Mr. CONIFF. Are you directed, as prohibition officer, to destroy it or do you assist the marshal's office? Mr. BEE. No, sir. If I am there and they appoint me I go and help. Mr. CONIFF. Yes; but the order is given to the marshal? Mr. BEE. Yes, sir. Mr. CONIFF. And not to you as prohibition officer. I understand that there is a committee now; do you understand that? Mr. BEE. Yes, sir. Mr. CONIFF. Judge Baker has adopted the plan of appointing a committee consisting of two or three officials and a citizen; is that right? Mr. BEE. Yes, sir. Mr. SCHUCK. Is it not a fact that the old method was to have one of the marshals, and the new method is and has been, for two and a half years past that it goes to your department for destruction and that a committee is named and your name is in the committee? Mr. BEE. My name has been on the committee two or three times, I don't know just how many times, and I have helped to destroy stuff. Mr. SCHUCK. And you have custody and control of it, don't you? Mr. BEE. Not particularly, no, sir. Mr. SCHUCK. What do you mean by "not particularly"? Mr. BEE. I have no keys or anything of the kind at any place. I look after the men and see that the men are at work, and look after that. I let them-take any place like Wheeling, Mr. Hyde and Mr. Smith look after that and, at Clarksburg, Mr. Doerr is supposed to look after that. That is his headquarters. Mr. SCHUCK. Who looks after it at Elkins? Mr. BEE. What did you say? Mr. SCHUCK. Who looks after it at Elkins? Mr. BEE. Mr. Doerr is supposed to. Mr. SCHUCK. He lives right out near there, doesn't he? Mr. BEE. Yes, sir. Mr. SCHUCK. And each of those prohibition officers have their keys to the receptacles where they are holding this confiscated liquor? Mr. BEE. I think they have, mostly. Mr. SCHUCK. And that has been the situation for the last two and a half years in this district, has it not? Mr. BEE. Well, I think it has. Mr. SCHUCK. And during all that time, you or Joe Doerr have never destroyed any of that liquor at Elkins? Mr. BEE. Well, I did not. I could not say about Mr. Doerr; he would have to speak for himself. Mr. SCHUCK. He was the group head up there for the last two years and a half, or three years? Mr. BEE. Yes, sir. Mr. SCHUCK. For over three years? Mr. BEE. I expect he has. He was there when I went in. Mr. SCHUCK. That is all. We would like to call Mr. Doerr for just a moment. I think he is still out there. TESTIMONY OF MR. JOSEPH DOERR-Recalled Mr. SCHUCK. How long have you been group head of the prohibition department in the Elkins district? Mr. DOERR. I was appointed the group head some time in the early part of 1922, the exact date I can not give. Mr. SCHUCK. The early part of 1922? Mr. DOERR. Yes, sir. Mr. SCHUCK. At that time, did you take charge of the large quantity of bottled liquor that was up to Elkins? Mr. DOERR. I did not. Mr. Hannen, the group head before me, had charge of that liquor, and I never was held accountable for that liquor. I had nothing to do with that part of the liquor. Mr. SCHUCK. You know it was shipped to Elkins, don't you? Mr. DOERR. No; I do not. Mr. SCHUCK. You do not know that? Mr. DOERR. No, I do not know that. Mr. SCHUCK. Whatever the case may be, it never came into your hands and you never destroyed any of it? Mr. DOERR. I did not. Mr. SCHUCK. And you never saw any of it destroyed? Mr. DOERR. Not to my knowledge. Mr. SCHUCK. And you were the group head following Mr. Hannen that had charge of this 800 quarts? Mr. DOERR. That is right. Mr. CONIFF. When did you come in-in 1922? Mr. DOERR. I am unable to give the date at this time. Mr. CONIFF. Was it after February? Mr. DOERR. Yes; it must have been along in the spring of 1922, as well as I can recollect. Mr. CONIFF. That is all. Now call Mr. Ed Brast. TESTIMONY OF MR. ED BRAST (The witness was duly sworn by the chairman.) Mr. CONIFF. Mr. Brast, where do you