The evening world., 1911-02-09
Expert Says Magazine Manu-
SCRIPT Shows Same Touch
as Copies Of Stolen Letters.
HE CLAIMS
Doesn't Deny Selling Data on
Trust Prosecution, hut Says
He Had Right.

Tho trial ~ Thomas p Riley. charged
with stealing and publishing letters 'nd
other data in tho Sugar Trust pro>ccu.
ton while ne was employed ms an in.
vostlgttor by the Interstate Commerce
Commission In 1870. was resumed before
Judge Martin and n jury In the United
states Circuit Court to-day.
II IL alleged that Riley stole tho Ia
NOUS Wlckcrsham "Sugar Trust letter
10 observation-disclosures Wise, two letter.
written by c II. IIeike to John T.. Par.
sugar Trust directors and other docu-
ments used by the Dlstrict-Attorncy IN
he Sugar Trust Investigation. all o:
which disappeared from the office III
Mr.. Wise n turned up In Sugar Trust
articles In the Cosmopolitan and lIamp.
toms magazines.
Typewriting Evidence.
Assistant United states Attorneys
Dorr and Smith conducted the prosecu-
ton. and Richard +. Greene appeared
AZ counsel for Riley.
Riley had "A desk IN Mr.. Wise's office.
and had a typcwrltlng machine wtdch
the Interstate Commerce Commission
Furnished him. An employee Of tho
typewritlng company certified that the
copies OF the stolen documents in evil
dcnce were made on this machine.
william J. kinsley. a writing expert
gave II as his opinion that the manu-
script Of the Cosmopolitan articles was
written IN the same typewriter as the
two letters signed by Riley. and by the
same operator. This was shown by un-
usual methods OF punctuation, as. fo-
instance. the use of a scmicolon followed
by n dash without spacing and the use
of a hyphen at the end of one line and
the beginning OF the next In every case
where a word was divided.
Move to Quash Indictment.
when the prosecution closed, Mr..
Greene moved to quash the indictments
on the ground that there was no statute
describing the ALLEGED onense. lie in
sisted that the Federal courts had no
jurisdiction and likened the legal situa-
ton to That In Mr.. R~oasevslt's libel
suits against the New York World.
which were thrown out by the unani-
nous decision OF the United States SUI
preme Court.
Judge Martin denied Mr.. Greene's mo-
ton.
Mr.. Greene. In opening the defense,
said there was no question hat Riley
supplied the Information, but It was
after due authorization.
Riley took the stand and recited the
Incidents OF his employment by the
Government. lie told of an Interview
In February. 1900. when Henry J. slim
son took office. at which there were
present Acknowledgement Moody. Nor
cross, a writer for one magazine, and
another editor to whom he had fur
nishcd Information for sugar articles.
Riley identified two papers received
by Linn MAY 20. 1900. one was from Nor
cross 20 Commissioner Lane OF the In
te.state Commerce Commission, saying
ne would like to get some Information
from Special Agent Riley, and the other
was from Marble. attorney for tho
commission. Riley declared that as a
result he went to see Norcross.
Lane Gave Permission.
81 told Mr.. Norcross, who wanted my
help in getting up some articles for his
magazine, that | could not help hin
without Commissioner Lanes consent
lie went to Washington that night, ana
Mr. Lane said he had no objection tc
my helping Norcross.
"On my return | asked for access &c
III the documents which l had fur,
nished, and they We're brought to me II