Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-07-28

Al am interested In the millinery
business, also horse racing.
Q.--And racing interests?
Ayes sir.
GLOW long have you lived In New
York, Mr.. Haas?
A.-Well of and on since 1898.
Odd you ever live in Washington?
A. l refuse to answer the question. as the
paper states which l read. on the ground
that the answer may tend to incriminate
me-
Q. Were you ever employed in the Agri-
cultural Department?
A. I refuse to answer ON the same ground.
Were you ever employed in the forestry
division of the Agricultural Department?
May l consult counsel that point?
Not now.
1 refuse to answer on the same grounds.
Do you know Mr.. Frederick A. Peckham,
who just left the room?
L refuse to answer on the same ground.
Did you ever have the pleasure of the ac-
quaintance OF Mr.. Edwin s. Holmes, IT.?
L respectfully decline to answer, on the
ground that it may tend to incriminate me.
and also on the ground that the paper
states which | have filed.
Mr.. Beach, will say to the witness that
uEder the two processes that were served
upon him. one in New York and the other
recently served upon him here in the Dis
trict of Columbia he is forbidden to leave
the jurisdiction without having first obtain
ed leave of the court or leave of the district
attorney.
Witness: Before leaving / wish to make
statement Geading statemenD I am will
Ing to submit to examination If my counsel
advises me to do so, and am also wiling
to answer any questions which, after con-
sideration with them, they may advise me
to answer. or that the court, after hearing
may direct me to answer, and ask for an
opportunity for obtaining their advice.
Mr. Beach: The district attorney in the
name of the foreman and gentleman of the
jury, has advised the proceeding witness
and now advises Mr. Haas that he is at
il,nrt To fol Ill 81 I,nS
but that the grand jury cannot but con-
slider that obstacle to proceeding In the
regular course and enforcing the testt-
mony.
lily excused.
Again Declined to Answer.
And on this day, to wit, the 2Sth day OF
July. 1905, In the district aforesaid and in
the manner aforesaid, the grand jury again
convened and the said Moses Haas was
again called before the grand jury. and by
the district attorney at the request of the
foreman and members of the grand jury,
interrogated follows:
Q. Mr.. Haas, since you were excused yes
terday afternoon, for the purpose. among
other things OF allowing you to consult your
counsel, have you in any wise reconsidered
the propriety of answering the questions
put to you yesterday?
A refuse to answer the same questions
that were asked me yesterday on the same
grounds.
And the grand jury aforesaid, though
mindful of the obligation of secrecy i'm
posed upon them by law In the discharge of
their duty, are nevertheless compelled in
the due and proper course of their inquiry
to ask that this honorable court forthwith
Issue a rule against the said Moses Hass
that 1t may by the court be determined
whether or not he should answer the ques-
lions to him propounded above set forth
and for such further action as the court
may take.
The grand Jurors further certify that the
said Moses Haas and one Frederick A.
Peckham, the latter being In like manner
summoned, as was the said Moses Haas, to
appear before them in the matter aforesaid
are non-residents of the District of Column
bia and have each denied the right of the
grand jury to summon them and each of
them as witnesses aforesaid, and the grand
jury requests that they and each of them
be recognized and bound over by this court
not to depart from this jurisdiction without
the leave of the court or district attorney
first had and obtained.
What Counsel Says.
Mark Alter, who came to Washington
from New York with Messrs Peckham and
Haas, said today in discussing the case:
Under the circumstances of my clients
presence In Washington as witnesses under
grand jury subpoena, 1 am precluded from
relation to the true facts in the cotton
scandal 1t is unfortunate that Mr. Peck
nam and Mr.. Haas are unable at this time
to state their side of the case.
Acting under advice from their counsel
winch L deem necessary under the circum-
stances, they have acted under instructions
as TO their constitutional rights. They NAV
yet be forced to testify before the grand
jury, and must perforce maintain silence
until a Judicial decision Is rendered as to
the justification of their present attitude I
feel, however, that It is only fair to say
that when circumstances permit over
which they at present have no control, a
statement may be made which will clear
up the existing involved situation and COM
pletely exonerate my clients"
1t VIII be known tomorrow just now much
foundation there IS for the contention Of
Haas and Peckham that they canno. be
compelled to testify. In view of the in
structions given to the grand Jury by
Judge Wright some days ago, 1t is a mat
ter of general belief at city hall that Judge
Wright Will direct the witnesses to answer
The questions put by the district attorney
and that in the event of a refusal the wit
nesses will be severely punished by prison
sentence The decision of the Judge IS
awaited with the greatest interest