The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-05-05
METHODS OF ]. n. TYNER
H. J, BARRETT EXPLAINED
Witnesses Give Further Testimony
Against the Indianian and
His Nephew.
THE FRAUD ORDER CASES

WASHINGTON. May 4.-Richard Nj
Webster resumed the stand to-day in the
trial of James n. Tyner and Harrison j.
Barrett on charges of conspiracy in con-
nection with their duties as assistant at
torney general and assistant TO the assist
ant attorney general of the Postoffice De-
partment.
A. S. Worthington, consul for the defense.
cross-examined the witness in regard TO his
testimony as to the procedure in lottery
cases and the rule by which the fraud
orders are recommended and asked If his
testimony before the grand jury had been
the same as on the stand to-day.
The district attorney objected. but Justice
Pritchard permitted the question. for the
purpose of impeaching the witness and
on no other grounds"
Mr. Worthington argued that if il could
be shown that the testimony of the witness
had varied on the two occasions the court
would be bound to quash the indictments.
The witness declared that his answers be-
fore the grand and petit juries were in
tended to convey the same meaning. The
cases of suspension reported from the office
of the fourth assistant postmaster general.
member of the office force. In regard to
the bond investment companies under sus-
picion, Mr.. Webster said he had little
knowledge.
w. Z. Cochran, chief inspector for the
Postoffice Department, testified in regard
TO an accumulation of literature in regard
to bond investment companies which was
obtained for use of the assistant attorney
generals Office at the request of Mr.. Bar
rett in investigating the character of the
which were named. Mr.. Cochran said he
had often discussed the business of the
concerns with Mr.. Barrett. He quoted Mr..
Barrett as arguing that the business of the
companies was growing and that IL was
probable that many of the companies were
engaged in fraudulent business. By this
argument Mr.. Barrett obtained an appro-
priation for the employment of an actuary
to examine the companies. Mr.. Cochran
was not crosS-examined.
Hayes Morgan, formerly a clerk of the
Department. identified a list which he had
prepared of bond investment companies
which were under examination at the re-
quest Of Mr.. Barrett.
Mr.. Taggart examined Mr.. Morgan in re-
gard to the policy pursued in the depart
ment in regard to bond investment COM
panes, and he was asked why there had
been a reversal of policy in regard TO the
companies.
Mr.. Morgan said he could not say that
there had been a complete reversal of pol
Icy, and in explanation stated: Il did not
know what the policy would be about the
middle of December, 1900. After Mr. Bar
rett rendered his general opinion classify
ing the investment companies, he appeared
to cease to take any active part in con-
the department about that time and Gen.
eral Tyner instructed him to take up the
work where Barrett left Off" number
of Iaff
said the witness, in regard to whether GER
tain companies would be permitted to use
the mails, so long as they made new
contracts. Mr.. Morgan answered these
letters in the absence of Messrs. Chris
tiancy and Barrett, basing negative re-
ply on the general opinion which had pre-
viously been issued by Mr.. Barrett con-
Mr.. Barrett and Mr.. Christiancy returned,
Mr.. Morgan told them of his answer to
the letters. and that he was informed that
he had taken the wrong view of the situa-
ton. The letters were then recalled and
modified by the dctation of General Ty-
ner. who Informed the companies that they
would be permitted to continue the use
of the mails until the department ordered
otherwise. and fixed the date such use
should cease. According to the witness,
this constituted the entire change of policy
in the department.
On cross-examinatiOn the witness said
that Mr.. Barrett had most to do with the
bond investment companies. and that he
assisted Mr. Barrett In the work. Mr.. Nor
gan detailed a conversation between him.
self and General Tyner to show the latter
attitude toward the bond investment COM
panies. General Tyner was reported to
have expressed the opinion that some of
the companies had broken their promises
to the department, and if such were the
case the companies should be dealt with
criminally. Mr.. Christiancy expressed the
same view, said the witness but thought
it would be futile to send the ordinary
postoff1ce inspector who was not familiar
with the case General Tyner then de-
cided TO send me-" said Mr.. Morgan ito
make a general investigation to determine
just what companies were living up to their
agreements to change their plans of bust
ness so that they would be in compliance
of law
At this point the prosecution objected to
the witness giving testimony conversa-
tons which took place in the office Jus
tice Pritchard sustained the objections.
Mr.. Worthington took exception to the
ruling. Justice Pritchard, over the objec-
tons of the prosecution. authorized Mr..
Worthington to examine the witness extern
sively in regard to office practices in fraud
cases. While this was proceeding court
was adjourned until 10 a. m tomorrow.