The Washington times., 1917-02-05

ment and upon the suggestion as t
information would enable brokers tC
anticipate gyrations."
When Barrett became too i'll tC
/ appear before the committee wa
next inquired into by Attorney Whip
pie. He askel Ellis il Barrett got
sick when the investigation started
on January 5.
Went South for Health.
Ellis said he thought Barrett was
taken i'll about January is. The wit
| ness said he also was sick at the
time and went South for his health.
Had he remained at work, he said, he
would have gone crazy"
The attorney at this point suggest.
ed that the committee summon other
employees of the Hutton Company to
explain why all the messages sent and
received by the firm on December 20
had not been delivered to the COM
mittee.
The suggestion was adopted.
Producing another IeIrSram Attor'
ney Whipple read the following from
Clement to Hutton & Co, on Decem-
ber 20, at 12:P2 p. m, Chicago:
You should not sent out my. mes
sage. Confidential How's this?'
Ellis admitted receipt of this mes
sage and Attorney Whipple read the
following sent "ut b. luton o. 20.
at 1857 p. m, New York:
Flash to all.
Reports have It that State Depart
ment will send a peace note late to-
day"
Sent BY His Firm.
The witness said this message was
sent out by his firm.
Then the attorney read the follow
ing, timed 1906 .. m, Chicago from
Clement to E. Hutton:
Il send a confidential message to
Barrett and Immediately you put IL
on wire, who in hell Is responsible
for this kind OF work.
Ellis said he received this message,
in the absence of Barrett and answer
ed it.
AT 1901. Chicago, one minute
later, another message was sent by
Clement to your firm," said Attorney
whipple. This shows that Clement
did not think you were prompt enough
about answering him"
The attorney then read the follow
ing:
"E. F. Hutton & Co:
u can't understand how anyone
there would violate a confidence.
Simply precludes our sending any
more messages and kills our source
of information. CLEMENT"
Ellis identified this message as one
received by the firm OF which he is a
member.
-Four minu,es after that message was
sent" said Attorney Whipple," or at
l2u Chicago. to be exact. Clement sent
the following message to Barrett:
I'VE have a man in Washington who
gets the news. l think IT is up to you
to sift down this thing as We probably
never will get any more dope from him
in the future"
Then Sent Reply.
Ellis said Barrett being out OF the
office, he sent the following reply
to Clement:
"Our Washington wire gave US
similar message to yours. Others
have similar information to your mes
fdentiaI and treated it as such"
Explaining the signature Cornell"
on this reply. Ellis said Cornell was
the empl"ye who copied the reply
after he (Ellis) had written it.
The following message, addressed to
Clement. Curtis & Co. Null and all"
by George A. Curtis. jr.. was next
hu WhinnIe-
please treat our message conf
dentially and do rot give it any puo-
licity and see that no word of 1t gets
to the papers or outsiders"
After Ellis admitted he sent this
message as a preface to something
that was coming. he identified n tele-
g ram similar to the one sent to him
by J. Fred Essary as the dispatch to
which the confidential adjuration ap-
piled.
Time Is Noted.
The time on the message was l:O5
p. m, Chicago, or 2O5 p. m. New
York. Essary testified Saturday that
he sent his message at about l:35
p m. Washington or New York time.
This would have given Ellis half an
hour in which to send it out.
QuestIoned As To Secrecy.
Attorney. Whipple asked the wit
ness why he wanted SO much secrecy
preserved about Hutton & Co.'S mes
sage. when exactly the same infor-
nation had been contained In the
OF Clement. Curtis & Co. The
witness answered that II was the
policy OF all brokerage firms to guard
their sources OF information.
Asked by Attorney WhippIe IL the
secrecy was not based on the fact
that the message sent out by Hutton
& Co. really contained a condemnation
Of the peace note to be issued later
In the day, Mr.. Ellis said this was
not the motive for secrecy. but mere
ly to eliminate the necessity for an
swering questions as to where the In.
came from.
Told of Code.
The witness said he did not regard
the first information which his firm
from Chicago as highly i'm.
portant. He said that IL IL had been
unusual important or confidential l.
would have been telephoned or sen.