The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-01-19
ASKS
 FOR A REPORT
tcentinued from Page One.D


 
 cai companv by the United states gov- ernment there is nothing in the subpo. enaes issued, not only against The World employees but against several other individuals to indicate what the inquisitIon is about, who the complain ant is. and against whom the action IS directed
 In the argument in support of the contention of Messrs Nieol and Bowers that the subpoenaes should be quashed. particular stress was laid upon that part of the document in question which calls for the appearance before the Federal grand jury of those subpoenaed for the purpose of testifying to "all and everything you may know general ly 'on the part of the United States"
 Subpoepaes worded in such general teEms,ewhleh ,fapeA, tQ make plain what the action was, or agalnst whom 1t was directed, Mir Bowers argued, had uni- formly been adjudged faulty by the courts and as such dismissed.
 Mir Stimson, on the other hand con- tended that the subpoenaes were in every way valid and that their legality had been tested In the cases of the government against Charles W. Morse, of Augustus Heinze and Theodore H. Price. to name only e few.
 The general inquiry was not halted, however, by the action of The World men in questioning the validity of the process by which they had been sum moned to appear before the Federal grand jury.
 H. H. Bjornson. clerk in the law nfflce of William Nelson Cromwell through whom the purchase of ths ca- nal property was effected, and Jonas Whitley, formerly a newspaper man hut now attached to MT. CrOmwell's law office. were both examined in the course of the day.
 Acting under instructions believed to have been issued by authority of the United States government. United States District Attorney HenrlY, l.. Simson had subponaed William B. Me- Laughlln. Sporting Editor of The World and J. Angus Shaw, secretary of the Press Publishing Company. to testify before a federal grand jury to. day in an action which was not de- scribed tn the subpoenaes It was be- Iieved, however. to be the outcome of President Roosevelts message to con- gress in which he protested against linking the name of Charles P. Taft. brother of the President-elect and J. Douglass Robinson. the presidents brother-in-law. in criticisms of the canal purchase.
 The examination was halted by an order obtained by counsel for The Worlds editors calling upon Mir. Stim- son to show cause why the subpoenaes should not be Quashed.
 Several other witnesses in whose be- half no injunction was obtained were called before the grand jury to give evidence today.
 The first to be examined was H. H Bjornson, who is said to be connected with the Washington office of Sullivan & Cromwell, lawyers. MT. Cromwell had aTprominent ro~t in the acquisi- ton of the Panama Canal.
 Mir. Biornson said that he was ques- tioned as to whether the firm of Sul- livan and Cromwell. lawyers. Mir. Cromwell had offered to pay for the suppression of stories about the canal He said that he replied that he knew nothing about it. as he was otherwise engaged at the time of the canal nego- tiations
 Other witnesses who were waiting to go before the grand jury were D. M. Engelman, of an international news service, who said he went abroad to investigate the canal purchase and on his return submitted a report to the national democratic committee, which afterward got into the possession of The World Jonas Whitley, formerly of The World but now in the ofnce of Sullivan & CrOmWeIIs A. C. ftOWSey, or The Boston American and John I. weir. of The New York American.
 Motion to 0aaHh.
 Brief argument was heard by Unit ed States Circuit Judge Henry c. Ward today on the motion to Quash the sub poenae.
 John NJ. Bowers, of counsel for Mir. Mclaughlin and Mir. Shaw. argued that the form of the subpoena was illegal. inasmuch as the concluding words of the subpoena. namely fin a certain ease now pending and undetermined in this said court between the United states-were crossed out, making the subpoena read to testify to what they may know generally"
 MT. Bowers held that the supboena was illegal, inasmuch as 1t did not state the nature of the inquiry or the nerson accused. and that the proceed ing was an abuse of process
 District Attorieey Stimson speaking for the United States. argued that the form of subpoena had been used In nractIce in this district for fifty years and was recognized by the statutes of the United States.
 MT. StImson. said:
 "The same situation arises in a cor porate examination to find out who was responsible. It is often impossi- bfe to find out who Is responsible in q corporation. How can we name the