The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1914-05-23
MELLEN INDICTED
TOSH|ELD MORGAN
Dramatic Climax Marks Close OF
Testimony Of New Haven's
Former President.
MAY BE RECALLED TO STAND
Took Punishment Because He
Believes 1t Would Have
Killed Aged Financier.


tional testimony OF Charles g. Mcllen.
former president Of the New Haven
Railroad before tho Interstate Com
merce Commission to-day. when. with
evidence OF deep emotion. MIR. Mc!len
declared the late j. Pierpont Morgan
was cognlzant OF the Grand Trunk ne
Eotiations. on which he tMcllen) was
criminally indicted for violation Of the
Sherman antitrust act and that he
took tho Indictment that belonged to
him (Morgan), believing II would have
killed the aged fnancicr If he had been
indicted.
AIR. Mellen spoke with intense feel
irg az he recitcd his efforts to shield
the elder Morgan. This turned quickly
TO n show OF resentment. however, as
he told how the present ]. Plerpont
Morgan had suggested Il "change In tho
presidency of the New Haven" at
which suggestion, Mr.. Mellen declar cd
with emphasis:
II called his attention TO tho fact
that l had been suffering under the
humiliation Of undcscrved tndict-
ment TO protect his father"
CROWDED ROOM LISTENS
WITH INTENSE INTEREST
Tho crowded courtroom listened with
Intense interest this closing recital
was given. Taking UP the Grand
Trunk transaction. on which Mr.. Mel
LENS indictment was returned by the
grand Jury at New York. Former Gov
crnor Folk. chief counsel Of the com
mission asked:
did MIR. Morgan hnvo anything to
do with this negotiation for the cx-
change OF the Ontario and Western
with the Grand Trunk"
HE did"
WHAT"
lie took very active part in the
negotiation"
What part. can you tell. II you
know" asked Mr. Folk.
81 did not know that Mr.. Morgan
knew there was negotiation On until
he came into my office when I had an
appointment with Mr.. Smthcrs and
Mrs. Chamberlain, and he told them
what he thought they ought TO do. In
order to have peace between the New
IIaven and the Grand Trunk interests"
Mr.. Mcllcn said. "IIe told of previous
negotiations. which, he said, extended
over period of twenty ycarr. Ohat is
the term he used; l suppose II was
general term,. and that he had bought
Il steamship line OF them. on the under
standing he was to have the New Lon
don-Northern for the New Haven Road.
and that they never had carried out
their agreement.
ONLY THING TO RESULT
IN PERMANENT PEACE
This negotiation, he said. was with
Mr.. Smitherss predecessor. SIR Charles
Rivers Wilson. He thought it was a
faith with him. and he was quite en-
phatfc--as he was. you know. once in
very great wilhelm thinking they
mad not done as they should; had not
kept faith with him. And lie told them
they should give up the New London
Northern Road. he did not care for
anything further. and that that would
be the only thing. in his Judgment that
would ever result in permanent peace
between the two properties. Then he
t,n
smith was present during part OF
that interview
Mr.. Morgan retired and left Mr..
Chamberlain and Mr.. Smthers and my
SER to continue the conference. ! told
Mr.. Chamberlain and MIR. Smithers tbat
we would continue tho conference nm
the basis that they should give no fur
ther attention 10 the question OF CUR
rendering the New London Northern
Noad; they might do as they pleased
WIN IL; did not care. The worst
puniHhment / wished to SEQ inflicted
upon them was tho completion Of their
line into Providence
II they felt there was enough IN
The Southern to warrant making n
traiic agreement with US for the inter
change OF business for tho Joint use
OF the lines along the Connec,tcnI
RlVer between Windsor and White
Adver Junction, and between Windsor
and Brattleboro-and we had not near
Iy completed our own line between
Brattieboro and South Vermont was
glad to do It,
GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS
COMMENCE WITHIN A WEEK
was Instructed to put the Views
IN the form OF a proposition or con-
tract, which l did; 1t was submitted
20 them and within a week the grand
Jury proceedings commenced In New
York and was indicted"
DID you write a letter to the dis
trlot attorney taking the RESPONSE
billty:" asked Mr.. Folk.
i did. and did 1t for the solo pur-
pose or shiefing Mr.. Morgan"
AT whose instance did you write
that letter"
i wrote that letter at the instance
OK Lewis Case LcGyard and Edward
D. Robbins"
WHO Dictated it2'
u dictnisd LITTER. which was ro-
dfaftso 1y NJ. Robbins and corrected
ty Mr. L'edyard. 1 eisncd i, IN their
rresenco aEd sent it 10 tho United
States district attorney hero. und
hearly Millcd everybody In tho. Office
&c keop Mr. Morgan's name out oc ~"
TO ke.? Mr.. Morgans name ont of
wha:Y' asked Mr. Folk.
"Ou. of the whole proceeding"
'l5nd Mr. Morgan bocn subpoenacd
IN that ma;ter?"
II have learned through my ooun-
coll did not know IT at the time
tha. no wns Gubpoonned and his sub
.>ooHa vas Quashed or nolled; what
nyer your .cgal term Is Cor that ac-
ton"
SOCNG nOHGAN C0NFESSEs,
TATlIEIt'S LIFE IN DANGER
"Did you have any conversation with
the present director Of tho road, j. Z.
Morgan. Jr.," auericG Mr.. Folk.
Tho proseDt director?"
"Yes, air.
"At the time Mr.. Morgan called upon
IEe and thought the change In the pres.
idoncy was desirable, called his at
eonricr to the fact that had been suf-
ferinS under tina humiliation of nm un-
esse.:od indictment ro protect his
CONTINUED On Second Pnge.I