Albuquerque evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1911-1914, 1912-07-30
.DARROW TESTIFIES
|. IN OWN DEFENSE
IN BRIBERY
TRIAL
Chicago Attorney Refutes
Statements Of Franklin and
Produces Check to Substan-
tiate Assertions.
ACCIDENTAL WITNESS
OF SENSATIONAL ARREST
(By Evsaing Herald a. r. Ieassa wIrsI

for that purpose on the following day
was furnished by tho defendant
when he resumed the stand today In
his trial for alleged bribery. II was
ln the form OF a cancelled check dated /
oetotber 4. 1911, the day before tho
alleged incr'mlnatlng conversation |
and two days before the date on
which Franklin testified he had re-
cevcd the check. Tho check intro |
duccd Into evidence bore tho endorses |
ment of Franklin.
The check given Franklin, accord |
ing To Dsrrow, was for services and |
expenses of the detectives and had /
been requested for this purpose by
Franklin,
barrow told OF hts reluctance Ia
accepting the Mcnamara case and
the Influence brought 20 bear upon
him by leaders OF organised labor 10
defend the accused dynamitorB which
finally resulted ln has coming 20 f.oa
Angeles. ilo narrated IA ckrOnOlogi-
cal order hts preparations Tor defend
ing the brothers.
Asked about his relations with
George Behm. uncle of Ortio McMRn-
lgui. barrow said that Benin and
Mrs MoManigal had visited his home
In Chicago where Mrs. McMnniEal
complnlncd of the manner Ia which
her husband had boon treated BY
| w J. Burns, the detective
"She told me- continued tho de-
fcndant, that Burns. through his
agent, Malcolm Mcl.aren, mad Bhnd-
owed and followed her every place
she went, and had asked her 10 80 20
l.OH Angeles, whero Burns would pro.
Vide her with position.
~ told her to get what money shel
could out of Burns and would give
her the rest needed 10 make the trip.
come With her because Of har poor
health ana hehm Haid he would
leone.
- asked 1chm to use his influence
With MeManieai To find out whether
the stories printed By the newspapers
and purporting 20 come from him.
were true and HRld that II they were
not I would defond McManignl along
with the rest II desired. Behm told
ms al that time that an uncle or a
brother of his had seen Mechanical
in Toledo and that McAlanlEal had
hnid he Was employed by the Ma
tiOnnl Ercctors' association. | have
since heard this from another source.
II had no convention az any time
with reference "a getting McMnnlgnl
tO change his testimony" said BAR
row omphntlcnlly. land never gave
Hunt nny money for that purpose"
Attorney Rogers then brought up
the chronological sequence of the de-
lfcndnnth narrative.
ibid you hear Franklin say here
hc asked. THAT the firHt time YOU
ever spoke tO him concerning tho
lbflhcry Of Jurors, WIS Uh Dct0bcr b,
and that on the succeeding day. Oc-
tOber 9, YOU gave him a check for
$1,000 for such purpose"
Yes"
was that lruog"
~ had no such conversation with
Franklin" said DarrOw. "Ner did !
give him any check ON October hih
for any purpose. ] did give HIN
, check for 81 900 ON October T. ana !
think I gave him tho next check
about October o.. TheHc chocks were
Tor the cxpenseE OF his office"
Franklin testified on direct exam
inatiun that on October barrow
first had talked of getting" Jurors
aud that he Mas given ohoek Tor
$1,000 the next day tn hrihe robert
T.. Hnin.
District Attorney Frodorlcks pro-
tested against what he asserted was
speech Dy the defendant. He asked
that DarrOw be treated ~ any other
Witness. A violent controversy
arose through which the defendant
sat smiling and apparently uncon-
corned.
The witness said that Hnin had
|
enceH between Mcnamara counsel and
FRANKLIN during the long period nc
occupied neat In the Jury box.
Taking up the alleged bribery ~
George N, Lock wood, the ch8rRc uR9E
which Darrow - on trial he denlod
thai ho had ever discussed the cor
ruptl0n ~ Lakewood With FRANKLIN
or that OF any ono else
"Did y0u give Franklin $4,000 on
the morning of November ssf' asked
Rogers.
y did not" WAS the emphatic re-
. ply,
"Dld you see Franklin that morn-
lnaT'
- ala not until he WIS arrested.
I did you see JOB Hartman thai
dayg"
~ ala not"
The defendant made similar deniall
10 evory point IN Frnnkilns testimony
which Involved him IN any way,
Inv Witness gave graphic descrip'
tlon ~ thc arrest Df FrankliH which
p he viewed. arriving "A the scene, hl
said. accidentally, while on his waj
to Job iiarrlmnn'h office.
The phork for ttO.OVV which y,
gave d. a. Tveiimoe. and which th'
a latter caNhed N Han Frunclaou, Wal
not used Tor any corrupt purpose. 90
a Wra given a. TVenmoe 10 deffny oR
I. penHon Of thn MuNemara case ln tina
n city, according tn the witness Tslel
I. moo told him. ne said, that organise,
labor Ia san FranclNco had expended
between $40, 900 and $4,000 Tor th
Mcnamara 0ofonao
, "'ftoIlmoo oakfG me % rrlmnufN
4 thOm," said DnFrOW. "fhe checl
N was given Tfoilmoo for thai puFnoa
n and no other, and Il was dashed n
m him ano Cleveland Dam. attorney 20
\, the MuIl0lnn Trades Council. / ntYo
\. SAW any oE lHn money.