The Washington times., 1904-01-13

to discover anything Machen would re-
sent it,"
Mr.. Howley did not remember OBJ
tanning a list OF employees which showed
the number of stenographers to be sixty
five.
Dangerous to Question.
Did YOU ever ask how many letters
went of Machen's Officer"
NO; IT was dangerous"
Because of Machen's size?" asked
Mr.. Douglass.
And weight?" Clipped in Mr.. Beach,
sarcastically.
No: 1t was because he resented Il /"
Did Machen ever refuse you an ar
swer when you asked him a question:
No. he was always ready with an "a
swer," said Howley
Mr.. Douglass thought this an insinu-
alton against Machen, but Mr. Howley
would not admit he meant It in that
way.
Mr.. Howley said Machen became angry
with him for asserting his authority as
chief clerk. For three or four months
before the investigation began Machen
did not speak to witness.
Mr. Kumier asked about the routine
pursued in ordering goods for the dI-'
visions. Mr.. Maddox brought out from
the witness that he had never heard of
the Croft fastener until the investlga-
ton began.
Mr.. Conrad Objects.
At this point. Mr. Conrad objected tn
each counsel having the right TO cross
examine for the defendants. He cited
the star route cases. I'm which, only one
counsel was allowed TO ask questions
Justice Pritchard said he thought JUS
tice required each defendant TO have the
right to crOss-examine but ne would
see they were not allowed to waste time
On redirect examination. Mr.. HowIey
was shown paper recommending the
purchase Of package OF Gro1 fasten-
ers. and identified his own signature
ana what he thouhgt TO be that Of Ma
chen.
Wynne Takes Stand.
r. ]. Wynne, First Assistant Post
master General, was put on the stand
ut ll:l5 He was asked about the method
OF the divisions in ordering supplies.
He identified an order for Groff fasten-
ers which he had signed
Mr.. Wynne said he had nothing TO do
with the origin Of the request for fast
eners, and would not have known about
them unless they were drawn to his at
tentlon.
Upon whom did you rely in signing
the papcr?''
Upon the superintendent of the free
delivery division"
Mr.. Kumler objected. saving the oues-
ton upon whom Mr.. Wynne relied was
not relevant. and was unfair TO the de-
fendantn He also said the question
was not covered by the Indictment. Mr.. |
Taggart read the indictment, and said
7 clearly covered the question OF
Machen violating the confidence placed
in him by his superior
Mr.. Kumler asked especial attention
be paid TO the objection TO the question, |
as the same one would arise throughout
the trial.
Justice Pritchard overruled the OBJ
lection and an exception was noted
Depended on Machen.
Mr.. Wynne was asked about the duties |
Of his Office. and when he explained |
that he relied upon the superintendent 4
OF free delivery. whose. duty it was 10 !
make recommendations. the defense OBJ
.ected strenuously. saying Mr.. Wynne I
was interpreting the laws and regula-
lions which set forth the duties OF the
First Assistant Postmaster General
The objection was overruied.
Mr.. Wynne continued by saying he
-elied entirely upon Machen and acted
upon his signature TO the orders.
Dir. Douglass objected saying there
Was not such a declaration in the in
iictment as would sustain fraud He
aid:
our contention is there is no aIlega-
ion in the Indictment sufficient to sus-
ain Charge Of fraud, and that II the i