New-York tribune., 1922-04-01
ndictAnerican
Cation Board
And Officials
cr.ud Jury Bills Charge the
Operation of Bucket Shop
,rd Name Two Brokers in
Specific Cross Trading
Speedy Trial Demanded
c.oham Accuses Rivals; De-
PENDANTS Supply Bail;
Will Enter Pleas Monday


rne long investigation Of the Amer.
,..n Cotton Exchange. OF 81 Broad
s.,se.. terminated yesterday with the
;odie.ment of the exchange, two of its
.m.erx and four of its directors on
charges Of bucketing
Two indictments were handed up to
fudge Grain in General Sessions prior
- the discharge Of the additional
March grand jury. One named the ex-
change and the six officers and directors.
snd accused them CT maintaining a
sucketshop. The other named two of
the directors, charging them with a
sosciic instance of cross-trading with
No intention to make delivery of cotton.
The officers indicted were:
Randolph Rose ST., former vice-presi-
dent OF the exchange, 622 West l13th
Street.
George ". Pratt, secretary and treas
urer. 66 West Seventy seventh Street.
The directors indicted were: Angelo
T. Jennings, 372 Fremont Avenue, Jer-
sey City; Martin Goulko, GA Riverside
Drive; Edward l., Patton, Mountain
Lake, n. j.; Raymond Palmer, s45
Union Street, Brooklyn.
Separate Bill Against Two
In the blanket indictment against the
exchange and the individuals men
toned it was alleged that since Janu-
ary, 1921, the exchange sanctioned the
practice o. fictitious trading without
any intention of fulfilling contracts.
Besides being named in this true bill,
Patton and Jennings were charged in
separate bill with bucketing an order.
The specific allegation was that on
October 3, 1921, they bucketed an order
for 800 bales of cotton by making a
eross-fnger contract between them
selves, when, III fact, there was no in
tention of making bona-hde purchase
for client.
All Of the defendants appeared be-
fore Judge Grain and were released in
$1,000 bail each. They will be ar
raigned before Judge Rosalsky on Mon
day to lead. Having been notified OF
their indictment. the defendants sur
rendered at the Criminal Courts Build
ing. and their release was soon ar
ranged by their attorneys. Albert Mas
sey reresented ths exchange, and the
indicted men were represented by
George Gordon Battle, Peter P. Smith,
A. A. Raphael, Fred w Klein and Will
liam Churosh
Augustus ". Graham, president of the
exchange and former judge in the
South. who automa tically received i'm
mun!ty when he testified at the John
Doe proceedings before Magistrate Nc
Adoo preceding the rrand jury in
quiry, issued a statemo Mt in which he
attributed the Original complaint to
envious rivals, announced the desire of
the defendants for speedy trial and
predicted their vindication in court.
MI Graham said that he and Secretary
pratt had offered to waive immunity
ana go before the grsno jury, but were
refused by the District Attorney.
Witnesses on hose testimony the
Indictments were voted we're Samuel
Lsndecker. W. B. Wilson and James
watson, former broker members OF the
exchange. The evidence was presented
BY Assistant District Attorneys Jerome
Smmons and Benjamin Schreiber.
$4,000 Fine Is Penalty
The defendants were accused of vio-
Iating Subdivision 4, Section $50, of the
penal law. which prohibits "the keep
Ing and operation of bucket shop"
The penalty for such violation on the
part OF corporation is a fine of not
more than $4,000, and for all other per-
sons convicted q fine of not more than
$l,OO0 each or by imprisonment of not
more than five years OR by both fine
and imprisonment.
The statement of Mr.. Graham in de-
tense Of the exchange and his associ-
ates follows:
The action of the grand jury was
anticipated, as the exchange and its di-
fectors were denied the right to cross
examine witnesses or to introduce any
evidence before Magistrate McAdoo;
neither was the president nor any broker
On the exchange permitted to appear
oeiore the grand jury, although the
president, the secretary and some of
Do 10. "
Attorneys for the exchange will
move Tor trial at the earliest date
possible. They feel they arc entitled
" snis privilege and do not believe the
Diserles Attorney will contest it, as
s..e! nave never yet had an opportu-
MY mty 70 present their case to court.
1hs statute under which the indict-
meh's were found is comparatively new
sno technical. There never has been
any case under it argued in the Ap-
Ps'ate Court. These indictments may
case
Inc exchange, its officers and brok-
s.s, all strenuously assert that they are
sas,iy ssaIfeiy innocent. They have from the
msihhlng claimed that the prosecution
. ssainst them was instigated through
1ieIior motives. They have equally
eeSSusas an opportunity to cross-examine
s;. .e Witnesses against them, whose mo-
tn Tvs they perfectly understand, and to
.u.nlsh evidence in their defense. This
ppefsunity has been, no to the present
uae denied them. Now they will have
VIZ chanee to present their side of the
. s, and they are con.uiC Mt that the
suls .sa Will be complete yindication
1Au proof of their innocence"
Nahill FINALLY Succeefss