Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-06-26
DEFENDANT TAKES STAND
Testiies in His Own Behalf in the
Cotton Leak" Case.
INTEREST IS HEIGHTENED
Brief Opening Statement by Attorney
Worthington-Text Of opin-
ion by the Court.

Proceedings were rapid this morning
in the trial of Edwin S. Holmes, jr., In
Criminal Court No. l. and interest was
materially heightened when the defend
ant took the stand in his own behalf
As soon as court opened Justice STAFFORD
announced his decision to overrule the
motion of the defense to have the case
taken from the jury and the defendant
discharged. At this first ruling against
her husband Mrs. Holmes. who has been
a regular attendant at the trial. was
visibly affected. Following the decision
Attorney Worthington made a brief open
ing statement to the jury. and the pres
entation of the defendants side Of the
case was begun.
Justice Starord's opinion in full. in pass
ing upon the motion by the defense, fol-
lows
AT the close of the governments case the
defendant moved the court to direct YER
dict of acquittal. Briefly stated, what the
Indictment charges against the defendant
Is this: That he was an officer OF the
United States in the bureau of statistics Of
the Department Of Agriculture. and was
called the associate statistician. That his
duty in that office required him to assist In
preparing and issuing crop reports from
time to time from the bureau. where such
reports were made up from various infor-
NATION received by the bureau through
various official channels. That these re-
ports were required by law to be issued
and were issued at regular and stated
times. and when SO issued were issued to
the whole people Of the United States for
their common benefit. That previous to the
issuing of such reports the information
received by the bureau as the foundation
for the statement and report was required
to be kept secret and the report itself kept
secret
THAT such reports before being issued
So To- ~ oy,1
signed by the Secretary of Agriculture. who
did so relying upon the fidelity of the de-
PENDANT and his fellow workers in the bu-
reau- That such reports when issued af-
fected the market price of the crops to
which they related That among these crop
reports was the report on cotton. That the
defendant entered into a conspiracy with
Moses Haas and Frederick A. Peckham to
let them have in advance all the informa-
ton he could obtain concerning the report
on cotton. in order that they might, through
some other person to be enlisted by them.
buy and sell cotton. and that the profits re-
sultiEg from such operations should be
divided between the defendant and Haas
AMI Peckham and the person to be enlisted
by them. That in pursuance of this con-
spiracy the defendant and his co-conspira-
tors did various acts which are particularly
Set forth in the indictment
Testimony for Government
Under this indictment the government
supports everything the indictment has
charged. On the other hand. the defendant
insists that there is no evidence in support
of some of the charges. and that even IL
there were evidence to support every charge
made in the Indictment the whole matter
would not constitute a crime. At an early
stage of the case the defendant demurred
to the Indictment and afterward Withdrew
his demurrer. If his demurrer had been
heard the court would have been required
IN 6pri thn vzhof har fho
charged in the indictment were such as
constitute a crime
IF the case should now be submitted to
the jury and the jury should return a YER
dict of guilty the defendant could still move
to arrest the Judgment on the same ground,
because II what the Indictment charges the
defendant with having done does not
amount to a crime, the verdict, which mere
be of no effect. If the case had been de-
cided against the government on demurrer
to the indictment, or If it should be de-
cided against the government upon mo-
ton In arrest of Judgment, the government
would be entitled to an appeal. Whereas II
the court should direct a verdict of ac-
quittal as now moved by the defendant.
the government would have no enectual ap
peal, because the verdict Of acquittal can
not be set aside. Even the section Of the
code (935) which gives the government the
right of appeal in criminal cases recognizes
and provides that a verdict of acquittal
shall not be set aside Accordingly, 1t Is
very plainly the duty of the court to require
that If the defendant Is to raise the ques-
ton Of the suffiCiency of the indictment he
should do 1t by motion in arrest of judg-
ment In order that the rights Of the gov
eminent may be preserved.
Would Escape Punishment.
"If the court should direct a verdict Of
acquittal on the ground that the intict-
ment does not charge any crime. and
should err in so doing. the defendant would
escape all punishment. but II the court
should sustain a motion in arrest Of judg-
ment and should err In SO doing, the de-
PENDANT would not escape. for the Court
OF Appeals could reverse the decision and
impose sentence upon the verdict already
rendered. 1t follows that the only ques-
ton proper for the court to consider under
this motion is whether there Is evidence
tending to support all the material allega-
tions of the Indictment If there Is, the
case should be submitted to the jury. If
there is not. a verdict of acquittal should
be directed. 1t Is urged on the part Of the
defendant that the evidence fails to sup
port the indictment in one respect, viz. ::
that the indictment charges that the de-
PENDANT conspired in SO far as in him the
power lay to furnish the statistics and
statistical matter and matters and things
and other Information. knowledge Of which
was acquired by him as such as
sociate statistician in preparing and as
sisting In preparing each of said cotton
reports to Peckham and Haas. and the
person to be enlisted by them. Whereas
the evidence. so the defendant insists, does
not show that the defendant was to fur
nish any statistics or disclose any such
matters as had come to his knowledge
from official reports. but was to make the
best guess he could at the figure which
would appear In the final estimate and use
his powers of persuasion with the chief
statistician to get these figures adopted
More Subtle Than Sound.
Upon reflection It seems to the court
that the distinction here sought to be made
Is more subtle than sound. The Indictment
charges that the defendant. IN so far as lay
In his power. was to inform his confeder-
ates touching the matters which had come
to his knowledge in his said Office. so as
to enable them to foreknow the figures
of the final estimate. If a part of such In
formation was a knowledge OF the methods
employed by the chief statistician In form
Ing his estimate. then II was disclosing in
formation to disclose that and 1t would
make no difference whether he described
to his confederates such methods or made
the deduction himself and gave them only
the result 1t was all Information acquired
by him as such associate statistician by
working with his chief and learning his
methods. The defendant knew what the
figures were to be none the less. because the
way he knew them was by knowing that