Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-07-29

conspiracy of one or more persons with
Edwin s. Holmes, jr., that either of the
charges may be and is usually provable by
crcumstantial evidence; that any state
ments made by him in response to any ques-
tions that may be propounded to him by
the grand jurors may elicit a fact which
of itself will tend to establish some circum-
stance tending to show the existence of a
conspiracy; and such conspiracy being es-
tablShed, the respondent, If deemed a party
thereto, will be held and bound by any act
or statement made by any of the other
parties thereto; that being by name impli-
Gated in the charges against Edwin S.
Holmes, the respondent Is exempt and priv
ileged blythe law of the land and his con-
stitutional rights as citizen thereof from
being required to testify to anything in the
premises. and also from being required to
appear before the grand jury In the cause
of the United States agt. Edwin S. Holmes
The respondent further asserts that Judd
and Van Ripper preceded him before the
grand jury, and that he does not know the
nature of their testimony which he thinks
may reflect injuriously upon him. His re-
fusal to answer before the grand jury was
in good faith, the respondent says, and be-
cause he believed that TO answer might in
criminate him.
Mr.. Birney's Argument.
Mr.. Bfrney then read the entire state
ment issued by the Secretary of Agricul-
ture, following the presentation to him Of
the secret service report
Mr.. Beach interrupted him long enough to
make the point that the Secretary's state
ment had no legitimate connection with the
question before the court, the only point
being, as he claimed, that Haas had re-
fused to answer questions put to him by
the grand jury. After some colloquy, how
ever. Mr.. Beach withdrew his objection and
Mr.. Birney finished the reading of the
1ad wit
ment to show that Haas should not be
compelled to answer.
Mr.. rBirney said that even in the brief
proceedings before the grand jury Mr.
Beach had sought to prove the. connection
between Holmes and Haas, showing that
the establishment Of that connection was
essential, in order to establish crime.
Mr.. Birney declared that for all Haas or
or any one else knew save the district at
torney and the members of the grand jury,
proceedings might even now be under way
against Haas
Mr.. Birney also asserted that the report
of Secretary Wilson practically accused
Has of having been a go-between to carry
information from Holmes to Price, the New
York cotton king, and that the intimation,
If not the direct charge, contained in the
statement that Haas was guilty of a
crime, constituted ground upon which the
court might base ruling eXempting Haas
from answering the questions in dispute.
He quoted from decisions of the Supreme
Court to sustain his contention.
The District Attorney Replies.
Mr.. Beach. In his argument. contended
that the statement by the Secretary Of Ag-
riculture had nothing to do with the case,
decisions in support of his claim that Haas
should be made to answer
1t was at this time that Mr.. Beach made
the statement that Haas was not directly
concerned in tle present proceedings
against Holmes. for the reason that the
case was being conducted under section
5i51 of the Revised Statutes.
This section provides three years i'm
prisonment for any person convicted of Of
ferlnS bribe to an official of the govern
ment to induce him to dvulge informa ton
belonging to the government, the same be-
Ing held to constitute a fraud. The dis
trict attorney pointed out that as Holmes
was named as the object of the proceed
fngS, II could not possibly be Haas who
was being proceeded against for offering
bribe. but must be Holmes himself
There was quite stir in the court room
when this announcement was made particu-
Iariy as II mas been generally believed here
tofore that the first proceeding of the grand
jury would be in connection with the indict-
ment of the former associate sta.istician for
accepting a bribe, and not for giving one.
Mr.. Beach claimed that the witness Haas
had evidently been coached and schooled as
to his conduct before he entered the court
room. as before he was sworn and before a
question had been put to him he read a
paper announcing that he would stand on
his constitutional rights. and further, that
any answer he might give might tend to
incriminate him.
Justice Wright's Ruling.
At the close of the arguments Justice
Wright explained his view of the case, and
ruled that as In his opinion, Haas must be
considered in the same position as If he
were on trial for bribery, all questions pro-
pounded to the witness and which the lat
ter refused to answer must be passed upon
separately by the court, just as If Haas
had taken the stand as defendant in a reg
uiar criminal proceeding. He could not be
forced to answer incrimnating questions
At the request of Marcus Alter, counsel
for Haas and Peckham, the defendants
were paroled in his custody until Tuesday
morning at IL o'clock, With permission to
remain out of the city until that time Mr..
Alter, with his clients, lef, on an afternoon
train for New York.