The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1904-02-23
CONTINUED from First Page)

Fifth-"What was the evidence against
the defendants?"
! Slxth-"what was the value Of the
statments made by the defendants?"
Il stand here" said the speaker.
mot only as a counsel for the defend
ants, but as an officer of the court.
and above all, as man, responsible
before God and man for my conduct in
this case"
The first proposition was the debt
between Machen and Lorenz. The
| speaker would put that out Of the case.
so effectuaIy that no lawyer could con-
| trovert II. The eighth prayer of the
/ defense was read II was that If the
! jury found Lorenz owed the $4,000 to
| Machen he had the right to pay the
! debt in any manner and in any pro-
! portion of payments. although Machen
knew the money was coming from the
/ Croft fasteners. provided the official
actions of Machen were not influenced
| by the payments.
Points Beyond Dispute.
Some facts in the case were beyond
the contentious of counsel, and the fact
that the Machen and Lorenz oil interests
existed and that they were highly val
luable: that the money was reinvested
and that finally the refinery was built
could not be disputed Not one word Of
| evidence against the oil properties had
been offered by the prosecution.
Within twenty-four hours after Mr..
Kumler had made his opening state
ment to che jury month ago. two III
spectors went to Toledo to investigate
I the truth of his statements If the IL
spectors did not make such a trio tse
attorneys for the prosecution haG seri-
|
Back in 1891. before the germ OF post
office ambition had entered Machen's
| mind, he and Lorenz were engaged in
the oil business and took an inventory
of their assets. They were found TO
be s222, S3f.SS. Counsel for the prosecu-
ton should say II the values were cor
rect on November l, 1891.
Mr.. Conrad Interrupts.
Mr.. Conrad broke in by saying that
the Government had not denied the
value of the property.
Mr.. Douglass-Do you admit the value
of the consideration OF the note for S25,-
600 That's what we want
Mr.. Conrad-We have admitted the
value of the oil fields, but we do not
admit the validity of the consideration
for the note.
Mr.. DougIass-They have made one
admission. and I consider this red-let-
ter day. They have admitted the value
of the property in 1891 20 have been
SOD, 4.3S. but yet they say less than one
year and a half later two-fifths interest
was not worth $4,000. The Indebtedness
and depreciatiOns were subtracted when
the inventory was made TO get the value
of Machens share. and it was found 10
be worth S62,5OO. and two-fifths of that
/ L
Machen note.
Had Right to Buy.
Machen had n right to buy the fifth
interest Of Ferdinand Machen for s.. 200
and sell It one year later to Lorenz for
S12.50O, but he did not do il. The Gov
eminent had misled and blinded the jury
by juggling the figures. Ferdinand had
put only $500 in the oil business and
Machen carried Ferdinands note for
$3.50. In the first three months Ferdi-
nand drew $500 in interest on his 500
in cash. Ferdinand became frightened
by the panic, and. fearing his honse
would be sold over his head. approached
A. w. Machen and agreed to sell cut
for 500 in cash and the cancellation of
the note for $500.
He showed poor judgment by selling
to go into a business mans judg-
ment in making price for his prop
erty. Small creditors, the worst Of all.
were pressing; at any moment a receiv-
ership might have been asked, and then
the magnificent property would have
melted like a SNOWFALL. Under the cir
cumstances Ferdinand Machen did not
display such poor judgment
Sold Private Property.
Iorenz saved the day by selling his
private property to pay the debts OF the
refinery, the danger was averted, and
then Machen had a right 70 value his in
terest much more highly, considering
that the danger Of its being wiped out
had disappeared.
Taking the amount of nloney really
put in the oil deal by Ferdinand Ma
chen, he lost only about 5000 by selling
when he did.
Mr.. Douglass said he would show that
there was transfer Of Machen's two
fifths to Lorenz on January Z, 1893.
Mr.. Conrad said he would admit the
validity of the transfer to shorten that
line of discussion.
Mr. Douglass produced the paper
signed by LOrenz on July 6, 1893, In
which he rented the plant in his own
name to the Merriam firm. coupled with
an offer TO sell it. Mr. Purdy was Sc
verely arraigned for having failed to
mention this paper. and was accused of
attempting 10 deceive the jury by de-
Hberately Withholding evidence tending
to show that Lorenz had bought out
Machen earlier in the year.
Taking up the celebrated note for S25.-
O00 Mr.. Douglass asserted that not one
scintilla of evidence had been introduced
70 CHI baf NOT Z , .,-