Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-06-01
THE CRAWFORD TRIAL
Lorerz Tells the Story OF
the Deal"
QUESTION OF VERACITY
WHETHER He OR DEFENDANT rs
TRUTHFUL.
Questions by Mr.. Worthington De-
velops Memory Not Always to
Be Relied Upon.

George e. LorenZ today occupied the CELL
ter of the stage. so to speak. in the drama
being enacted in Criminal Court No. 1.-The
trial of the charge against William G. Craw-
ford that he conspred with August w. Ma
chen and Lorenz to defraud the United
States In connection with a contract for
supplying the Post Office Department with
letter carriers satchels and straps.
Lorenz, who was jointly indicted with
Crawford and Machen. is. the principal wit
ness against Crawford. Lorenz has testi-
fled that Crawford was fully aware of the
deal between Machen. Lorenz and him
self to divide the profits to be realized from
the contract in question. Crawford denies
that he was aware of any arrangement
whereby any of the money should go to
Machen.
The situation is one of veracity between
Lorenz and Crawford, it seems, and when
Lorenz was placed at the disposal of the
defense for cross-eXamnation today Attor-
ney WOrthington vigorously took steps to
fulfill his promise made to the jury in the
opening statement for the defense, to
prove the witness to be a liar before he
leaves the stand"
Like an avalanche Attorney Worthington
hurled his opening questions at LorenZ. AT
the outset he devoted his efforts to showing
that LOrenz is under conviction In the Gro1
case that he has been sentenced to peni-
Tertiary Imprisonment for two years and
that for some unknown reason he has not
yet gone to the neutrality-suspicious. in
order to testify against Crawford. 1t has
been repeatedly intimated by the defense
that the government has arranged to grant
Lorenz clemency in return for testimony
against Crawford.
Cross Examination of Lorenz.
The cross-examination of Lorenz was
started briskly.
81 learn from the records that a man or
your name was sentenced February q, 1904,
to the pententiary for two years. Attor-
ney Worthington remarked. Are you that
MANI"
Il am" Lorenz admitted.
When did you get QUIZ
The question was hurled at the witness
like a shot from cannon.
II haven't been in Lorenz replied.
quietly.
You haventY' Attorney Worthington
calculated, in tones betokening great as
constituent How did you arrange that?'
Il was In bed, at my home in Toledo,
sick for five weeks" LorenZ explained
You mean to say that you were not IN
court when sentence was imposed on you!
Attorney Worthington wanted to know.
United States Attorney Beach arose to
set matters right as to dateS-to eXpla
that Lorenz was sick at the time Machen
and the Groffs Were taken to the penlten-
tiary. and that Lorenz was in court when
sentence was imposed.
Attorney Worthington was on his rect III
an instant. ,
This is not the kind of witness the dis
trct attorney has the right TO protect, ne
declared with spirit. Il call the attention OF
the court and of the jury to the fact that
the district attorney has protected the wit
ness"
The court remarked that there had been
e. he. ,tnr Ion .F G.
examination. and the inquiry was resumed.
In answer to questions Lorenz explained
that he came to this city the 9TH of last
April.
The witness was asked If before he came
here he had seen AMY representative of the
government-any official of the Department
of Justice or of the Post Office Department.
He answered that government inspector,
Moore by name, had seen him frequently in
Toledo Lorenz did not know. he said, il
his counsel, Attorney Kumler, had any COM
munication with the authorities regarding
his case.
when first did you give any information
to anybody representing the government in
regard to this case?" LorenZ was asked by
Attorney Worthington.
LorenZ replied that be- made q statement
In the office of the United States attorney,
this city about the Crawford case last jan
Uary. before tie decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States in the Croft
case was announced. There were present
q. tne Tune lnltel states Attorney Beach.
Maj. Conrad, Attorney Kumler. Post Office
II srector Mayer and Assistant United
States Attorney Adkins. The statement
was reduced to typewriting and signed by
LcrenZ.
The witness was asked by the defense
how he happened to go to the United States
attorneys Office last January
II went there on my own initiative, "
IorenZ explained land for this reason:
made arrangements back in the nineties
with the GroffS. | entered into contract
in all sincerity. thinking it was an inno-
cent business proposition. / was confirmed
in that opinion by Machen. who made
frequent assertions that he knew what he
was doing l entered into this deal with
Crawford and Machen because Machen told
me II all right. Crawford had been in
the auditors Office and was in a position to
know what he was doing. Spencer Trask,
one of the best known bankers In New
York was back of Crawford's company.
When / entered into this deal ! had no
idea l was doing anything wrong. any more
than when 1 was selling a bottle of per-
fumery in my own business.
Then the investigation was made and
/ was brought to trial. l thought l was
innocent, but were found guilty of
technical violation of the law. The state
ments in Mr.. Bristow's report, and the
charges made against me in the indict-
ment. simply paralyzed me. and after the
result of the Croft case l felt 1t was a
duty | owed to myself and those con-
nected with me to let the government
know the facts.
MY attorney. Mr.. Kumler. made the ap-
pointment for me to go to the United
States attorneys office, but he did not
advise me to go. l went entirely of my
own volition."
Further, Lorenz declared that he did
not know at the time he made the state
ment. last January. that he would be called
as a witness for the prosecution, nor did
he know 1t till the case was called for
trial.
You shook hands with Crawford the
opening day of this trial. did you not?"
Attorney Worthington asked
Il did" the witness replied. 81 think
l shook hands with everybody 1 knew
here"
Lorenz was then Intercepted regarding
a conference held prior to the trial of the
| Croft case. in which Attorney Worthington
Crawford. Lorenz and Attorney Kumlel
| participated 1t was stated by counsel
that Crawford on that occasion said the
| facts were substantially the same as out
| lined to the jury by Attorney Worthingtor
| at the outset of the trial now in progress
! Lorenz was asked If that was not true.
! Il know that l went away from that con
/ ference with the impression that Crawford
was deceiving his lawyer" Lorenz said
He added that he was not aware whai
Crawford's defense would be.
! Have you a brother in this ciry?' the
/ witness was then asked.