Evening star., 1943-01-16
Morale Indictment
Challenges Are Taken
Under Amusement
Hectic Hearing Held;
Mrs. DiIIine Enters
Plea of Not Guilty

Justice Jesse c. Adkins today had
under advisement various motions to
dismiss an indictment charging %
persons with conspiring to under
mine the morale of the armed forces,
following a hectic fve-hour session
In District Court yesterday, during
which the marshals continually
raped for silence and the judge
cautioned one defense counsel about
improper" remarks.
The late afternoon session fol-
lowed earlier arguments in which
Albert Dilling, whose wife, Mrs.
Elizabeth Dilling of Chicago, is
charged with conspiracy, told Justice
Adkins there are rumors current a
third indictment, leveled against Re-
publicans who voted against Mr..
Roosevelt in 1882, is being prepared
by the Government
William Power Maloney, special
assistant to the Attorney General
who is presenting the Government
case, answered this with an opinion
that Those rumors have their ORR
gin in the fertile mind of Mr..
Dilling"
In Husbands Custody.
Mrs. Dilling, arraigned on a second
Government indictment charging 33
persons and one corporation with
conspiracy, pleaded not guilty and
was released in the custody of her
husband, a member of the Illinois
bar.
Most of the arguments on the
motions challenging the validity of
the first of two indictments were
presented by John w. Jackson, at
torney for Gerald B. Winrod, one of
the alleged conspirators.
Mr.. jackson made it plain he was
speaking only in behalf of his
client, Winrod. Counsel for several
other defendants told the court they
wished to join in Mr.. Jackson's ar
guments, which constituted three
point assault on the indictment.
- He alleged the grand jury which
indicted the accused % was not
grand jury but an aggregation of
people" who had no legal powers
as a jury because the investigation
of the alleged conspiracy extended
beyond the original term of the jury,
which, he said, is not allowed by
the District Code.
Answered by Maloney.
Mr.. Maloney answered this by
alleging that the Federal statute
gives the District of Columbia courts
power to extend grand jury terms
up to a total of 18 months. He said
the Judges in District Courts of the
District of Columbia have the same !
powers as judges in Federal Courts.
In Mr.. Jackson's second point the |
attorney assumed, for the sake of
argument, but did not admit, that
the Federal statute applied in the
case being argued and pointed out
that even If this is true, the grand |
Jury must conflne its activities IN
the extended period to matters un-
der investigation In the original
term.
The second count Of the indict-
ment," he said, alleges that the
accused were guilty on December 8,
194l, and thereafter. How can
grand jury investigating these al
legged conspirators in october of
1941 decide they are guilty OF a
crime in December of 1912"
Said to Be of Same Pattern.
Mr.. Maloney said the alleged facts
under investigation in the extend
ed period were of the same gen.
eral pattern as those under inves-
tigation in the original term. He
said the alleged violations in peace
time became wartime violations on
December 8, but the jury, he added.
investigated the same violations be-
fore and after Pearl Harbor.
Mr.. Jackson's third point was that
the first indictment is fatally de-
fective" because it lacks certain es-
sential allegations explaining that
acts charged against the accused
were investigated in the original
term and were unfinished in that |
term and in succeeding terms up to
the time the indictment was re-
turned in court.
Mr.. Maloney's answer was that the |
indictment does explain this.