The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1899-04-22
WITNESS DEFIANT
Freedman's Attitude
Before Mazet An
gers Moss.
.OUSTED FROM ROOM
Himmelwright Escorted to
Door By Sergeant
at Arms.
Himmelwright Escorted to

New York, April 21.-Two exciting
sessions Of the Mazet investigation
committee were held today. A feature
was the refusal Of witnesses to give
testimony. Another feature was the
defiant attitude of Andrew Freedman
ON the stand, and still another feature,
the election from the committee room
Of Abraham Himme1wright, of the
Roebling company, when he insisted
upon making a statement after he had
refused to answer great majority Of
questions put to him by Mr.. Moss.
counsel for the committee.
The chief interest centered in Andrew
Freedman, who within recent years has
been known as a. warm personal friend
of Mr.. Croker's and associated with
him in a business way. Mr.. Freedman
was more than ordinarily forcible in his
answers to some of the questions, and
many of the questions he refused to
answer at all. At other times he was
rebuked by both Mr.. Moss and Chair
man Mazet, for what they termed i'm
pertinence."
After Mr. Freedman's examination
had progressed to a. certain point and
the witness had refused several times
to answer a question which he deemed
"a personal matter,v Mr.. Moss excused
him for the day. Mr. Freedman then
got down from the stand, and, turning
to the newspaper representatives,
handed them a paper, saying: Gentle
men of the press, here is a statement Of
the business of the Platt company and
of the business of our company, a state
ment of the entire business" 1t was
paper relating to the business done by
the United States Fidelity and Guaran-
tee Company, in which Freedman and
Croker are interested, and contained
information which Mr.. Moss had de-
| sired to get at during the course of the
examination. Mr. Moss, therefore, was
very indignant at Freedman's action
and denounced the witness vehemently
and recalled him to the stand. The
questions he put to Freedman with re-
gard to the paper were not answered,
the witness refusing absolutely to state
by whom the paper had been prepared.
At this juncture, Mr. Moss took occa-
sion to say that those witnesses who
were in contempt would be dealt with
later in a regular logical and legal
way When Mr.. Croker was on the
stand few days ago, he testified that
he had received dividends from the
Surety Company, while today it devel-
oped that the company had not paid
l.
on the stand. in reply to a series of
questions, that Mr.. Croker was a
stakeholder in the company, and is in
terested in the business success of the
Metropolitan district, that he received
a salary of $4,000 year as manager
for this territory and commissions, and
that he divided this money with Mr..
Croker.
Mr.. Freedman, however, refused to
name the sum that he paid to Mr.. Cro-
ker. and said. further, that he thought
Mr.. Croker might be under the i'm
preston that the money paid him was
in the way Of a dividend. Nearly the
entire examination of the witness CEN
tered about his and Mr.. Croker's con-
nection with the surety company,
which has dealings with a large num-
Der Of city officials. The witness could
not remember exactly how this con-
nection originated, but he did remem-
Der that there was no actual contract
between Mr. Croker and himself for the
amount of money. Mr.. Croker relying
on Freedman's word. as he himself put
it.
Abraham Himmelwright Of the Roe
bling Construction Company refused at
the very outset of his examination to
answer questions and enter iAto a dis
cussion at the slightest opportunity.
After several long wrangles, the wit
ness insisted upon making an explana-
ton. He was ordered down from the
witness stand by Chairman Mazet, but
refused to leave the stand. Then Mr..
Moss called for the sergeant arms,
and Himmelwright was escorted from
the room. Another session will be
held tomorrow. and. Freedman may be
called again.