The sun., 1919-07-24
MOONEY FRAMED
SAYS INVESTIGATOR
John B. Densmore Of Depart
ment of Labor Makes Long
Report.
HE SCORES PROSECUTION
Asserts Public Utility Inter
ests Bought Conviction
of Unionist.
Special Despotch TO The suS.

WASHINGTON, July 23. That the
trial Of Thomas ]. Mooney. now serving
life sentence for conviction on charges
of bomb throwing In a Preparedness
Day parade at San Francisco July ~,
1916, was "frameup" OF large business
interests to discredit union labor Is the
conclusion reached by John b. Dens-
more, Director OF Employment Of the
Department OF Labor, who conducted
secret investigation for the Government
This was disclosed to-day when the
Densmore report. completed November
1, 1918, was sent to the House in re-
Spouse to a resolution of Representative
Blanton (Tex.) asking for information
on the case.
Mr.. DenSnore In his report related
several Incidents to show that many in
justices were done Mooney during the
trial His report, which has been kept
secret, was the cause of efforts at San
Francisco to have the information he
gathered placed before a Grand Jury
This was refused by Secretary OF Labor
Wilson.
Much of the information in the report,
which covers almost 200 typewriter
pages. was gathered through dicta-
phone secreted by Mr.. Densmore in the
office of Charles NJ. Fickert District At
torney. who prosecuted Mooney. The
report bitterly assails Mr.. Fickert's con-
duct of the Office.
THE plain truth u.s." the report says,
that there Is nothing about the case to
prejudice a feeling Of confidence that the
dignity and majesty of the law has been
upheld. There is nowhere anything re-
semblng consistency. the effort being
that OF patchwork of homogeneous make
shifts and often of desperate expediency.
Fickert Called Tool.
ut was charged by the Mooney de-
PENDANTS with considerable FEASIBILITY
that Fickert was the creature and tool OF
powerful interests chief among them the
Chamber of Commerce and the principal
public service utilities Of San Francisco.
THE reading OF the testimony in the
case is apt to cause one to wonder at
many things namely, the apparent fall
ure of the District Attorneys Office to
conduct real investigation at the scene
Of the crime the easy adaptability Of
regular methods pursued by the prosecu-
ton in Identifying various defendants I:
the sorry type OF men and women
brought forward to prove essential mat
ters of fact in a case OF gravest i'm
portance the seeming inefficiency of a
well established alibi, the sangfroid
with which the prosecution occa sionally
adopted an untenable theory and then
changed to another not quite SO pre-
posterous, and the refusal of the prose-
Cutor to call witnesses who actually saw
the falling of the bomb.
80 thoroughly have the principal
witnesses for the prosecution been dis
credited that practically all OF them
have In effect confessed their several
parts in the frameup, leaving little for
the investigation to look into beyond a
few questions of motives and modus
operandi.
The basic motive underlying all the
acts OF the prosecution springs from a
determination on the part Of certain en-
ployers in San Francisco to conduct
their various business enterprises upon
the principle OF the open shop. There
has been no other motive worth talking
about