The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-07-29

brief. Messrs Peckham and Haas were represented by Marcus Alter Of New York and A. A. Birney of the local bar. They made plea of time to make prep aration and were given untf1 Monday next at 10 o'clock.
 Both the defendants were allowed to depart upon their own recognisance on the assurance of their counsel that they would be in court when wanted. Peckham and Haas were In tho court house during the entire day, but they did not enter Judge Wright's court room.
 Declined te NsesnssAers M
 Much of the forenoon was spent by them with MT. Beach and the grand jury. They were given an opportunity to reconsider their refusal of yester- day, but declined to d. %.
 Haas was employed in the DspArt- mont of Agriculture from 1888 to 1901. and was permitted to resign. He 10 alleged to have been the intsrmediary between Holmes and New York erok- CTS The proceedings in the grand jury room throw light upon several points concerning which but little has SO far been authoritatively stated MT Beach is shown to have said that 70 far the proceedings are directed only against former Associate Stattstician E. 6. Holmes. and that he is relying upon Section Cl5t of the Rsviaed Stat utes as to the law under which he is conducting the case. That statute pro- hibits the bribery of 0over9mene em- ployes and imposes as penalty im- prisonment for not more than three years and a fine not exceeding tnree times the amount of the bribe.
 The record also indicates that Haas declined at first even to be sworn. sAy- ing that before he would consent nc must know tho purpose of the proceed- ing and the names of tho perties against whom 1t is directed in order that he might consult with counsel as to whether the jury has right to pro. ceed in the matter. For all know, said MT. Haas, T may be tho person or one of the persons against whom this inquiry is directed. If it is. my counsel advises me that cannot lawfully Dc compelled. to answer before this oody or compelled to be sworn, much less to testify.
 Replying to Mir Haas. the District Attorney said that while it was not nec- essary, 1t was deeped not improper to advise tho witness that there was pcnd- ing before the grand jury an inquiry as to the alleged criminal conduct Of Holmes
 The witness's Rights. without conceding any right to the witness to inquire into the delibera- tions of the grand jury. the District Attorney told MT. Haas that the infor- mation was given for whatever he sought to make of 1t. at the same time advising him that any collateral Inquiry the grand jury may make arising out of this investigation will be made by the present jury. Tho witness, said the District Attorney. had the right to re- fuse to answer questions tending to in- criminate him.
 After further protest Mir. Haas was at last sworn. whereupoh he said that after giving his name and residence he would say nothing more because his answers might tend to incriminate him. He then demanded to know whether he had been implicated, and MT. Beach re- piled: Tt Is proper to say to the witt ness that upon the inquiry as directed at the present moment 1t is solely into the conduct of Edwin g, Holmes. IT,. and t ts equally proper te ststa that of the alleged ofrcnse can properly De pursued by the grand jury.
 The examination then proceeded. Mir. Haas saying that he was interested in the millinery business, horse racing and racing interests and that he had lived in New York ofY and on since 1873. He refused to answer. on the ground that it might incriminate him, auestions whether he lived in Washington, wheth- CT he was ever employed in the Depart ment of Agriculture. whether he knew Frederic A. Beckham and also wheth- CT he k1ew Holmes.
 Mir. Haas then asked for an opportun- ity to consult counsel and was excused for the day for that purpose. When he appeared today he was given an op- portuinty to answer the questions put yesterday, and again refused. The lat- ter was then certified to the court, ask ing that the court issue an order com pelling Hass to repy.