The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1877-10-25

me creditor olthrr j. a. lng"rsOll ~ lngcfsnll
Bank. and ihos. drawn to Mr.. Gnrvcy generally
60 / own credit that. ~. the wnrrnnis drawn
tp his ordcr-anI, ny | brior' stated. | founl
rimutpncous Payments against thos" deposits.
Thr Warrants generally did not bear the en-
tiorr'n mont" ~ M pnrtrN I"i%s ng ul",n. hs
they wcrc endorsed bv the ci"rks with the
IN tinle T.. A. W. An cXuminat on ~ the books
of any bank in which th'ar Vhrrks " re- de-
pos tel showed whrtlicr rhocks drawn against
th'e Warrants were paid in not =, went through
tho Clearing House to- another bank or wpro
d"rosli' IN The same bank To- the credit OF an.
otwr Dealer. An "Nnminnton OF ra"h payment
made 10y the hunks h"cufnc No .rsaarv to indi-
,,io INC channels through which they pase"d.
Nhrn tlr Checks wrr' found 20 M ~ nnoth"r
hnh. nave .sk, q centrally through the Dis
banks. asking them to furn all The nafncs OF tho
d pOe tors 81 thoee checks. The hanks wrrD
not un'avorahlo to the procrciing but they
wanted the authority on file before reveal g
their business. In Tint way found the trsti-
n.ony oi large p1rt ot thu dealings. when the
checks were deposited tn the credit Of another
dealer in the sam" .lnk. an examination of tho
deposit tickets of that hunk b-scumc necessary,
and W" generally found the dcpusitor: and when
they wore paid In bank not found. after
time. ucy represented c"rtnin division which
w. W.. g9lng to certain oni.a or perhaps the
hut, alt'r u time got SO that | could Indicate
with precision TO whom the checks paid in bank
HOW THE MONEY WAS SHARED
On that way you were enabled TO asocrtaln
what proportion uf each 1T those claims wng
bona hlc and what proportion went hy way Of
fraudulent nor Irutni,rss Al cnni1 ms .,,r,,,;,,
what proportion went to the claimants and
what To- officials. hut not what wis bona 1de.
w hat wHe the general result ol that in
VretigHtlunf How much went to the claimant
anu now uu'h 10 the corrupt onclAlY Al
found that tn" payments under this Adjusted
Claims at Of the Legislature began in July.
lS'S; mat tn" proportion OF the claim going to
oni uals WIS 30 per cent OF the principal or
h' ui that. and all the Interest which had been
and t"d ana allowed on tn claim, and the re-
naming 10 uor cont. went to IA" benefit Of the
claimant. Payments un.lor that act continued
up totuc hitter purt of prsrmhcr 1865 Then
IN ia y. 1869 payments nrain curimrncrd nn'
der that act and ID" amount OF money going To
on 'ia.s Vas ,urrWsod to 90 pr cent ot the
principal and all tll" interest. the claimant re-
c"iNlui, ~ per rrui. In November. 1869. tho
~ eious w'rc 60 pr cent. ~ th' principal and
cont oi inc urlu'lpa lo IN" claimants. and That
was about the division which continued
inronRhout to me close OF the county warrants.
specinl audit. which was the last hat'h.
A-iou have not yet come down 10 speaking
OF the operations Of IN" Ring urder the tax
levy. or was Il about the same all the way
through A-No. Under the tax levy there
WIS a variation in the prro.ntnrrs They VA
ried from time To time. and cannot from meui-
ory give those percentages, but they were gem
eiHly NOR" To- the claimants and less Ia the ofii
som" of the taN levy operations wer. carried on
nnianeuusly with the adjusted claims.
Q.-Indcr the Board ~ Audit. from your re-
searches. who among the officials appeared 10
receive p"r.rniag's, ana what percentages
A. "a
al ~tracicd from the Finnnce Department with
ih"'N'"pton OF "a few ia the name Of kcyser.