live? Mr. BRAST. Parkersburg, W. Va. Mr. CONIFF. What is your business? Mr. BRAST. Hotel business. Mr. CONIFF. You run the Chancellor Hotel? Mr. BRAST. Yes, sir. Mr. CONIFF. Do you know Judge Baker, Mr. Brast? Mr. BRAST. Yes, sir. Mr. CONIFF. How long have you known him. (After a pause.) Well, you have known him well since he has been on the bench? Mr. BRAST. I have known him a good many years. Mr. CONIFF. He stops at your hotel whenever he comes to Parkersburg? Mr. BRAST. Yes, sir. Mr. CONIFF. How frequently have you seen the judge during the time he has been on the bench, especially when he is holding terms here? Mr. BRAST. I see him every day when he is holding court here. Mr. CONIFF. And you are personally well acquainted with him? Mr. BRAST. I think so. Mr. CONIFF. You see him out of the ordinary, as a guest in the hotel, while he is here? Do you sit and talk to him a good deal, or not? Mr. BRAST. Well, most every evening he stops in the office and sits down. Mr. CONIFF. Now, during the time he has been judge and a guest in your hotel, during the terms here, tell these gentlemen whether you have ever seen him intoxicated or giving any evidence he had been drinking? Mr. BRAST. I never have. Mr. CONIFF. You may ask. Mr. SCHUCK. Since he has been on the bench and he has been coming to Parkersburg as Federal judge, have you ever seen him take a drink of liquor? Mr. BRAST. No, sir. Mr. SCHUCK. You have not? Mr. BRAST. No, sir. Mr. SCHUCK. That is all. Mr. CONIFF. Gentlemen, that is all we have to present. Mr. HICKEY. Does that conclude your evidence? Mr. CONIFF. Yes, sir. Mr. FOSTER. I have been keeping track and that is 53 witnesses, counting those who were called and recalled, that we have examined yesterday and today. Mr. DYER. Is there any evidence in rebuttal you desire to offer? Mr. SCHUCK. We have some rebuttal evidence of some statements made today that we think are vitally important. I do not know what the committee wants to do with reference to this. There are some of the witnesses here, and some we have sent for. Mr. DYER. How many have you here? Mr. SCHUCK. We have five here. Mr. DYER. You can proceed with them until 6 o'clock. TESTIMONY OF MR. HERBERT BOREMAN (The witnesses was duly sworn by the chairman.) Mr. SCHUCK. Mr. Boreman, you are one of the Assistant District Attorneys at the present time? Mr. BOREMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. SCHUCK. I will ask you if you know Russell Barrett? Mr. SCHUCK. I will ask you whether you were on the train recently with him, coming from Elkins, at which time you had a discussion of the Sawa case that has been under consideration here by this committee? Mr. BOREMAN. I was on the train with Mr. Barrett and had a conversation with him in which that matter was mentioned, yes, sir. Mr. SCHUCK. I will ask you to state whether or not he told you at that time that he did not remember anything about the case except as to the dates of sentence and what his record may reveal? Mr. BOREMAN. In substance, that is correct; yes, sir. 29045-25-PT 1- -19 Mr. DYER. What is that? Mr. BOREMAN. The conversation came up by Mr. Barrett stating he was summoned as a witness and he did not know what they wanted to summon him for, unless it might be in connection with the Sawa case. I said "What is that case; I am not familiar with it,“ and he stated to me that it was a case in which a father and son were involved and that the son had come in and entered a plea of guilty to some liquor charges, and that those in authority, the district attorney's office and others, were not convinced he was telling the truth and, on questioning him, it developed that his father was really the guilty party. Mr. Barrett said there was some question as to the alteration of a record involved and that it had been so long ago that he did not remember any of the details about it, and that he would be bound by what