New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-12-22
QUESTIONS TO WALCOTT.
DID HE BRIBE CHICAGO ALDERMEN?

HIS lOlNSEL NOt l<O NIL As'sA 49,
INQUIRY SHUT OFF CONCERNING CHARGES
OF DISHONESTY AT MONMOUTH PARK
E. J. Myers. attorney for Peter De Lacy asked
some ugly questions while he was cross examining -
Alfred F.. Walcott, president Of the Mon'ilou'
Park Racing Association. In the superior CoN'
Yesterday In the suit brought by Peter he Lacy
TO recover 100000 from Walcott and the Chcaso
and South Side Rapid Transit Company whlch
Walcott organized. and for which ne secure" I"
charter from the Chicago Board OF AIuefiiioi''
The questions referred TO were 10 Walcott
career as a racetrack manager and certain actions
which were brought against the managers OF MS
racetrack for keeping dlsordcrly houses ana also
other questions about Walcotts methods II sccu'
ing the passage of the ordinance by the ChcaSo
Board of Aldermen authorizing the construction
OF the elevated railroad in Chicago. including ue
question pointblank whether he had bribed or at
tempted TO bride members of the Chicago Board o.
Aldermen Julien r. Davies counsel for Nalco'',
interposed timely objections, which were sustained
by the Court and Walcott was saved all but the
humiliation of having such questions Affecting hS
honor and honesty asked of him.
1t is not extremely pleasant TO be asked IN pup
lie whether YOU have been responsible for the eX-
i1kncc of disorderly houses. and whether you nave
tried to bride Aldermen Most men OF honor would
have WINGED. Few could be restrained from mani
Testing Indignation. Walcott gave no sign lie
heard the insnuations as 20 his conduct as II t'cy
were a matter of course-an old story.
HISTORY OF THE TRANSACTION.
The case is in brief as follows: walcott formed
4 syndicate to get a charter and build the elevated
railroad In Chicago The syndicate started with
100000 In cash There difficulty in getting the
necessary ordinance passed. The Corporation Coun-
sci of Chicago condemned the scheme. sun the
board finally passed the bill. Then Mayor Roche
vetoed it. whereupon the Board Of Aldermen
promptly passed the ordinance over the veto. The
suspicious circumstances surrounding the passage
of this ordinance contrary 10 the recommends
tons Of the Corporation Counsel ana Mayor
aroused suspicion and provoked many sharp com
ments at the time. Afterward Walcott testified
before James d. Van Hovenberg. a Commissioner
appointed TO take his testimony that he had eX-
pended $780, in getting the ordinance through the
Chicago Board Of Aldermen "fcr legal purposes ana
various newspaper uses
The charter was obtained in the spring of 1855
There was provision tackled to 1t that the syndi-
cate must deposit 100000 with the city treasurer
to be held until one mile of the road was completed
The syndicate was not prepared for this require
ment. Walcott had spent all its money FOR leSai
purposes and various Newspaper uses The money
had to be raised by July 16 or the charter was to
be forfeited There much scrambling on the
part Of the syndicate; $4,000 was secured by July
a. and there the scheme stuck. Walcott and his
associates were in despair The "chance of life
time slipping away for want OF NUoW
Charles Reed who keeps notorious sysrd ga IN WIZ
colt He met De Lacy In front Of the norman
Waicetts house Two days later De Lacy went
walcotts office. Walcott he says was ready TO
into a. contract with De Lacy to give him in re,
turn for $4,000 $500 and large share OF me
ggE cS,cS OF the enterprise "'''''"'"S " ~'
CONTENTION OF THE DEFENDANTS
Now walcott denies tina, he made such an agree
ment with Mr. De Lacy. and it is also set UP in
behalf of the company that Wacott had no rght
to act for them IL he Gid make the agreement
and hence that the alleged contract was Full ana
void. To meet this last objection Mr. De Lacy
alleges that titular officials Of the company were
mere dummies and that Walcott owned most Of
the stock and had most to do with It's affairs The
cross-examnation OF Walcott intended by the
plaintiff to show this Some ,S Of tSe of 9b Tso
ness. The more improbable story he tens. re-
marked Mr.. Myers. "the better it will be for my
side OF the case"
Have you ever been a bookmaker?" was asked
Not that know or. answered Nalcott
Ever own a racing stable asked Mr. Myers.
Il object" said Mr.. Davies -
when he was on the stand" said MI Myers
'Do you mean to say that no distinction should
stable and a mere bookmaker one who keeps pool
rooms. where young men are ruined? asked Mr..
III there r re S stables there Tond
JuSse Dugro allowed the question. and Waicott
said that be had owned race horses and had run
them. to his sorrow 49,
Yes"
FOR KEEPING DIsORDERLY HOUSE.
did you, as president of the Monmouth Park
Racing Association. have anything to do with
Nits management in 1892 and 1892
y II did"
WAS not the Monmouth Park Racing Association
prosecuted In 1892 for keeping dsorder!y house,
I'VE were all arrested on that charge. The prose-
cution abandoned"
Were not charges made against you In 1892 on
the ground that J., horses were run dishonesty at
Judge Dugro decided that the witness need not
answer the question Mr Myers took exception
the management Of the Monmouth Park Racing
S%n Of Tesh you h and 5y ose
This question was also dlsallOwed
that il was asea risky Venture to invest his so
that Ssd Sys9 o hin az Sh % IF
however. that he did not act for the company In
the ;s For whom dd he act: For Mr.
Mr. Reed: What interest had Reed in the affair?
M rs wa: :.s stR Sh Pc Lacy into good thing Mr.
WERE ALDERMEN BRIBED7
Mr. Myers then asked walcott about his deal
With the Chicago Board Of Aldermen in the
of which he asked the question: did you pay any
money to any member Of the Chicago Board Of
Aldermen. to any person to be paid to any men,
Der Of the board, to influence his vote In favor Of
the charter of the Chicago and South side Rapid
Mr.. Davies objected. Such a question was scan
daious. There was not word of truth in the in
situation.
Mr.. Myers submitted that If Walcott had been
guilty Of bribery in Chicago the fact would affect
bis credibility in the present suit. Judge Dugro,
However. ruled the question out
Mr.. Myers then tried to get Walcott to say ex-
actly what his relations the Chicago and South
Side Rapid Transit Company were at the time ne
made the alleged agreement with De Lacy Wal
colt made evasive answers. Finally Judge Dugro
remarked that the witness fencing, and told
Mr.. Davies that ne would have to offer pretty
strong evidence 10 remove the impression from his
(the Judges) mind that Walcott was practically
the corporation, and acting fer IL.
Walcott was the stand until nearly the time
when the court closed.
FOR STEALING FROM THE STATE D1NK.
CHREE MEN HELD FOR TRIAL on a CHARGE OF