! found a check which did not bear an exact
proportion To- the Ia 81" of the warrant uniformly
going to the credit OF Mr.. ". NJ. Tweed gcner-
0ilv On inc day on which th" warrant was de-
p'- ltod To- the credit OF Woodward OF lngrrsoll.
aitrrward found that MIR. rwe,d'- cheek rep
resented twenty five p.r cent II the amount II
tho nri giual claim. | found that thu claimant
ror"ivcd thirtv-nve par cent. Of his originai
claim. without any OF the interest, l found tia;
t're wa- always q cheek drawn for thlriy-ilNe
fttT ID MI t..f
was always paid In bank uot,s r-prrsentiug
y peleNr. p'rrniHSr e. Mr. Connolly. Mr.
l-aNr about I'VE per cent and a, portion OF the
lnI"rst IN the hands Of Mr. Woodward. who
acted rs distributor.
MR.. T1LDEN's DISCOVERIES.
Tho witness declined 20 answer questions "a
to his reasons for believing that portions Of tile
percentage went TO Connolly and Swc-ny Tor
the reason that 1t would. he deemed. b,, Ju-
dicious To retain this knowledge until IL -
brought out in suits already commenced
c;-ls II your opinion. n an EXPERT, that il
could have been shown on the trial Of Peter b.
Swesny that ne had a part in these frauds
Any convict On IL. from knowledge Of the
evidence IN the hands OF the prosecution. that IL
could. wish 10 say. ia connection with these
special audit matters. that The ANALYSIS 81 them
was commenced 10y Mr.. 5. J. Tildrn. before /
had any connection with their exami nation and
that the checks to Woodward and tweed had
been traced by him. and TINT certain portion
Of the evidence IN the Sweeny case had also
been DEVELOPED 10y hun. state this because |
DO not wish Ia assume anything in connection
with the matter except what IL Just. Tho per
centages which Mr. Tlll"u traced 20 Mr. Tweed
a9 tove said before. did not represent def
inlte percentage On the fn"c IT the warrants.
Ihui have -inrr adjusted my self. 50 that # YOU
take the whole -iN millions 81 dolnrs. take four
times III" amount Mr. Tweed received. and il
VIII show the amour! II the original claims
and the percentages distributed M | have said
come ont correct within few cents.
,O-Nho mad" those divisions AIR.
Woodward fngcrso nd IG srvy were Tt the DR. nr
posiors ~ thr warrants, II Mr.. GHrNey de-
pos Tee! warrant, he would retain his part and
mana thr haan" over TO Mr. Woodward. Nj.
lngersol would do tho same. II they both de-
posted on n same day. check Tor IN bal
ana 80 matters were adjusted Ia a cent
HOW MUCH MAS STOLEN.
Can YOU form my Idea rs 10 the real Tro-
portion OF Nt!u" which those claims bore t0 tho
amounts ~" claimants rcceiVedf Al have
c7limHi'd II roughly IN my own mind. and DO
not believe 1t would exceed fifteen per cent.
Q-Of the portion which the claimants no.
tually received, or OF the face Of the hiilf A.
think. have both t,stinrd that not over t,vn-
s"v"nih- Of III" amount they received repre-
s"nt"d gcnuin" claims.
Q.-And tho-r adjusted claims amounted 10
how muchf Al would put It at about SIS
uuu ovv. 10" ndldst'd claims and special audit
gnd %" county iN levy claims each involved
Q.-Ana those slsO1o0oo? A.-Reprcsont
,9niiF payments an :" and including those
mad" under O. 40 "nHr''r oi $50.
cntr" amount wl. th hae been diverted from
w ,a~nik 10y NJ" corrupt practices Of the
NJ. from lir7t 90 lI~f. hu- amounted t,f A
ID Isir" "lTfi"ii uf fTHa. il ilHlm {giuOn 100
L.ta.crfu l-t of,f. uuirv 1858. and JUN. ls7l
ABOUT tu" van" 'f t'.' disruption. 10; ;4r Rins
i ifl' IFS lflrg" ol-, of riuius nnv. meyer
m"N"l int from won't of time end noe 81
.m'lnt of fraud, lr th' street ounulrl.~. street
iWp"y"m,ni- wid1 Nlt-. contra t- for sup
p.giS" nf,' ~ N,r '1'S,d in'o t'lr-r hgt
from lh' lufr" 800 in tn" debt OF the citv q Iring