The New York herald., 1922-03-17

is opposed 10 any pTdcticeS WHlcn may
be shown to exist to the detriment OF
the character and honesty of the cotton
brokerage business.
when the game is often reduced to a
wager with dishonest and irresponsible
persons, and most of those specializing
live far away from the exchange in the
cotton belt of the Southern States.
THE District Attorney. in the exer-
else Of his discretion deemed 1t best not
to seek waivers of immunity from the
witnesses who have testified. so that
under the law those persons, j take 1t.
will not be liable to prosecution. and
where they have frankly and fully and
without reserve given evidence material
for the prosecution and for the public
benefit ! would advise that immunity
be extended to them.
I'm addition to the officers and direc-
tors of the American Cotton Exchange
the evidence so far as given involves the
following Individuals
Martin Goulko. trading under the
name of Martin & Co.
Israel Goulko, trading under the
name Of Anderson & Co.
angelo 7. Jennings and Leonard c.
Cocheu, trading under the name of A.
T. Jennings & Co.
Edward L. Patton. trading under
the name of Edward L. Patton & Co.
Raymond Palmer. trading under the
name OF Palmer Co.
Randolph Rose, Sr., and Randolph
Rose, Jr.. trading under the name Of
Rose & Son.
The John Doe inquiry closed after
four sessions. The preliminaries had
to do with the theory and practice of
the cotton market, and the stories by
former members of the American Cot
ton Exchange of how innumerable trades
on that exchange consisted merely Of
one broker holding up crossed fingers
and bidding to fill a customers order
while another broker crossed his fingers
and pretended TO fill the order.
1t was shown also that the clientele
in the South is besieged with glowing
literature concerning specializing on the
cotton market. In reply to a question
/ from Magistrate McAdoo one witness
testified that the broker always figured
that his customer had the wrong side
of the market and gambled against him.
The same witness said customer some
times won, but always turned around
and lost twice as much.
The final session lasted only twenty
minutes. 1t consisted of the filing in
evidence of a wheelbarrow load OF docu-
ments from the clearing house associa-
tion of the exchange through which
| Mr.. Simmons expects to be able to trace
! virtually all of the trading for the last
1 six months. The evidence was in seven
large packages wrapped in brown paper
| which were not opened.
Report sheets Furnished.
Charles G. Healy. secretary of the
clearing house, identified the packages
as containing the report sheets of the
bought and sold transa ctions OF the ex-
change. recapitulations and cancelled
checks OF all transactions for the
period including August, 1921. to Janu-
| airy, 1922. The documents, IL was
| stated, were furnished to the inquiry
| voluntarily by the clearing house as
! sociation.
4 Mr.. Healv was questioned particularly
| to learn whether the sheets will disclose
the transactions of Ormsbee & Lam
decker and Wilson & Co.. members Of
which firms confessed TO crossing trades
4 and bucketing orders and implicated
virtually every firm of the exchange,
naming some OF them specifically. The
names Of those specified by these wit
nesscs were contained in tho list OF
1 firms recommended for the attention OF
the District Attorney in Judge McAdoo's $
presentment.
Mr. Healy replied that the documents
not only contained the records of the
transactions of the two firms. but also
those of all the floor brokers.
The clearing house association is
separate from the exchange. II was not
mentioned in the presentment. Mr.,
Healy said its officers We're
r. G.. Palmer, president VI. Goulho.
vice president, and Randolph Rose, Sr. ;
r
Schaap, directors.
That completed tho testimony, and
Mr. Simmons announced that the ease
OF the People was completed.
Exchange Wants 20 speak.
Tho first move Of the cotton exchange
side was to forestall a reference of the
matter TO a Grand Jury.
George Gordon Battle. representing
the cotton brokers OF the exchange. after
stating that he realized he was there by
courtesy only and. though having been
permitted to ask some questions, was
not entitled to cross-examnc the wit
ncsses, appealed to the Chief Magistrate
to recommend to the District Attorney
that. In event of action, the matter be
sent to a committing Magistrate, before
whom the defense would have the right
OF cross-examnation OF witnesses
Mr.. Battle said that TO send the mat
ter before Grand Jury, where Wit
nesses could not be cross-examlned ana
which would mean that the allegations
already made against the exchange and
it's brokers would perforce continue un-
answered, would be ruinous to the
brokers and detrimental TO the eN-
change. since indictments would at once
undermine the confidence Of customers
before the indicted had opportunity to
dlsprove the charges
Before o. Magistrate. however. Mr.
Battle pointed out, the witnesses OF the
prosecution could be cross-examined. the
credibility OF such witnesses could be
attacked and other evidence introduced
to prove that allegations made by wit
neeses OF the prosecution were untrue
In that manner II is the hope Of the ex-
change and It's members to get Its side
OF the story to the ears Of the public
before the damage already done goes too