Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-05-17
FOR THE DEFENSE.
Two Former Postmasters General
Testify in Tyner-Barrett Case.

When the proceedings were resumed this
morning the defense called Charles Emory
Smith, formerly Postmaster General of the
United States. witness. He was inter-
rogated by Attorney A 8. Worthington,
and first told of the custom Of the depart
ment while he was its head in regard to
fraud orders. The assistant attorney gen.
eral for the department would send to the
Postmaster General memorandum with
each fraud order case, upon which the
Postmaster General would act.
The witness testified that unless 1T was
the judgment of General Tyner that fraud
order should be issued in any case, no such
action would be taken. In other words,
General Tyner's discretion in such matters
was practically absolute
In reply to queries, Mr.. Smith stated
that he had been informed that Mr.. Barrett
intended to resign from the department and
engage in practice with a Baltimore gem
tleman some little time prior to the date
the resignation took effect. The witness
volunteered the remark that he could not
now remember whether or not he had been
told that the new firm would practice be-
fore the Post Office Department. At the
request of the witness Mr.. Barrett revised
the postal regulations, the understanding
being that although the then Postmaster
General could not promise that Mr.. Barrett
would be paid for the extra work, recon-
mendation for an appropriation to pay him
would be made. Later the appropriation
was secured.
The cross-examination of Mr.. Smith was
conducted by Maj Conrad. 1t was first
r,ade plain that the prosecution had had no
communication with the witness and prior
to the time he appeared on the stand this
morning was ignorant regarding the nature
OF his testimony.
The attention of the former Postmaster
General was directed by counsel to the
statute that the Postmaster General may.
"a tiafa To
fra I'D orders, &c. Maj. Conrad asked to
be informed whether the witness had found
any authority of law to issue fraud orders
without evidence.
Attorney 'worthington objected .'Gen.
Tyner and Mr.. Barrett cannot be sent to
prison because they followed practice Of
the Post Office Department" he declared
THE question here is. what was the prac-
tice of the department, not what 1T ought
to have beer.- The object of the prose-
cution is to argue with the witness for the
effect 1t may have with the court and the
jury"
Spirited Exchange of Views.
This assertion by the Leading attorney
for the defense aroused Major Conrad thor
oushly. and brought about the first genu-
inely spirited exchange of views between
counsel during the trial.
Il intended to produce an effect upon the
court" Major Conrad announced, with en-
phasis. Whatever effect / may hope to
produce upon the jury will be attempted
at the proper time, when propriety admits
of II.
Now, why these frequent references by
counsel for the defense to their clients be-
ing sent to prison and the penitentiary? ?
Are they not for effect?"
Major Conrad went on to say that the
jury has nothing to do with the question OF
punishment. Even IL convicted. he added.
the defendants may not go to prison. 1t
would be within the province of the court
to dispose of the matter by imposing a
light fine. Major Conrad concluded by ex-
planning that tho purpose of hig inquiry
was to show that Mr.. Smith. an Postmas-
ter General. issued fraud orders without
any evidence. as required by the statute.
Justice Pritchard ruled that the question