The evening world., 1911-04-21
CumminS and Reichmann An
Swer Forty Questions Put
by the Grand Jury.
HAD REFUSED AT FIRST.
Changed Their Minds When
Confronted With Proceedings
in Contempt of Court.

After refusinv TO answer forsy aues-
'ions put TO a OF them by District
Attorney Whitman before tho Gnand
jury this afterncon--these questions
being relative TO ahcir eiatton. with
city Chamberlain Charles III. Hyd,-
William J. Cumnins and Joseph n.
Reichmann. the indicted directors OF
tho Carnegie Trus, Company, were
taken before Justice Davis In the Grim.
inal Branch Of the Supreme Court. Jus.
iicc Davis directed that the questions
he read 10 him.
lie ruled then that tho questions
were properly put by the District
Attorney. Cummins and Reichmann
were ordered to make answer to the
best OF their knowledge and belief I'M
der pain Of being declared guilty OF
contempt.
The Grand Jury returned to its cham
Der aud the witnesses were recalled.
Both. by advice OF their counsel.
stephen Baldwin. answered every
question put. They will bo
again next week.
Questions Kept Secret.
Cummins and Rcichmann refused 10
answer the questions when they were
first put. by advice OF Mr.. Baldwin.
Their examination was then put Off until
= o'clock, when Justice Davis was asked
for advice by the brand Jury. The re-
porters In the courtroom were not al
lowed to remain noar the bench and
could not hear the questions read for
the Information OF the Court, but Mr..
Baldwin, with a sarcastic intonation "a
his voice. replied that questions and
answers. In n modified form, viii prob
ably appear In the morning papers.
Grand Jury proceedings in this
county are Just the same as publ
exhibitions recently" declared Mr.
Baldwin.
cummlns aad I,eichmnnn. the former
smiling and debOnna!r, the latter nerv,
Gus. appeared NJ the Grand Jury room
at 2 o'clock with their counsel. Stephei
Baldwin. Mr.. Reichmann was called
frst.
Lawyer Baldwin. while Mr.. Reichman,
was in the Grand Jury room. made IN,
b. AhF A'r w ~
. nave advised my c Is not to an
swer questions put TO them by the Dis
trict-Attorney before the Grand Jur,
, Tor IN reason, tx. 'ssed by all N
great judges n cOur.i from job
Marshall down. that a man VINO Is In
rocent may supply a link which vi
result IN his Indictment, although ne
afterward acquitted.
"Of course. ~ the court orders m
clients 20 answer questions. ] suppos
o they will have 10 answer. But they W
Il no; answer unless the Cour, so order
O or unless Mr.. Whitman should chol,
{ form them In the Grand Jury room
. and ! thlnk ne Il capable OF that.
"whst marvellous machinery tn,
0 have here for grinding out Indictment
}. Some % those found yesterday We
i, simply repetitions OF former Indictment
n | have noticed. though. in every 4
stance where a Dlstrlct-Attorney n.
y caused a lot OF indictments 10 he foIi
/, the Indictments always failed.
n Robin "Whitman's Partner"
20 Tine case of Charles w. Morse was 7
IS calico 10 AR. baldwin. lie saii il "
different in the Federal courts. Tn
the case OF Joseph G. Robin was cite
a But Robin has escaped punishment
p protested Mr., Baldwin. Il am qui
d sure he never wiz be punished. for n
&c not the District. Attorney taken him in
n partnership"
Mr.. Baldwin then made hts way 10 {
Criminal Branch OF the supreme Coul
lie said he expected the District-Atto
:. neg would produce his clients bsio