New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-06-03
DID NOT MAKE OUT A CASE.
NO LEGAL EVIDENCE OBTAINED AGAINST
MAJOR LENTZ.

DUcED WAS HEARsAY-THE PRINCIPALS IN
THE CASES ExoNERATE MAJOR LENTz.
The information was given out by one Of the
members of the Ethics Committee OF the Lay
yers' Club Of Newark. that it's report upon the
charges against Major Carl Lentz contains
several findings 10 the effect that the sllega~
tions had been borne out by the testimony"
On the contrary the report contains nothing
OF the kind The Ethics Committee. IL appears.
failed to obtain any evidence against Major
Lentz. II then heard some lawyers who were
supposed to be conversant with the cases in
question and from them obtained some hearsay
testimony, which was condensed and submitted
with the report, which was TO the erect tnat
this so-called testimony would seem 10 Indicate
certain deductions unfavorablo 10 Major Lentz.
and which the committee refuses TO divulge In
short. the committee failed to make out a case
against Major Lentz.
The bitterness against the Major was so great,
however, that instead Of the charges being dis
missed as not proven the report and testimony
were referred to the Attorney-General for con-
sderation as to whether further action, IL any.
should be taken. IL seems clear 20 the Majors
friends who willingly acquesced in this course
that the Attorney General Will decide that the
committee having found no legal evidence TO
substantiate the charges. there exists no ground
for further action
The report OF the Ethics Committee Is kept
jealousy guarded James f. Howell, the chair
man Of the Ethics COMMITTEES. sale 10 Tribune
reporter yesterday that there had been only one
copy and corrected copy. and that justice TO
Major Lentz and to the club forbade It's publ
cation
The report as read 10 the club condensed the
evidence taken by the Ethics Committee. IL
says that effort had been made TO get the
testimony Of the principals in each OF the hve
cases before the committee but each and all
Of them refused TO appear and TESTIFY Tne
committee, having no power 10 compel tnem 10
appear pursued its investigation in another
way and the lawyers who had been connected
with the counsel and were conversant
with the facts alleged were summoned ana their
testimony taken This testimony, the friends
of Major Lentz contend. was mere hearsay. ,
Included in the report are five letters written
by the principals in the case to clients OF MaJor
Lentz denying that they had any complaints
TO make against the Major. and contradict
ing some of the statements made before tho
committee. denying that they had mace asser--
lions which attributed 10 them.
The lawyers W hose testimony was taken were
Oscar Noundorn Philemon Woodruff. Charles.
F. Herr. Halsey NJ. Barrett and Elwood c. Har-s
MAJOR LENTzs CLIENTS SPEAK. o
In a letter to the Ethics Committee under
date OF April ~ Major Lentz said that he was
not a member OF the Lawyers Club and had NOT
recently been engaged in the practice or iaws1
He deemed IL just to himself. however 10 seho
TO the committee some letters from cuen,s
whose names had been used against MIN 10 ,ns
committee investigation The letters are rom
| Father Stecher Ferdinand Mutter. DR.. Henry
Ost F. j. Kastner and John Ruckeisnaus mo
| letters read as follows =
F. j. Kastner-I desire to say. as my name , mas /
| been mentioned in some statements mace psto ro
you with reference to Major Carl Lentz. that rave
authorized to make such stateineh, sn 70 y
no complaint or charge 10 make against 'a'oi III
Ferdinand MutterI wish to make y9ln " airy
statement respecting some matters contained IN &c.
tain statements Transmitted oy your ed nIsef re-.
Major Carl Lenz and IN wnlGh c np1 Major Lentx,
in connection with me sale OF my r 2roper % BY
me TO him is NOT criticised by Neon the contrary.
! il was entirely satisfactory 10 me. Whatever oe-
gsge referred to was With my knowledge for rea
sons satisfactory TO me and at my ff rec sse Of the
Ferdinand Muer Pspery TO 81 hat peI Major Iena
GA Td r cnen Ssr Church or myself and
charged with no dgt on our MI RaT enE for or on
S behsls q P4i the o ch DG or myself
Or. Henry ost-I client Of Major Lentz ana
desire that familiar with the se Spsi fsss
u am mn her Executor and that had charge OF the
settlement Of her estate Major Lentz was attorney
| Tentzis Conduct as such attorney satisfactory
| to my mother and has been so 70 me as nsI sn.
| knowledge and consent, and were thought TO 10.
| necessary, and had my approval nave no cv ~.
| mothers attorney. my attorney and none mas
been made by ny sutho ToS max. the
Voluntary that hsye authorized On no o com n
plant to be made against Major L Ss 5roesstons
relations with me as my attorney. nor have | any
| COMPLAINT CRITICISMS
sionai conduct in any particular 1t has been saus'
| factory TO me.
DISCUSSION OF THE CASE.
| The meeting Of the Lawyers Club on Thurs
day evening was open to reporters James
| F. Howell chairman of the Ethics Committee.
arose to read the report. and moved that ali
| persons not members Of the club be required 10
| leave the room.
As soon as the room was cleared motion was
| offered 10 receive the report and concur In the
deductions of the committee relative TO the testi-
| mony taken. This was opposed by John w. ~.
| Ptney Thomas y. McCarter jr., and others, and
not being seconded. no vote on tie motion was
| taken. -, a..
| members Of the club who were acting IN the
| capacity of jury to pass upon testimony
| which they had no opportunity 10 examine. ne
| deductions he held. according TO the report OF
| the committed might be misleading, inasmuch
| as they were based on testimony that hao peen
| materially condensed; In Justice 20 .ne -, n nar
| ties concerned Mr. Pitney held that before any
| action was taken the report should be printed
| and submitted TO the members for carerui con-
| sideration
| Mr. McCarter took a similar view Of the case:
| and held that until the report was printed ana
! every member of the club had an opportunity
| 10 thoroughly digest IL no dClloh shouiu oo
| taken.
| others defended the Gction of the committee,
| holding that IL had been conducted In fair
| and impartial manner and should be acted upon
| without further reference. In fact, they neld it
| had been conducted in such manner as 70 ieay .
| nothing further 10 be done than submit the cass
| TO the Supreme Court, as had been done IN the
| McDermit case or any similar one that might
| come before the committee.
NO AGGRIEvED PERSONS
| John r. Hardin took opposite view. hold
| ing that the case in point differed from any the
| club had been previously called upon 10 con-
| slider While the work Of the committee was
| thorough he said and showed care In the de-.
| auctions drawn. It also true that alleged
| aggreved parties In every case denied having
| any grievance. This. he held. left the duty OF
| the members OF the club somewhat in DOUBT.
| and in his opinion. under such circumstances.
| he considered the proper course would De .
| reference 10 the Attorney General
| Others agreed with Mr.. Hardin's suggestion,