The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-12-30
c, N. PRATT DENIES
new HAVEN PLOTS
Fears Out Lewis Cass Led.
wards Version Of Boston
and Maine Deal.
DEFENCE SCORES POINT

.he United States District Court. yes-
,eriay added hie denial to that OF Lewis
rass Ledyard that he knew OF or was
4 party to amy conspiracy to monopo.
lie transportation facilities Of New
England. Tho testimony Of Mr.. Pratt
dovetailed that Of Mr.. Ledyard. whom
the Government counsel ouud a difficult
witness on cross-examination.
As did Mr.. Ledyard. so Mr.. Pratt,
through the questioning of John q. Mill
burn. his counsel. took special pains to
explain his part in the sale of the Bos-
ton and Maine Railroad to the New
Haven. Mr.. Pratt insisted that he
looked upon the transfer of his S2.4s7. 900
worth Of Boston and Maine stock solely
from an investment viewpoint. He and
Mr.. Lcdyard. too. who testified in d.
rect examination at the morning ses-
sion. said that in matters before the
New Haven board the directors relied
implicitly on suggestions Of Charles 8.
Mellen. the president.
Il don't know" said Mr.. Melien later.
when asked about this part OF the tes-
,imony for the defence. II thought !
was dealing with n board OF directors
over u years of age. II I had known
that they knew so little about the New
Ravens affairs I think / would have
been inclined to get nurse maids for
them
Mr.. Ledyard's Denial EmVhat tie.
$40. Never. I never did," answered
Mr.. I.edyard with an emphatic nod OF
his head wren De Lancey Nicoll asked
him II he had any knowledge OF any
plan or conspiracy on the part OF the
New Haven board or its predecessors
10 ~molopolize commerce or II anything
was said or done by any one connected
with the road to lead him to believe
that a conspiracy existed. or II he con-
sciously took part in any u conspir-
'acy or was ever Influenced by any
desire to ~monopolizc transportation and
or II he was conscious at any
time of violating Federal laws. Mr..
Pratt echoed that testimony later in
the day.
Il never thought" said Mr.. Ledyard
In cross-eAamination by Frank NJ.
;Swacker. for the Government. that any
Federal suit to divorce the Boston n
Maine from the New Haven would have
that standing tsnapping his hngers)
before any court OF law
NJ. I.edyard refused steadfastly TO al
low Mr.. Swacker to draw any but Mr..
Lcdyard's W conclusions from his tes-
t'mou.. That is not SO" Or You can
read IT," he declared when ,he prosecutor
TIED TO lead him to say that his testl-
mOny about the meeting Uf the Boston
and Maine board in May. 1907. was. In
Substance. the same as the Governments
testimony Of William r. Lawrence. for
mer secretary o. the Boston and Maine.
concerning an entry in the minutes OF the
meeting, which was repud,a.ed later by
tie board. And a few minutes later:
Any one who says the purchase OF
he stock OF the Worcester. Nashua and
Rochester road was a violation OF any
law doesn't know the Oil maxim de
min.mis o cura, lex"
Translate that. won't !ou Mr.. Led
yard said NJ. NicolI.
Yes" responded the w.;ress eagerly.
1.-THE law doesn't concern itsel! with
tribes"
"Didn'; you say" asked NJ. Swaclser.
that II the scope Of the Government nc
;'vity in investigating the New Haven
extended you would be indic!ede"
Denies Fear of Indictment.
81 made such a statenent-that l
would be indicted%' reiterated NJ. Led
yard, leaning out OF his chair. II did
not. sir" And then he added with 4
smile: But I see what You've got hold
OF. Mr.. Swacker."
We'll. what ave I got mold OFF,
II said to the A,torney-Generai when
] saw him In Washington and talked to
him about the possibility ri Ne. Mellen
being indicted. Why. you might Just as
well think OF indicting me- And that's
The first time the matter OF indicting
me- until you got busy here ever entered
the mind Of mortal man"
The defence scored a cl, ar point in
the cross-examination Of Mr.. Lcdya rd
by Mr.. Swacker when the latter asked
the witness IL he negotiated an under
standing with the New York Central
and the American Express Company In
1911 for an allowance of 500, 900 a year
by the railroad with respect to import
business. Mr.. Nicoll promptly objected
10 the question n Judge Hunt ruled
1t out. even though Mr.. Swacker said his
object was to show the way of handling
this matter was the way some other
matters were handled"
Mr.. Pratt related his family invest.
ments in Boston and Maine from 1897
to 1907. aggregatlng 10, 6O9 shares at an
average cost of $1s2. He became a d.
rector in 1899 and first heard of the
proposed transfer to the New Haven
Early in 1907 from Mr.. Ledyard. Mr..
Pratt said he was concerned with the
question of the propriety and legality
or the proposed sale and counselled with
Mr. Ledyard and Richard Olney, whose
Judgment was clearly in favor OF the
salc.
MI. Pratt was purely an investor. he
sad and was prompted to act because
me Boston and Maine was not in the
best OF financial condition. was ham.
pered by the Massachusetts laws and did
not compare in strength with the New
Haven.
/ am not a Spectator. sir" said Mr..
Pratt, Il believed the sale to the New
Havon was wise for me and for every
other Boston and Maine shareholder.
IN" New Haven was a stronger cor
i"rdtion, financially and otherwise"
Mr. fratt ~ubstantiated Mr.. Ledyard's
denial of the Lawrence testimony con-
cerning the Boston and Maine directors
meeting in May, 1907. which has been
emphasized by the Government.
Concerning the New Haven's policy
ana expansion Mr.. Pratt insisted that
he mad only the man Of the streets
knowledge OF its constituent parts. He
sdd lie understood the repurchase OF
we Boston and Maine stock from the
hldrd Company. which stock was to be
taken over by the Boston Holding Com.
pahy' was sanctioned by the opinion OF
ne At'orney-General. Dana Malone. Mr.,
,,Ta,' made a sweeping denial OF any
Nhowicdge Of the Metropolitan Steam
sN! 'ompany's affairs and the ne6otia-
IONS relative to the Yale and Harvard
boats.
Assistant United States Attorney Rob.
W y stephenson In cross-examining
"f irdtt endeavored to show that the
%mlAesa must have known OF the New
fthNfh'u rtr.ns - -t A.s. n