Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-06-08

with detectives he was ready to tell the
United States attorney all he knew relating
10 Post Office Department matters.
The statement was also made by the de-
PENDANT that he made another visit to the
Post Office Department 10 see Inspector
Fosnes. He told the inspector that by adj
vice of his counsel he would answer no
further questions. inspector Mayer entered
the room and said that there was a matter
he wanted to ask Crawford about. Craw-
ford referred the inspector to Attorney
WorthingtOn-
Mayer Becomes Angry.
Mr. Mayer thereupon became very
angry" Crawford declared. He told me
IL wanted to place myself In the position
of defendant he would have to treat me
as such, and added that 1 acted as though
1 was a guilty man. and that he would ask
me and my counsel questions in place
we wouldn't like"
Further. Crawford testified that his letter
to Lorenz. setting forth that more straps
would soon be needed was merely "sar-
castle threat" based on the fact that Lo-
REM had never furnished any straps. and
was doing nothing for the money paid him.
The defendant declared that he never had
any intention of deceiving the Postal Lock
and Device Company. of which he was
manager
Attorney worthington concluded the d.
rect examination of Crawford by asking:
Did you at any time any place agree
with Machen or Lorenz, or either of them,
that any money realized from this contract
should find its way to Machen?'
Il did not Crawford replied, firmly.
"You may cross-examine, Attorney
Worthington then said, addressing the gov
ernments legal representatives.
Result of Cross Examination.
At the beginning of the cross-examination
Attorney Conrad brought out that while
in MIR. Bristow's "sweat-box' others than
Nrqy yfo Including priS he
Inspectors. were sweating" for the day
was warm one. Crawford admitted that
he had not attached any significance to the
facts that the windows of Mr.. Crawfords
office We're closed
1t was also developed that Mr.. Bristow
had lectured the defendant. That one
of the reasons that led up to Crawford's
employing counsel.
The defendant was asked why he did not
tell Mr.. BriStow that money had passed
from himself to Lorenz and from Lorenz to
himself. The reply was that the subject did
not come up. Attorney Conrad then want
ed to know why Crawford did not breach
the subject. The defendant replied that he
was kept busy answering questions.
Attorney Conrad took some pains to show
that Crawford had surreptitiously cut a
copy of a letter from the letter-preSs copy
book belonging to a firm in Newburgh, N.
Y. and had erased from the index of the
book the reference to the copy of the let
ter in question. The copy of the letter
has been offered in evidence by the defense.
The inquiry next turned to a statement
made by the defendant on his direct exami-
nation to the effect that he took a certain
individual to luncheon was liberal enough
TO provide bottle of champagne and Sc
cured the signature of the individual re-
ferred to to a contract. the terms of which
were made by Crawford. The proceedings
were enlivened when Attorney Conrad said:
This reminds me of an old judge in Vir-
ginia, who insists that a bottle of wine is a
scire facias-it revives the Judgment
Payments to Lorenz.
The defendant was asked to explain why
he paid money to LOrenz in connection with
the satchels contract. The reply was that
Lorenz gave up his opportunity to bid for
the contract by combining with the Postal
Device and Lock Company; that Lorenz
had agreed to manufacture straps for the
satchels and that the defendant had finally
agreed to accept from Lorenz % per cent
of the latter's receipts from the contract
for looking after LorenZ's interest and max
ing him prompt remittances.
Attorney Conrad next inaugurated a
searching inquiry of the defendant as to
Just what iorenZ did to entitle him to the
money paid him under the satchel contract.
Adjournment was taken at the usual hour
this afternoon until next Monday morning.