New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-05-05
THE TYNER TRIAL.
Testimony as to Defendants ReIa-
tiOns 1cith Fraudulent Concerns.

Washington May 4-Richard NJ Webster
sumed the stand to-day in the trial of James ".
Tyner and Harrison ]. Barrett on charges Of
conspiracy in connection with their duties In
the Postoffice Department. a. S. worthington.
counsel for the defence cross-examined him as
TO the procedure in lottery cases and the rule by
which fraud orders are recommended. and asked
il his testimony before the grand jury had been
the same as on the stand to-day Assistant
District Attorney Taggart objected, but Justice
Pritchard permitted the question "for the pur-
pose OF impeaching the witness and on no other
grounds" Mr.. worthington argued that If IL
could be shown that the testimony OF the Wit
ness had varied the court would be bound 10
quash the indictments. The witness declared
that HIS answers before the grand and petit
juries were intended 10 convey the same mean
ing He said that the cases Of suspension re-
ported from the office of the Fourth Assistant
Postmaster General first submitted TO
Huebner a member of the Office force. In re-
gard to the bond investment companies under
suspicion. Mr. Webster said he had little knowl-
edge.
w e Cochran. chief inspector for the Post
office Department testified IN regard to ac-
cumulation of literature relating TO bond in
vestment companies which was obtained for use
OF the Assistant Attorney Generals office at the
request Of Mr. Barrett in investigating the char
acter Of the business performed by several con-
Germs, which were named. Mr.. Cochran said he
had often discussed the business OF the concerns
with Barrett. He quoted Barrett as arguing
that the business Of the companies was growing.
and Il was probable that many Of them were
fraudulent BY this argument Barrett obtained
an appropriation for the employment OF an
actuary TO examine the companies Mr.. Coch-
ran was not cross-examined.
HAYES Morgan formerly a clerk In the office
of the Assistant Attorney General for the Post
Office Department. identified list he had pre-
pared Of md investment companies which were
under examination at the request OF Barrett
Mr. Taggart examined crorgan about the
policy pursued in the department in regard 10
bond investment companies. and he was asked
why there had been a reversal OF policy. Mr..
Morgan said he could not say there had been
complete reversal Of policy. and in explanation
stated:
did not know what the policy would be about
the middle OF December 1900. After Mr.. Bar
ing the investment companies. he appeared TO
cease 10 take active part In conducting the
about that time, and General Tyner instructed
him 10 take up tie work where Mr.. Barrett
left of.
Letters were received from concerns. the wit
ness said. in regard 10 whether certain compa-
nies would be permitted TO the mails so
long as they maze no new cOnlrdcLs- MI. MOI
gan answered these letters in the absence Of
Christiancy and Barrett, basing a negative re-
ply on the general opinion which had previously
been issued by Barrett condemning these COM
| panles. When Barrett and Christiancy returned.
Morgan told them OF his answer 10 the letters
and was informed that he had taken the wrong
view OF the situation. The letters were then re-
called and modified at the dictation OF Mr..
Tyner. who informed the companies that they
would be permitted to continue 10 use the mails
until the department ordered otherwise, and
nxed the date when such use should cease: Ae-
cording 10 the witness, this constituted the
change Of policy in the department.
On eross-esamination the witness said that
Barrett had most 10 do with the bond invest
ment companies, and he assisted Barrett In the
work. He related a conversation with Mr.
Iyner 20 show the latter's attitude toward the
bond investment companies. Mr. Tyner
ported 20 have expressed the opinion that some
Of the companies had broken their promises TO
the department. and IL so they should be prose-
cuted. Christiancy held the same view the wit
ness said but thought il would be futile 10 send
the ordinary postofiice inspector, who not
familiar with the case. Mr.. Tyner then de-
cided to send me-" said Mr.. Morgan. ito make
general investigation TO determine Just what
companies were living up 10 their agreements TO
change their plans OF business that they
would be In compliance with law"
Al this point the prosecutor objected TO the
witness giving as testimony conversations which
took place I'm the once Justice Pritchard sus-
tained the objections. and Mr.. Worthington took
exception TO the ruling. Justice Pritchard, oys-
| the objections OF the prosecution, authorized
Mr.. Worthington 20 examine the witness ex-
tensively in regard 10 ONCE practices in fraud
cases. While this WAS proceeding court was adj
4 5ourned until 10 g. m. Tomorrow.