The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-04-06
LAWYERS DEFEND
new HAVEN HEADS
Ask Bill Of Particulars in
Charges Against Direc-
tors.
INDICTMENTS ATTACKED

Former Acknowledgement George W.
wickersNam attacked the New Haven
indictments before Judge william Hunt
In the United States District Court yes
terday during an argument over an
application for a bill of particulars,
which Mr.. Wickersham declared was
necessary In order that his client.
Lewis Cass Ledyard. might know spe-
ciiically with what he was charged and
might prepare his defence accordingly.
I've indictments, according to Mr..
wickersham. merely charged in vague
general way that the defendants had
conspired to build w railroad monop-
oily In the East. And yet, he commended,
,he charges in their very incomplete
ness were cuuningly devised. the Gov
eminent evidently intending to allege
certain facts at the trial not set forth
IN the indictment and to trust The jury
10 infer that there had been con-
spiracy.
Such m.tnode he argued. were I'M
fair ~ they gave the attorneys Tor the
Government an enormous latitude in
which to proceed In their EFFORTS TO
pr,ye that A monopoly in restraint Of
trade actually existed.
The first fault with the Indictment,
said he Lies in Its generality. IL
covers period OF twenty-five years
and charges these defendants with con-
t.nuously engaging in illegal practices
during that time.
~ don't see" he continued, referring
to the case Of his client, Mr.. Ledyard.
how an indictment can hold man
for trial. when he IL blamed for things
which happened before he became a d.
rector
Here Judge Hunt interposed to say
that such y director might be held
responsible for the acts complained OF
II he tac;tly ratified them by joining the
directorate.
Mr.. Wickersham cited the decision OF
the United States Circuit Court OF APP
peais OF Ohio in the National Cash
Register case providing that allegations
I'm an indictment charging restraint OF
trade must he limited TO a period when
the defendants as officers or agents
controlled or directed the company's
Affairs.
How then" continued ne. can d
defendant he "A party to a conspiracy &c
mOnOpDliZe al time Wntn he was Vo'
connected with the company or how car
he be held responsible for things which
mad been dead and buried twenty
years before ne became identified with
tho corporation"
Mr. wickersham also discussed the
technical aspect OF the charge that the
new Haven road had violated the Sher'
man law by acquiring other railroad
properties In the Union Pacific case
he said the United states Supreme
Court had ruled that the railroads had
not violated the law by taking over tn,
Salt Lake line because the latter linz
was not a substantial competitor at tho
time.
1T is a significant thing" declared
the speaker. that the indictments in the
present case do not charge that any o.
the companies absorbed by the New
Haven were in actual competition witt
II or with one another AT the time OF
that they were engaged In interstat,
commerce"
Attorney John O. Milburn for III,
defence also argued for a bill OF par
ticulars.
Ex-senator John c. Spooner and ex
Justice Morgan J. O'Brien. who repre-
sent George F. Baker. r. De Wit
Cuyler. Edward Mllligan. Francis r
Saxwell and Theodore y. Nail asked
that their clients be tried separately.
Judge Hunt reserved decision on al
the motions.