The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1913-08-21
NOUN DAY TRIAL.
CONTINUED from Page Une.)

is of Muscoath, an agent for the Noun
Days lodged the questions hurled at
him by the district attorney.
Smile Faded Today.
Today that smile faded away. There
was a look of grave concern on the face
of both Mrs. MounDay and her hus-
band when the government attorneys
read into the record letters which they
had written to agents, purchasers and
prospective purchasers and winch until
today no one but the government law
yers knew had been secured as evil
dence.
In a letter under date of July 5, 1911,
Mrs. MounDay, as secretary-treasurer
of the corporation now in trouble with
the government, wrote a letter to f. -
Sicily of Colorado Springs, in which she
painted the affairs of the sugar ana
land company in most beautiful hues.
She concluded this letter with a brief
postscript, in which she stated, MI
MounDay has gone East to attend the
annual meeting of the stockholders of
the American Sugar company"
1t is contended by the government
that the name of the big sugar corpor-
ation-commonly known as the sugar
trust-waS purpoSely used by Mrs.
MounDay to deceive the innocent and
that MounDay was not associated in
any manner with the affairs of the big
trust and that the trust itself was not
interested in the New Mexican project,
as many customers We're seemingly led
to believe.
Following out its contention still fur
Their, the government produced letter
written personally by MounDay to
Sicily on Feb 81 1910, in which he
suggests that the sugar trust is inter
ested in the development of the New
Mexican land and the building of the
sugar factories which the MounDays
had promised to their investors.
MounDay's Claims.
IF I was to give the public all the
facts 1 know in the case and tell what
company is going to build the factory
or was backing this company, just as
we'll take the old company into the
field as there would be no way to
avoid payment of the capitalization
fees wrote MounDay. as the general
manager. No other company will be
known in this deal except the Ameri-
can Sugar Manufacturing and Rein
ing company. The organizers of this
company are perfectly able to do just
what they claim they will do
This letter was written in explanation
of the company's plan to dodge pay
ment of excessive capitalization fees
and it is argued by lawyers for the
government that the intimations in the
Sicily letter were sufficient to lead a
person to believe that the investment
was far above the ordinary and that
either the sugar trust itself or some
other strong financial corporation was
behind the deal which MOunDay and
his wife were promoting.
Their Advertising Scheme.
After disposing of this proposition,
Robertson turned his attention to a new
line of information advanced by Mrs.
MounDay to the cOmpany's investors.
A page advertisement appeared in the
State Journal in September, 1911, for
.nI, h. T
Using rates. Hundreds of copies of this
advertisement were mailed to agents
and customers of the company and in
many instances these people We're led
to believe that the advertisement was a
complimentary write-up of the hold
1ngS of the sugar company which the
government now seeks to indict. 1t
was also urged in connection with this
advertisement that new railroad was
to be built through the New Mexican
land by the Santa Fe railway.
These floods of letters began to find
their way into the records early in the
day. A. c. Lewis occupied the atten-
ton of Commissioner Bond during the
entire afternoon session. Lewis agent
for the MounDay company and per-
most unwilling witness for the govern
ment.
What Lewis Knew and Didn't Know.
At times Lewis appeared to know
a great deal. At other times his
was decidedly limited and
at other times he suffered from poor
n emory and at times pleaded poor
eyeslght as a reason why he had not
seen certain things that the govern
ment lawyers thought he should have
seen Once Dick Hite of defendants
counsel objected to the manner in
which the United States attorneys were
treating their own witness and pleaded
that the witness was not on trial.
try 10 wit
just yet" replied Robertson, whsn
the defense said the witness was re- |
ceiving unfair treatment.
For three hours Lewis displayed a |
tendency to argue and debate with |
Attorney Robertson. Under cross ex- |
animation by Mr.. Hite he went much |
better He was certain that the land i
offered for sale by MounDay and his |
wife was an excellent proposition. He |
had twice visited the tract, he told the |
and said the land was !
as pretty as a peach" But pinned !
right down about local market values !
for this land, actual water rights, irri- !
cation rights, surveys, title and other |
important details, Lewis repeatedly |
declared that he knew only the things
which he had read in the sugar COM !
pam phlets were offered in evidence.
You believed these things, did |
yCu?" was asked.
Il certainly did. So would you, if |
you saw the land"
Did people buy land under those
representations?
THAT was what they had to go by. |
rhey could believe it or go see the
and themselves
Did MounDay say that he had a |
Lear title and water rights when he
ook men to see the land?'
He isn't much of a hand to talk.
He just said, Here's the land. Look
t over and if there are questions, I
will answer them That was about all |
here was to it, replied the witness.
Still Has Faith.
you still have a good deal of faith
L MounDay and Mrs. MounDay,
haven't you?'' asked Robertson.