Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-07-29
JUDGEWRIGHT'SRULING
CASE OF THE RECALCITRANT
WITNESS DECIDED.
District Attorney Beach's Announce
ment Of the Charge Against
Holmes a Great Surprise.

| Beach that the grand jury was at present
proceeding against former Statistician
| Holmes of the Agricultural Department, not
| for accepting a bribe. but for giving one
| to another employe of the government
| This statement by the district attorney
| came as a great surprise to those in the
court room, as II was generally believed
| that the grand jury was proceeding against
Holmes for accepting bribe, given him as
| reward for divulging to New York cotton
brokers information collected by The bu-
| reau of statistics for use in preparing the
| government cotton reports. But the dis
| trict attorneys declaration makes 1t ap-
parent that Holmes did not work alone in
| the bureau OF statistics in connection with
the cotton leaks, but that one or more en-
! ployes of the Agricultural Department were
| In collusion with him
In the Haas itself Justice Wright
| held that the statement issued by Secretary
of Agriculture Wilson on the cotton crop
report scandal puts Haas in the attitude Of
| a defendant in criminal proceeding, and
that the latter could not be compelled to
answer, at the direction of the grand jury,
questions tending to incriminate himself.
Haas position is just the same, the
court announced. "as if he were on trial
for bribery and had been put on the stand.
The question of the relevancy and charac-
ter of each question submitted to him
would have to be passed upon by the court
in that event. and the present circum-
stances are similar"
OF the four questions asked Haas-wheth-
er he had ever resided in Washington
whether he had ever been employed in the
Agricultural Department. whether he knew
Frederick A. Peckham and whether he knew
Edwin S. Holmes-the court held that he
must answer the first two, but need not re-
ply to the others.
The decision of the court, briefly stated
was that all questions submitted to Haas
by the grand jury which the witness re-
friCa fO ans hn hrY,ifr ed IN
court for determination TO their nature
and for ruling to whether replies by
Haas would tend to incrimnate the wit
ness.
Haas Must Answer Tuesday.
District Attorney Leach gave notice to-
the court after the ruling had been an
nounced that the same question would un-
doubtedly come up again, and perhaps more
than once. The grand jury was excused
yesterday afternoon. and will not meet
again until II O'Clock Tuesday morning.
Haas will then be called and required to
answer the questions as to whether he ever
lived in Washington and whether he had
ever been employed in the Agricultural De-
partment.
If he refuses answer to these two inter-
rOgations he will be brought into court by
the district attorney and his punishment re-
quested- AS Judge Wright has directed the
witness to answer these questions, his fail
4
Immediate and severe punishment.
On the other hand, the questions which
the court held that Haas need not answer
having to do with his acquaintance with
Peckham and Holmes-the district attorney
considers to be of minor Importance, and
he wasn't greatly concerned whether or not
answers were obtained.
But more pertinent questions will be put
to Haas on Tuesday, when the grand jury
resumes its sessions. and upon his refusal
to answer, which is in the nature of a fore
gone conclusion, the court will be asked 10
pass upon the new interrogations. The
process will be a tedious one, and can be
slmplified in some measure only by the dis
trict attorney making up list of all the
questions he desires to ask the witness and
submitting them to Haas. placing the list
before the court upon the continued re-
fusal of witness to reply.
When the Haas case was called this
morning Messrs. Haas and Peckham-the
latter being also recalcitrant witness
were in the court room for the first time
since their cases have been a subject Of
action by the grand jury. The court room
was well filled and the many lawyers pres
ent showed deep interest in the proceed
ings Mr.. Haas represented by Mark
Alter. the New York attorney who came
10 Washington with the two cotton men,
and former District Attorney Birney.
1t was recalled by many of the lawyers
present that 1t was Mr.. Brney who, while
serving as district attorney, prosecuted
Chapman. the broker, for refusing to tes-
tify in the sugar investigation before a
Senate special committee, and had the
broker sent to jail for three months.
Mr.. Birney presented Mr.. Haas answer
to the report of the grand jury laid before
the court yesterday and on which the rule
returnable this morning, was issued. The
written answer of the respondent. read by
Mr.. Birney, was in part as follows
Answer Of Haas.
The answer sets forth that the respond
IN tha
York. of which he is a resident, to appear
before the grand jury in the District of
Columbia in the case of the United States
agt. Edwin S. Holmes. jr., and appeared be-
fore that body July q. 1905, when the pro-
ceedings were substantially, though not re-
precisely detailed in the report of the
grand jury presented to Judge Wright yes
terday
| The respondent calls attention to the fact
| that on July 8 Secretary of Agriculture
Wilson made public a statement in connec-
| tion with the cotton crop report leaks
| In the bureau Of statistics and gives briefly
| his conception of the substance of that
statement.
Continuing the respondent says that by
! this report Secretary Wilson set forth GER
| tain correspondence claimed to substantiate
| the statements Of Judd and Van Ripper, and
| to indicate that the charges made by Cheat
| ham were we'll founded in fact.
The statement goes to say that the
| respondent is one of the persons mentioned
/ In the report as connected with the leak
| and II the statement and suggestions, d.
| rect and indirect, in the report charge or
| indicate an offense against any law OF the
| United States such of the statements or
| suggestions as concern the respondent di-
| recty or indirectly involve him in an ac-
| cusation of crime against the United States
| Although the report of the Secretary of
1 Agriculture involves the respondent as
| one possibly guilty of some crime or Of
| fense against the United States, the state
| ment says the respondent was summoned
| to apear before their grand jury on July
| a witness.
| The respondent has been advised by coun-
| sci. he says, that the only charges OF ac-
| cusations of a criminal nature that may
| be made against any persons in respect OF