the record showed; that that is all he could say. Mr. SCHUCK. That is all. Mr. CONIFF. You say he told you in that conversation that he had been summoned here as a witness? Mr. BOREMAN. That is what I understood him to say; yes, sir. Mr. CONIFF. Did he say who summoned him? Mr. BOREMAN. He did not. Mr. CONIFF. But that he got a summons? Mr. BOREMAN. He did. Mr. CONIFF. When was this? Mr. BOREMAN. I believe it was a week ago to-day, on the train from Elkins to Grafton. Mr. CONIFF. You are quite clear he made that statement? Mr. SCHUCK. That is all. Call Mrs. Mettler. TESTIMONY OF MRS. MALLIE W. METTLER (The witness was duly sworn by the chairman.) Mr. SCHUCK. Mrs. Mettler, you are one of the stenographers in the District Attorney's office here at Parkersburg? Mrs. METTLER. I am, sir. Mr. SCHUCK. How long have you been such stenographer in the District Attorney's office? Mrs. METTLER. Since the 24th day of April, 1922. Mr. SCHUCK. I will ask you whether or not you were present in the district attorney's office here in May or June, of 1922, when Judge Brown and Mrs. Greer and Russell Barrett were present, discussing the Sawa case? Mrs. METTLER. I was, sir. Mr. SCHUCK. I will ask you to state whether it is not a fact that at that time Judge Brown made a full statement of the case with reference to the alternation of the informations, and whether or not at that time Mr. Barrett did not agree with it as the facts in the case? Mrs. METTLER. He did, sir. He said, "That is right; that is what happened." Mr. SCHUCK. And I will ask you whether it is not a fact that at the time, in that discussion, Judge Brown said that the information was not changed until the last day of that term in Wheeling? Mrs. METTLER. Yes; after he had left Wheeling. Mr. SCHUCK. You may ask. Mr. CONIFF. Except for Mr. Schuck putting into his questions what took place there, you would not recall it, would you? Mrs. METTLER. Yes; I would recall it. Mr. CONIFF. What would help you to recall it now, except that Mr. Schuck put everything he wanted you to answer in his questions? Mr. SCHUCK. Is not the question proper, in the form of contradiction? Mr. CONIFF. I am not complaining of the way you asked the question, except that he calls attention to the facts to which you could say yes or no. Would you recall anything about this incident, except for that? Mrs. METTLER. Oh, yes; I had discussed it. Mr. CONIFF. What else did Judge Brown say on that occasion! Mrs. METTLER. Well, I don't remember anything on that occasion, except the incidents in the Sawa case, when Mr. Barrett came to our office. Mr. CONIFF. And if Mr. Schuck had not said, now, Mr. Brown said a certain thing on that occasion, and claimed a certain thing, and Mr. Barrett assented to it, you would not be able to tell us now what Judge Brown said, would you? Mrs. METTLER. In substance; yes. Mr. CONIFF. In substance, but would you be able to say particularly what Mr. Schuck asked you in the question? Mrs. METTLER. Well, I don't know that I would repeat his exact words, no. Mr. CONIFF. And, from that time until this hearing came on, your attention was not called to this incident at all, was it? Mrs. METTLER. Oh, yes. Mr. CONIFF. When? Mrs. METTLER. We had discussed it several times, sir. Mr. CONIFF. What was the occasion of your discussing it? Mrs. METTLER. Well, we have had the question up many times in the office, you know. Mr. CONIFF. Why? Mrs. METTLER. Well, when we were preparing the report. Mr. CONIFF. Do you know why? Mrs. METTLER. Yes; when we were preparing the report. Mrs. METTLER. To the Attorney General in the Sawa case. Since that report, has there been any occasion for you to discuss it with anybody? Mrs. METTLER. Not until recently. Mr. CONIFF. What you do mean by discussing it is this: Mrs. Greer is in the same office? Mrs. METTLER. She is, sir. Mr. CONIFF. And Judge Brown? Mrs. METTLER. Yes, sir. |