Evening star., 1936-04-30
M'MULLEN CALLED
TO REFUTE CHARGE
Officer to Tell Own Story
of Dealings With Man.
ganese Firm.
BY REX COLLIER.

Col. Joseph I. McMullen was called
to the witness stand in his own de-
tense this afternoon at the trial of the
veteran Army officer for accepting fees
illegally from the Cuban American
Manganese Corp.
He is to tell his own story of his
dealings with the manganese firm in
1882. The. defense has asserted that
$500 fee paid McMullen by the cor
poration was not for aid in opposing
q pending tax on manganese imports.
as charged by the Government, but
was "a retainer" for future services.
Before McMullen was called from
the counsel table to the stand. the de-
fense had made an unsuccessful effort
to have Justice Daniel W. ODonoghue
grant a motion for a directed verdict,
and had presented testimony of several
character and other witnesses.
Directed Verdict Refused.
Justice O'Donoghue overruled the
motion for directed verdict after de-
tense and prosecution attorneys had
mdOe lengthy arguments.
witnesses who vouched for McMul-
lens character we're James G. Lana
han. local attorney; Maj. Gen. K. w.
Walker, retired; Maj. Lawrence G.
Crawford. retired, and Joseph N.
Grove, patent adviser.
Michael F. Calnan, president of the
Liberty National Bank, testified that
the 1880 check given McMullen by
the corporation was deposited in his
pank as a $3.50 credit to the account
of the Army officer.
William E. Leafy, chief of defense
counsele. in making the motion for a
directed verdict at the outset of today's
session, challenged numerous technical
points in the Governments indictment
which charges that McMullen received
$500 for helping in the defeat of a
proposed excise tax on manganese
imports from Cuba.
Grounds for Motion.
Chief grounds for the motion we're
that the fee. in the form of a check
dated July 6. 1882, was paid in New
York, outside the jurisdiction of the
local court. and that the Government
had failed to prove the tax matter
was pending before Congress or the
War Department at the time of pay
ment
Other Claims Offered.
Other claims made by Leahy were
that the evidence presented by the
prosecution failed to show McMullen
rendered any services to the corpora
ton other than those any Army officer
would render in line of duty, that no
proof was offered to show that Nc.
Mullen rendered any services after
June 6, 1882, when the tax bill was
passed. and that the indictment was
in error in classifying a United States
Senator among Officers of the United
States" allegedly approached by Nc
Mullen.
The deferse attorney argued that,
although the check was cashed in the
Liberty National Bank here and cred
tied to McMullen's account, it was
actually honored by the Chase Ma
tional Bank in New York, to which
the local bank forwarded it. 1t was
contended, therefore, that the District
court has no jurisdiction.
CONVENTIONS Answered.
Replying to this contention. David
A. Pine. chief assistant United States
attorney, pointed out that the local
bank, in permitting McMullen to draw
on the check, prior to its being hon.
ored by the New York bank, estab-
lished the scene of payment in Wash
ington. Pine also argued that a
United States Senator Is a Federal
officer within the meaning of the
statute under which the indictment
was drawn.
John J. Wilson, another assistant
United States attorney, answered
Leahy's argument that the tax matter
was not pending at the time McMul-
len received his fee from the corpora
ton. During these arguments the jury
was excluded from the court room.