New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-01-27
Morgan Press Agent Freed
of Copying and Publish
ing" Papers Charge
HIGHER COURT WILL
REVIEW DECISION
Detective, Justices Find,
Acted Cautiously and
Kept News Secret

William j. Burns was fined 500 yes
terday in Special Sessions for copying
and publishing" the contents of papers
found in the Offices of Seymour e. Sey-
mour, attorneys, of 100 Broadway, in
March, 1916. The detective entered
the Offices with the consent Of the
Equitable Building officials. at the re-
quest of J. ?. Morgan G. Co, in search
Of evidence to prove that somebody
there was receiving information about
French war contracts that had "lcaked"
from the Morgan Offices.
Martin Egan, publicity manager for
the Morgan firm. tried jointly with
Burns for the alleged misdemeanor
was acquitted. Justices Freschi, Col
Inns and Garvin held that although
Egan hired Burns TO copy the papers,
he had acted merely as a representa-
tive of the firm.
Although Justice Freschi offered
Burns until Monday to pay the fine or
20 to prison for thirty days, the de-
tectivc produced large roll Of bills
and paid the 500. Delaney Nicoll
and Francis l.. Wellman, counsel for
Burns and Egan, however, informed
the court that the fine was paid under
protest and that an appeal would be
carried TO the higher court.
Actuatcd by Good Motives
In pronouncing sentence on Burns,
Justice Freschi said:
"This is the first case OF this kind
under this statute and we feel that
your activity in this matter was
actuated by good motives-the motives
which your counsel. Mr.. Nicoll and
Mr.. Wellman. have so ably set out aud
established. The court by its verdict
indicates that Burns was doing what
he believed was his right to do.
1--WE believe that you did not dis
seminate this information and make 1t
known to the whole world, and that
you acted cautiously and without in
tent 20 give these matters publicity,
but rather, on the contrary. to keep it
secret. We feel that there was in
tent. as the law would have IT, that
YOU publicated this letter TO a number
ut may be taken into account that
we feel that no detective nor private
detective has any right to enter.
place of business to get Information
for purposes of his own. If your con-
duct was malicious we would not hest
tate 10 vote prison sentence.
Question of Law
owe are satisfied that you did this
from the best of <otives. There is a
serious question of law here and our
judgment is. as our decision indicates:
fhot the law was violated. Because OF
fhe surrounding circumstances, the
court feels justified in imposing only
ave are informed by your, counsel
that the Judgment here will be re-
viewed. We hope il will be-"
AS an afterthought Justice Freschl
"Tbis cab shall not be regarded as a
precedent for this class OF cases IN the
future"
Mr. Burns seid outside the courtroom
that he had beer assured by Controller
Travis that if the court found that ne
had merely violated technicality OF
the law, no attempt would be made 10
revoke his license.
Assistant District Attorney Black
conducted a lively cross-exsmination
OF BURNS.
"Do you believe you had a moral
I1Rnt TO INVADE Lne oeyuiohi ohiNNo'
he asked Eyes" was the reply.
Sought Conversations
OF you are acquitted you will do
the same again in other cases? A.-No.
THE question and answer were strick-
en- from the record at the request of
Mr.. Nicoll.)
Q.--You went in to read private let
tiers, didn't you? A.-No, to get con-
versations.
Q.-Then why did you take stenog-
rapher? A.-Because he was also an
expert detectaphone installer.
Arguing for a dismissal of the in
formation, Mr.. Nicoll declared that the
object of the Morgan firm in employ
ing Burns was to Illustrate a plot by
which French war contract secrets,
stolen from their Offices, were being
conveyed to agents close to the Ger
man Embassy. John Clifton, a Wash
ington attorney. referred to by Mr..
Nicoll as counsel for the embassy, de-
MED yesterday that he was in any way
implicated in the alleged plot.