The Washington times., 1914-06-24
COMMITTEE INVITES
WRIGHT TO TESTIFY
Mccoy Investigating Board
Suggested That Justice
Waive Immunity, 1t Is Said.
Continued from First Page.)

lat firm which represented the ulti-
ate purchaser, George W. Norris. Mr..
iEht recounted that he had been au-
ho1i7ed by the court 10 accept the
.,-.ginal offer Of S17,500 and had notified
.ae Smith company, hut that higher
g.d6ers came in and this offer and or
.er of the court did not stand.
He testified that for a time the Smith
company insisted thai this transaction
.JEht TO go through on the 81, 500 basis,
and that Attorney William Z. Ambrose
vas engaged by the company prcsUm-
ably for the purpose of arguing this
Jetore the court, Justice Wright. The
IUstice, M. Bright said, held in favor
= the higher bid.
about this time (January 12. 19O9)
said Mr.. Bright. The Smith Com
pany retained Ambrose, and the cor
-espondence shows he appeared in
court TO have the s17, 500 offer made
elective, but the court declined, and
sfterward had me accept the S19,525
offer. The Smith people had mean
while Informed me that their client
vas Mr.. Norris, and the last offer
came from him"
Mr.. Bright said the Smith company
lad sent $3.50 check on the origi-
1al cffer. which he retained for some
lime. while the bids were being made
back and forth.
4 was asked the other day." said
~ bTlSnb, "ndI L SdIO 10 Justice
Wright about the s19,525 OTTER.
I remember that I urged Justice
VThgt TO authorize the acceptance OF
his offer. not only felt morally bound
D the Smith people, but thought the
Dther side had exhausted its offers"
Did Not Recalled.
Mr. Bright was asked IL he had any
correspondence with Attorney O'Dono-
Ehu.e. who complained to the commit
tee thai he was not given a chance 70
1ake a final bid. Mr. Bright said he
CDonoghue, but had a letter from Mr.,
-oughltn- who was represented 10y
C'Donoghue, according to Mr.. BriShts
resent understanding.
In that letter, dated aJnuary g, was
ne offer Of SIS, 800. That was the cul-
nation OF offers on that side? 1 do
OF think / had any dealing with Mr..
t'Donoghue until the Saturday morning
have no recollection of any letter
f-om that side except the Coughlan let
Ter.
On February 1s I wrote Mr.. Cough
curt TO accept an offer of s19,525. I
-cld him that 1 had submitted his offer
20 the court and had been holding IL
since, awaiting an order of the court"
Mr.. Bright, answering a question from
Congressman Beall, said he had no
recollection Of any offer from Mr..
.O'Donoghue or Mr.. Coughlan Of so, 600,
less per cent commission. He said Mr..
G C'Donoghue had never given him any
atination that he would pay more than
Sls,5oo.
II had no intimation of that kind
until the Monday morning after the
ssle was approved by the court
Asked As To Ambrose.
Congressman Beau asked when Mr..
Ambrose had come into the negotia-
tons.
After the offer had been made which
as higher than the original offer of
ne Smith Company" said Mr.. Bright
The Smith Company made an effort to
nave the court abide by what they
. aim was my contract to let them have
- property at 1880. Mr.. Ambrose
-vent into court to urge the court TO
stick by the original sale This the
court declined to do. think Mr.. Am |
S-ose filed a brief, but I do not know
whether / saw a copy Of it" |
Chairman Mccoy asked Mr.. Bright, as
,-ustee. and tried to get a bid from
-. w Sullivan, who was then tenant |
= the Weisenborn Building.
No. thought / was getting a fancy |
price for that property"
Was IL your duty as trustee to get |
fancy price or the fanciest price?"
My duty was to get the very best"
Was Ambrose in court the last day
So-A4S OSAOAO A4lC StUil-
" hat was he there for7''
! do not remember what he said. He
-Hs there. 1 presume. 20 maintain the
sale to Mr.. Norris"
In closing real estate transactions in
We District where deposit has been
-7id q II ccstomery TO send such large
~Necks as this S.75n check in advance
do net know. I don't believe II
IL generally done The Smith people
IMPLY left this check with me to be
'ised after 1 got the title. but this check
Tfs sent on the original proposal
On the Saturday when you saw Mr..
N'Donoghue, did you know he was in
terested in the natter
Ny best recollection is that ! did not
M Ambrose and myself came out Of
tie clerks office, and Mr.. O'Donoghue
said something to us. but I do not re-
all what IL was"
That was after the order had been
timed accepting the offer Of sls.525?''
Yes, sir
was Ambrose retained by Smith &
%. or by Norris?"
y understood Ambrose was retained
by Smith & Co.
was Ambrose retained by Smith &
co. al their own ovlition or at the
erection Of Mr. Norris?" asked At
rcrney Darlington;
- do not know"
Douglass Again Called.
Attorney Charles A. Douglass. who
las previously. testified about his con-
.ction with cases tried before JUS
tee Wright as counsel for the Wash
lr gton Railway and Electric Company,
: :.rrished the committee a complete
-~cord of all cases in which the rail-
vRy company was concerned from &c
Ooer. 1896, 10 October, 1872. The witness
was not questioned about the list
Mr. Douglass was asked to identity
10 letters touching on the fee of $500
by Justice Wright from the
Z nited States Savings Bank In the mat
Ter OF the National Bureau Of Liter
arure and Art. In the first letter Mr..
douglass who was then counsel for
the bank, was asked as 10 the propriety
q paying Justice Wright for his ser
.ces. The second letter contained
Mr.. Douglass answer to that from
James I. Karrick. president Of the
ank. in which Douglass said that the
payment can legally and properly be
made Mr.. Douglass said when an
swering an inquiry from Attorney Oar
.aGEton, that he ascertained what ser
ice was done by Justice Wright from !
with President Karrick OF !
he bank. and from James NJ. Baker
and Justice Wright himself.
You were director in the United
States Savings Bank at the ume?
asked Chairman Mccoy. !
L believe / was responded Mr..
Douglass.
You were also receiver for the Ma {
tionsI Bureau of Literature and Art?' ..
Yes sir"