The Washington times., 1904-05-10

an Identification of this circular. Mr.
Worthington objected. as on several
1 similar occasions previously. to the
employment of leading questions
This led to a sharp discussion. *
Mr.. WorthingtSn contended that the
/ prosecution could not ask whether the
announcement was made in a particular
way. as that was leading question. II
4 was necessary to inquire how il was
made
Conrad Steps In.
You have got to get some evidence
by leading questions asserted Major
Conrad, taking part in the discussion.
We'll. that is a matter for the court
to decide; not counsel" put in Mr
Worthington.
Major Conrad started to assent thor
oughly TO this view, when Mr. Worth
ineton, interrupting. said:
Now, l submit that it is not right
TO ask what kind of note paper. and
And just as the learned gentleman
submits" put in Major Conrad, $50
do / most deferentially submit. l put
my Question in an interrogative tone. al
any rate. Your honor understood IL as
question, and not as a judicial deter
mmation.
"A am not usurping the province o.
the court, concluded Major Conrad.
with some acidity, as he turned his
Continuing, and addressing the court.
Major Conrad contended IL was abso-
lutely necessary to ask leading cues
tons at times to secure identification
he said Mr.. Worthington had done So
in the course of this trial last week
when he had called upon Hayes Nor
gan to stand up in the courtroom to see
whether the witness Oh the stand could
stenographer of some years back.
noocr;ha5 NJ vno-4Ls-
Major Conrad warmed up to his argu-
ment and gave Mr.. Worthington a little
personal consideration to prove his con-
tention. Describing the opposing counsel,
without naming him. he said:
Suppose l should take witness and
say: Do you know a handsome man.
with dark eyes and dark hair, but bald
on the TOP OF his head who wears
glasses and is a learned man. ne would
say Why, yes, know thousand such
men, but would IL not be necessary to
nave the particular man stand up to see
ferred top
Witness OFT eventually described the
announcement received by him and
said he believed now that it was of the
form sent out by Barrett. He had en-
ployed Barrett and helms as his at
torneys before the department, and
later, in 1902. had also employed ex-Gov-
ernor Bradley, of Kentucky, TO come to
Washington in behalf of his companv.
Shortly afterward the Postoffice De- |
against his company. This order had |
never been recalled by the department, |
witness said.
Counsers Little Joke.
The examination went on. threshing
out matters gone over at length with |
other witnesses. but eliciting little new |
"A hi,
raj idly, and many of them needed only |
q yes" or mo- in response. This |
did not please opposing counsel.
I suggest, Mr.. Taggart. that you just |
write out the answers for this Wit |
ness" commented Mr.. Worthington, in |
sarcastic tcne.
Mr. Taggart next submitted some LONG |
printed documents to Mr. Worthington |
As the latter could not examine them |
AZ once, he announced he would not be |
sDle 10 tell, until after the recess, just |
what cr0ss-examination would be re-
serted TO- Witness was, therefore, ex-
oLsed temporarily
Papers Destroyed.
]. w. Britton, formerly secretary of |
the Colonial Investment Company, of |
Cincinnati Ohio, was called next. He |
testified to receiving a copy Of the Bar
rett opinion and one of the Barrett |
Nelms circulars. Although ne could not
testify absolutely. he believed the latter |
announcement was one Of the Barrett |
kind
On cross-examination Mr. Worthing- |
ton asked what became OF these papers |
They were all destroyed" responded
the witness.
by accident or design"
by design"
On redirect examination, witness said
the last answer meant that when 1.-The |
company's business had been closed up, |
there had been no further use for the
papers.
Witness was questioned closely as TO
when IL was recently that ne had first
tried 10 recall the contents OF these cir
culars. He said about fifteen days ago.
Mr.. WOrthingtOn asked whether Mr. |
Tagsart had asked him TO recall the
matter.
As witness hesitated a moment and
looked about the room. District Attor-
ney Beach suggested In an aside TO Mr.
Worthington, Ask him to stand up re-
verting TO the colloquy between counsel
some time previously.
Witness said It was not Mr.. Taggart,
but he knew who IL was. He said he
thought he could even point out the
man I'm the courtroom.
Counsel told him TO do so, and witness
Indicated POstOffice Inspector Gregory
who sits at a large desk and keeps track
OF some of the official documents used
In the trial. Witness was then excused.
Evidence On Circulars.
NJ G.. Watson, of Huntingdon, w.
Va, secretary of another bond invest
ment company. gave evidence almost
identical with that of the preceding Wit
ness as to the receipt of the Barrett
announcement.
Elmer j. Miller. formerly a member
of the board of directors of the Ohio
Debenture Company, of Columbus, also
cave evidence along these lines Wit
ness is now a Government official IA
the customs service there, Columbus
having been designated a port of entry
Witness told of having met Barrett
and helms in Baltimore, on the even
ing of December 81 1900, for the pur-
pose of consulting with them TO per-
feet the company's contract. He could
not tell definitely whether or not he had
asked Barrett TO represent his company
before the department. but thought he
had not
A telegram to Barrett, signed in the
witness name. was introduced I'm evil
dence. 1t was in relation TO Barrett's
services, and indicated an arrangement
to that effect. Witness would not adj
nit having sent the message.
Gould II be possible that anyone out
there was masquerading in your name,
and sent that telegram inquired Mr.