The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1916-06-02
SEYMOUR ADMITS HE
ASKED COMMISSION
But Denies in John Doe Case
That He Posed as Morgan
COnfidant.
BURNS CALLS WORK LEGAL
Never Stole Law Firms Pa
pers: Put in Dctectaphone
by Permission. lie Says.

by Permission. He Says.
detective William J. Burns and Law
yer Frederick Seymour were witnesses
Yesterday In Chief Magistrate McAdoo's
John Doe inquiry into the legality Of
Burnss planting a detectaphone In the
ofhces OF Seymour & Seymour in the
Equitable Building and of taking away
copies OF papers which he handed % J.
J., Morgan Il Co.
Mr.. Burns, denying that he had been
guilty OF unlawful entry. said all he did
was by authority OF the agents OF the
Equitable Building. lie insisted that he
opened no drawer or desk. took copies
only OF papers he found on a desk, and
was Thoroughly under the impression
that letter there was part of the
material that was stolen from J. r.
Morgan 4 Co" lie believed that his en-
pIoye" listening on the detectaphone
heard something about arms or am
munition In Mexico" but the witness
didn't know details OF this alleged con-
versation.
Mr.. Seymour stoutly denied that he
had ever professed in brokerage deal
ings with the Humboldt Fibre Company
TO have any information from or to b.
acting as the representative OF J. =
Morgan a CO. But he acknowledged the
authorship of a letter to the Humboldt
Fibre Company. dated April 10, claiming
on. behalf of Seymour Il Seymour COM
missions on the company's sales TO the
Morgan firm.
Denies MOPaan connection.
In this letter Mr. seymour contradlc,ed
an assertion made in q letter from the
Fibre company on March 90 that he had
given that concern to understand that
Seymour 4 Seymour were the conf
dental agents OF j. T. Morgan a. Co.
Both District Attorney Swami and
Chief Magistrate McAdoo questioned Mr..
Seymour sharply about this letter. I;
was on March 22 that the Humboldt
Fibre Company had written rfeie rick
Seymour wanting tn know II II was true.
as had been supposed. THAT Seymour a.
Seymour were acting as Morgan repre-
sentatives.
Mr.. Swami seemed to think il odd
that Mr. Seymour made no denial until
April lO--after nineteen days had
elapsed. The District Attorney also re-
marked that Seymour a Seymour did not
dlsclaim connection with the Morgan
house until after they had learned from
Val o'Farrll ton April 81 that some
body had placed n detectaphore in their
office and was eavesdropping
Mr.. Seymour explained this by say
ing that he had been Ill and also had i'm
portant affairs to watch In the light
of events he now felt that he should
have attached more Importance TO "a
denial lie also admitted signing the
original proposition whereby percent
age on contracts obtained by the Fibre
company with j. Z. Morgan Il 60. was
10 be paid
Denies I se of "GrRpevIn~.''
He repeated his previous denials that
secret information from J. 7. Morgan a
Co. was denoted by the use Of the word
grapevine In letters exchanged be-
tween Seymour & SeymOu. and the Hum.
boldt Fibre Company. Mr.. Swami in
troduced IA batch OF letters s,nplied by
Martin Egan OF the Morgan firm. one
from the Humboldt Fibre Company TO
Seymour & Seymour, dated February T.
said.
We have not heard from YOU or f,om
Morgan a Co sire. ou- letters of IN.
early part OF the week We sunnos.
time has been REQUIRED for Nory., A.
Co TO send their cable and r,reIvo =,
reply. We assume vou CON
lind out through the 'grapevino', ius,
what The prospects are 10, ,n AL,
conclusion
Pahy 10 MI seymour was the commu-
mont as IN m. .x.c, s,,,n, - e,,
g. sevmour was ,a,uiraL ~, .,,. ano"'
wanted TO kno,y ic a. "a p,t,it, wiz.
uns si,nirg Io,,ero ,r,', WIZ
ofric.s w,s o,,ho,i,a, NV "es i"o"r
,riss,n,s nr saios w. ','eNe COM
D, T. Nnr.,,, A. -, .r, ,, '"'ers
nor,. Alec said &, ~ com
a, ,,a ho,,,,,, "nutrstood
al, S. W. "' S'"'''oIs tntt
r,.,,rn..,,,. WV 'o"ndehtial
!, ,na,troa ,ha,h '' SUI 20, ana
,u,,a VI ho' 'his was
E,.,. v..,......
,e,i, "a ''' ,.'s' OF henih!
w aP'' ~ "''' 'o"'"'"oo 'Nese sem
nave JuSt gone 'hFoush the entire
ru,Iesponaenee WIN you concerning
"'e'S anu : '"h 10 nhd any Justihca-
''o1 l"r your PoS't'oh IN denying MS
comm ss'o.S on your sales to the firm
ol d. Morsah CO. We were en-
s"ssu 10 hsso'ia'e nor only the sales