Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1910-06-24
FORMER FINED $4,000;
LATTER PAYS $1,000
Eleven $1,000 Bills Paid Over b
Deputy U. S. Marshal.
HOLMES MAY BE THE NEXT
Reported That Government Is WILL
ing to End Case Against Him
on Same Basis.

ing to End Case Against Him
on Same Basis.
Moses Haas Of New York and Fred
erick A. Peckham Of Cincinnati. Ohio. to
oay acknowledged before Justice Gould
In Criminal Court No 1 that they were
guilty Of technical violation of the Law
In that they agreed with Edwin l.
Holmes, 5r., former associate statistician
OF the Department of Agriculture to pro-
cure from him advance cotton reports.
and that they profited by the information.
On the recommendation Of Special A.
sistant Attorney General Adkins Justice
Gould imposed finest instead OF imprison-
ment on both men. Haas was fined 10000
and Peckham 5000. Judge lockwood OF
Saratoga Springs. counsel for the man.
handed Deputy Marshal Robson eleven
$1,000 bills in payment Of the fines and
the men returned to their homes.
Holmes May Do Likewise.
Attorney Wharton e. Lester. counsel
for Edwin S. Holmes. jr.. the former as
socfate statistician, was taken by surprise
at the action of Haas and Pecllham. with
whom Holmes is jointly indicted. and was
not prepared to state what course would
be pursued by his client Holmes was
tried in 1905 on the charge. but the jury
disagreed, and he has not been retired be-
cause of the litigation concerning the
cases which has been in progress ever
since.
While no authoritative statement 10
forthcoming from the Department OF Jus
tice, the general impression about the
1s%x
not be averse to similar action in refer
ence to Holmes II he will plead guilty.
even to the technical violation as claimed
by Haas and Peckham. a fine would prob
ably be imposed. according to the rumors
in circulation.
Theodore H. Price Of New York, known
as the cotton king" was relieved re-
Gently by Justice Gould on a plea In
abatement Of the charges against him in
this District What action will be taken
in connection with the New York indict-
ments pending against price has not been
announced
Review of the Case.
Haas and Peeckham. in a statement
read to the court by their counsel. Judge
lockwood. detailed at length the history
Of the case. which has attracted the at
tention Of the New York courts and
those in this Jurisdiction. even the Unit
ed States Supreme Court, for the past
five years.
When the cotton leak was discovered in
the summer of 1905 no one thought IL q
crime for official Of the government 70
furnish information of his Office to out
siders or that outsiders so receiving the
information were guilty of a crime in
making use of it, 1t was not until 1905
that such a statute was passed by Con-
gresS.
Continuing his remarks to the court,
Justice lockwood claimed the acts COM
planned Of were not criminal or even
the law by the United States Supreme
Court, which ordered the two men to ap.
pear in this District for trial
Neither Of the defendants. Haas or
Peckham. has ever before been charged
with crime" said Judge lockwood.
Neither Of. them has ever before been
engaged in any questionable transaction.
They do not deem the allegations of the
true. but the decision of the Supreme
Court OF the United States is broad
enough to cover any information impaired
by an employe or official to an outsider.
and if it should appear upon the trial
that any such Information had been so
impaired, it would, doubtless. constitute.
in view Of the decision referred to. .
technical violation of the law.
Decide on Guilty Plea.
"Appreciating this, notwithstanding tho
fact that there was no statute covering
the matter in the year 1905. the defend
ants, Frederick A.. Peckham and Moses
Haas. have come to the conclusion that
this technical violation, coupled with their
desire for peace. is best met by a plea
of guilty to the charge covered by in
dictment No. 2i907 and the count there
Of charging conspiracy to commit mis-
conduct IN Office Tins p1eadina thew
have instructed their counsel to state all
Of the procedure which has gone on for
the past five years in connection with
these matters to the court, so that the
court may know that one commissioner
and United States judge have
absolutely dismissed proceedings founded
upon the indictments now here In ques-
ton: that another of the judges of the
court has held that the charge of de-
frauding the United States I'm this case
did not constitute crime. and two of the
judges Of the United States Supreme
Court have also expressed grave doubts
border line and there is no precedent to
cover II.
I'm view OF the decision OF the Su-
preme Court of the United States, ft
trial court upon the trial to hold that
even a technical violation Of the law
an offense, and 1t is there
fore thought best to meet the matter
at In1S time ny picd. 81 ltdt II hAoy
be disposed of by the court without
further expense to the government. or
to the defendants, and In way which
will not only protect the interests OF
the government but accord TO the de-
PENDANTS a full measure of justice.
Trust Case to Court.
Taking into consideration all OF the
facts of the case. the serious doubt cast
upon the validity Of these indictments,
the fact that these indictments charge
conspiracy to commit misconduct In Of
ice. which is not offense outside OF
he District OF Columbia. and also con-
,iderine the previous good character OF
.he defendants. their high standing I'm
he community as business men and the
entire surroundings, IL is believed that
he court will dispose Of the matter with
entire satisfaction to all concerned.
with this statement the defendants
submit their rights to the court