The Washington times., 1905-06-01
Witness, Again on Stand, Gives Testimony
Which involves CraWford---Agreed
to Divide Receipts.
RECITES REASONS FOR REVEALING
FACTS TO DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Cross Examination Fails to Bring Out Proof
of Collusion With the Prosecution.
Intense Interest in Court

NOW, how did II happen tfdl yo&
went TO the District Attorneys office?
Did you go there 0f your own acord. or
through prearrangement?
ct went there of my own Initiative.
was the assertion OF Lorenz.
Why did you go there?'
Lerenz then went on to tell Of his iri-
noeent motives, his absolute lack OF
knowledge that anything WIS wrong.
II went to see the District Attorney
for this reason, slowly said the Wit {.
ness Il was tried in the Croft case
along with Maehen and the Groffs.
and had my eyes opened.
Back In the SOS l made an arrange
ment with the Groffs. / entered int
that contract IN all sincerity. thinking
| was making an honrSt business con
tract. / was confirmed IN this opinion
by Maehen, who made the assertion
that nothing was wrong A. 10 TINS
deal with Crawford and AacheEl.
| Crawford had been q postal official, and
/ thought he knew what hs q as doing
| spencer Trask was a wei known
banker. With these parties thought
everything was right. entered the deal
thinking that I was no more doing any
harm than when selling bottle OF per-#
furnery which I make. The inyesiga~
| tion Of Mr.. AIachen, and the charges
against me in the indictment Simply
| paraiyzed me, and after being convicted
felt that I owed II 70 my self and family
: to make clean breast o. the Whois
affair
Visit to Worthington
Mr. worthington then referred to 3
| visit Lorenz made to his house ons
night, with his attorney, Judge Cum
/ Der. Crawford was there. At that
meeting. he said. Crawford proceeded
to tell all he knew about the matter
and you also talked about IL
What was your impression OF that
conversation? ?''
Z left with the impression that he
was deceiying his lawyer, was the
reply
Did you know the line OF the de-
tense the first day OF this trial?
Il did not, but read 1t later in the
Don't you think it was substantially
the same as laid down at my mousse
| that night?"
Lorenz was very determined in his
attitude not to remember anything
which occurred at that interview. To =.
: asked he said. .I don't remember.
The next point OF the cross-exaInlIllss.-
tion was Lerenz's relations VIII
out in the former trial. He told or lho
; -ofl deals in which he ana Macnea
were engaged. and said that the money
he sent Machen was not the result OF
any agreement, but in payment or fns
2 old debts due TO his losses In the eis
wells
Worthington hurled the following auess
i ..Tnen why did you just state that YOU
were told by Machen that You We're oa-
Ing no wrong; that your agreements
We're prefectly straight?
Embarrasses Witness.
0 This question produced considerable
embarrassment. the witness replying
t that they We're different transactions.
Iorenz said Maehen did not know tia
money he was sending him <Machsni
came from the Groffs.
The counsel for the defense, next cross
!, examined LoTenz to his meInod Oh
: banking and sending renifttances Se
Machen from various accounts.
" Isorenz said he had no uitefzor MOVIES
Il in doing this; that all the bankers ns
:. dealt with knew that he was sendina
i money 20 Machen.
- There was no attempt" he said, 'te
~ | conceal the fact that was seHuliiz
ie PoweyeT. Mr. Worthington made him
N admit that he mixed his bank accounts
~ Co keep people from knowing my ousa-
r ! ness
Mr.. Worthington shen went into tks
relations of Crawford and LoFcn2
I.orenZ said the first contact between
himself and Crawford, dated June Z
< 1902. was made out before he came Z
Washington. 4 never saw it until Jan'
'e '"iraen me this contract was already mad.
out before you came TO Washington! Z
he WAS asked.
or II think it was
He said the contract was eEioeIitls
prepared by Crawford and Machen, q
Machen sent for him to come on
lg Washington
ne ne Question of Checks.
The cross-examinanon then driftse
w along the lines of identifying checks.
10 A. one point MIR. Beach interrupts
ar the examination to say something L
IN the way of explanation.
Never mind. Mr. Beach, said Nj
Oh Worthington. IF the witness has any
n thing to say 10 you, let him say II 1
: private
.-bIe has never been to nay house, re
| torted MIR. Beach.
"a And he would never have been I
lis mine had I known him as I know hiTfl,
exclaimed counsel for The defenGan
I HE was my friend when thought an
,r- an innocent man: he is now your frien
when guilty man.
Lorenz on Hand.
When Lorenz resumed the stand tn
morning Major Conrad went into II
new line of evidence. whicb he r
ID ferred TO yesterday afternoon. tn
r." was in reference TO the alleged agrsa