The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1905-08-01
DIRECTED ONLY AGAINST HOLMES COUNTY JlLs SHOULD Be SAFE
Proceedings in Investigation of Cotton
Report Scandal.
PRESENTATION OF HAAS CASE
Hearing in Case against f. L. Peck
liam Postponed for a Day-Thc
Same Change is Made .Aeains: Peck
ham aud uaa-Iight Thrown Iuon
Several PCint Coflcernin. Which.
Only Little Was Known.

Only Little Wa Known.
Washington, July 2S.-The refusal
yesterday of F. 4. Peckham, a New
York broker, to answer questions he
fore the grand jury engaged in the in
vestigation Of irregularities connected
with the cotton crop report of the de-
partment OF agriculture was today
brought TO the attention OF Judge
Wright of the criminal court, but the
hearing in the case was postponed TN
til tomorrow. Similar action was tax
Ell in the case of Moses Haas, who
was also before the jury yesterday as
a witness and refused to testify.
The presentation was made by The
grand jury, at the instance of District
Attorney Beach and was in the shape
of a written charge in which was de-
tailed the proceedings before the IL
in which Mr.. Haas made his refusal.
The Haas case was chosen for detailed
IA DCt0uSC VI OH lllcSuldIlly
in the subpoena to Mr.. Peckham, Lut
the same charge is made against both.
Both the defendants were allowed
to depart upon their own recognizance
OF the assurance of their counsel la
they would be in court when wanted.
Peckham and Haas were given an
opportunity before the grand jury to
reconsider their refusal of yesterday,
but declined to do so. Haas was m
ployed in the department of agricul-
ture from 1898 to 1901, and was permit
ted to resign. lie IS alleged to nave
been the intermediary between Holmes
and the New York broker.
The proceedings in the grand jHry
room threw light upon several points
concerning which but little has SO far
been authoritatively stated. Mr.. Beach
is shown to have said that SO far the
proceedings are directed only against
former Assistant Statistician E. S.
HOlmesand that he is relying upon sec
ton 5451 of revised statutes ali the law
under which he is conducting the in
quiry. That statute prohibits the brio
cry of government employees, and i'm
poses as a penalty imprisonment for
not more than three years and a fine
not exceeding three times the amount
of the BRIDE.
The record also indicates hat Haas
declined at first even to be sworn, say
ing hat before ne would consent he
must know the purpose of the proceed
ing and the names of the parties,
against whom 1t is directed, in orde-
thof ho r1ioht cnnc,,lf o0,rnco1 &c tn
whether the jury had a right to pro-
coed in the matter.
For all | know" said Mr.. Haas, Il
may be the person, Or one of the per-
sons against whom this inquiry is di-
rected. If it is my counsel advises me
l cannot lawfully be compelled to ap-
pear before this body Or compelled to
be sworn much less to testify"
Replying to Mr.. Haas the district at
torney said that while it was not nee
essary, it was deemed not improper to
advise the witness that was pending
before the grand jury an inquiry as TO
the alleged criminal conduct of Holmes.
The witness, the district attorney
said, had the right to refuse to answer
questions tending to incriminate him.
After further protest Mr.. Haas was at
last sworn, whereupon he said that at
ter giving his name and residence lie
would say nothing more because his
answers might tend to incriminate him.
He then demanded to know whether he
had been implicated and Mr.. Beach re-
piled:
at is proper to say to the Wl:ncss
that the inquiry as directed at the
present moment is solely into the con-
duct of Edwin S. Holmes, Jr., and it is
equally proper to state that any fur
Their developments growing out Of the
alleged offense can properly be pur-
sued by the grand jury.
The examination then proceeded, Mr..
Haas saying that he was interested IN
the millinery business, horse-racing
and racing interests, and that he nad
lived in New York off and OF since
1873. He refused to answer ON the
ground that it might tend to incrimi-
nate him, questions whether he ever
lived in Washington, whether he was
ever employed in the department of
agriculture, whether he knew Frederick
A. Peckham and also whether he knew
Holmes.
Mr.. Haas then asked for an oppor-
tunity to consult counsel and was ex-
cused for the cay for that purpose.
When he appeared today he was given
opportunity to answer the questions
put yesterday and refused. The mat
ter was then certified to the court,
asking that the court issue an order
compelling Haas to reply.