conrad. II am
not needlessly consuming time. The IN
quiry is consuming me-"
Il can stand it" interjected Machen.
Machen's Private Affairs.
'How freely the oil flowed yesterday"
remarked Attorney Conrad We're going
up hill now
"Oh, don't know" said Machen. rather
fiippantly.
An inquiry was made as to Machen's pr!-
vate resources, and Attorney Douglass
again objected.
THE question is an entirely proper
one" ruled Justice Pritchard: You may
note an exception if you desire.
Machen volunteered the statement that
certain property he had owned in Toledo
was held for him in his mothers name.
isn't 1t a fact" Attorney Conrad asked
that your investments had so reduced
you that when you came to this city you
actually had to borrow money of your
friends in order to move your family?
Yes, sir" admitted Machen. Il owed
$4,000. 1 have paid all of it, except
$1,000, and from assets of the oil COM
panies, that were not available when
came here"
The witness was asked If he had paid
certain creditors, who were named He
replied in the affirmative.
How about your note held by New
York trust company"
Calvin s. Brice settled that"
Was that Senator Brice?
YES sir"
"And he is dead, isn't he?" inquired At
torney Conrad, again speaking signifi-
Cantly.
He is," said Machen.
But don't suppose he took the note
with him?" added Attorney Conrad.
Machen stated that If he had had any
correspondence with the trust company
since the death of Senator Brice, relative
to paying the note. his memory was
q nj m hat
His Income.
After the usual midday recess the cross
examination of Machen was resumed, he
being asked what salary. he received from
the Post Office Department. Part of the
| time, he replied. his salary was 5000. and
later $500 year. Attorney Conrad then
asked IL the witness had any other sources
of income and the defense objected.
'The purpose of the question Is to show"
explained Attorney Conrad. that the wit
ness has succeeded since he came to this
city in paying $4,000 of an Indebtedness of
$4,000. although he received a salary of
not more than $500 a year, and had no
other source of income"
A spirited argument followed, Attorney
Douglass declaring that it had been proved
that Machen had been paid nearly S25. 900
by LorenZ on the note dated July /. 1898.
The only issue on trial, Attorney Douglass
insisted, was whether the money paid
ment Of an honest debt. The question of
whether or not Machen was a bankrupt, 1t
was added does not figure in the case. At
torney Douglass dramatically accused the
government of Juggling in every .circum-
stance that ingenious and fertile lawyers
can devise for the purpose Of beclouding
the jury
1.-The defense raised the issue of the bona
f1des of the LorenZ and Croft transactions"
ruled Justice Pritchard. THE question is
perfectly competent"
''Will your honor hear me?" inquired At
tOrney Kumler.
Il am always delighted to hear you," JUS
tice Pritchard replied, pleasantly
Attorney Kumler read from an authority
but the court remained of the opinion that
the question was competent
Replying to it, Machen stated that he
realized from certain chances he took
with his brother. land from some other le-
ultimate sources"
What were those certain chances?'
counsel demanded
Betting on horse races" explained the
witness.
Question Objected To.
Attorney Conrad asked If it was true that
from 1893 to 1903 Machen had deposited in
his bank in Westminster Nd, more than
1000. The defense objected and another
long argument, which developed consider
able heat, followed.
Attorney Douglass accused the govern
ment of asking the question solely for the
purpose of improperly influencing the jury.
United States Attorney Beach hurled back
the fact that the government had first SUBJ
mftted the question in writing to counsel for
the Defense. and that the latter had insisted
that the question be asked in the hearing of
the jury.
United States Attorney Beach explained
that the sole purpose of the question was
to affect the credibilty of Machen and
that an answer of Yes or NO would
settle the matter
Justice Pritchard said he would admit the
question solely for the purpose stated by
Mr.. Beach. but the defense persisted in
pressing the objection. Then, at the sug-
gestion of the court, the question was with
drawn for the time being. The court will
pass on 1t later. Justice Pritchard informed
counsel that the next time such an issue
is raised he will send the jury out of the
room until the controversy is settled