New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-04-15
CROKER ADMITS MANY THINGS.
GETS ANGRY HOWEVER, WHEN ASKED HOW HE ACQUIRED
HIS WEALTH.



that has far been adduced before the Mazet
the two sittings OF the committee yesterday.
The Importance lay not so much in the fact
that the evidence given by Richard Croker
as In the significance OF the evidence itself The
Tammany leader was twice called to the stand,
and early In his examination 1t was elected
from him that Judges elected by Tammany were
expected to favor belonging to that or
ganizaticn by appointment of them as referees
and by giving them whatever patronage the
judges had at their disposal In other directions.
Mr.. Croker virtually admitted the charges
brought against him last fall Of undermining
the independence Of the judiciary by refusing
denomination to Justice Joseph F. DAILY. and
insisting that only candidates should be named
who would promise subservelcy to Tammany,
meaning himself.
With unexpected frankness he stated that
Democratic judges who accepted Tammary
Nominations were expected In the appointment
OF referees and court officials, and in giving out
emoluments generally, to give the preference to
men In line with the Tammany organization
Any Judge, Mr.. Croker explained. who failed 10
recognize these obligations, or who rerudiated
the control Of Tammany by 6isobeying these
unwritten instructions. would be looked upon as
betraying his party. and would receive snort
shrift when II came TO the matter OF renomi-
nation. Some of the questions put by FRANK
Moss upon the subject OF the judiciary pointed
to the direct inference that Democratic judges
whipped into making decisions that re-
bounded to the personal pecuniary proht or
Mr. Croker. In point of fact. the witress was
compelled to acknowledge that the place OF the
judicial sales was changed by order OF the
courts from the Real Estate Exchange In Lib
erty-st to No. III Broadway, where Peter f.
Meyer has his real estate offices. Mr.. Croker is
a partner Of Meyer. and the change was so
beneficial to the firm. and the frendliness OF the
Tammany judges marked, that, whereas IN
1892 Meyer had only fourteen Of the judicial
sales OF the ear Messrs. Croker and Meyer last
year had no less a proportion than over two
thirds Of the entire sales ordered by the courts
allowing Mr. Croker, on his own statement 10
draw between $4,000 and $4,000 as his share
OF the profits OF the firm for one year
HIS ENMITY TO JUDGE DAILY.
Moreover II was demonstrated before the
committee that the principal cause OF Crokers
enmity to Justice DAILY was that the latter re-
fused 10 sign the order transferring the place
for judicial sales to No. Ill Broadway. Mr.
Croker made no attempt to conceal the fact that
ne was a personal gamer by the partisanship
Of the Tammany occupants Of the bench
Then we have this" Mr.. Moss suggested.
that you participate in the selection OF Judges
before they are elected and then participate IN
emolument that comes OF their judicial proceed
ings7"
Yes sir" Mr.. Croker answered.
And II goes into your pocketT'
yes. that is my own money" the witness as
serted.
And the nomination OF the judges by Tam
many Hall in this city is almost equivalent TO
an election. is 1t not?' Mr.. Moss asked.
Yes"
$50 that II YOU have controlling voice In
the affairs OF your party and secure the NOM
ination Of true men you may be sure tnat at
least in the Real Estate Exchange and in the
firm OF Meyer e. Croker you will as true DEM
ocrat get some OF the patronage"
I'VE expect them at least TO be friendly, Mr.
Croker answered, deprecatingly
And get part Of the patronage?
Yes. sir
80 YOU are working for your own pocket!
"All the time. and you, too, the IamMahy
leader answered in firm tone.
Then 1t is not matter OF wide statesman
ship or patriotism altogether with you. but 1t
Is wide statesm 4nsnlp, pd'iio'eh o'''
gain mixed up?" Mr.. Moss remarked
"It is 10 the victor belongs the spoils, was
the only reply Mr.. Croker could make. but 1t
was brimful Of meaning
CARROLL'S REFUSAL
"Ard to tho boss belongs the lions share OF
the nlunder." Mr. Moss added. with even deep
or meaning Mr. Croker objected to the word
"nlunder" but not so emphaticay as when,
later in the day Mr. Moss sought to obtain from
both Croker and his assistant. John F. Carroll.
the secret whereby without salaried position
and with no visible means OF support. they were
able not only TO live in luxury but to become
stockholders in large corporations and 10 ac-
ouire wealth. With studied insolence and I'M
pertinence OF tone Mr. Carroll refused TO an
swer questioning relating to wfat he calied MS
personal affairs. and persisted IN defylng the
instructions OF the chairman. even when threat
, ered with the consequences or contempt MT
CarroIl's attitude m fact throughout MS exam
,,a,,or was slighting TO both counsel and the
committee He lolled in the witness-chair
vawned and affected to be bored with the whole
nroceedIngs. and was thoroughly Indifferent 10
the purpose OF the inquiry.
NJ Croker's manner while on the stand was
much more conclliatory. Save when IL came 10
the question as 10 the source OF MS "ea''"' ''e
Tammany despot showed no Discrimination 10
answer counseI's Interrogation. Where did ne
get IT," as applied to Mr.. Croker's money De-
came a familiar query during the Lexow IN
vestigation but It was never answered. TOT the
reason that three thousand miles OF water sepa-
rated that committee and the man best aoie 10
throw some light the puzzle Yesterday. win
A., coLsr befoye him Mr. Moss sought 10
, ,ha riddle but without avail. Without
aaor,,ng the self sufficient demeanor and ef-
,ron,srv Of tone that characterized Mr.. Carrolps
refusal Mr. Croker declined to answer ques-
t,ons relating to what he contended were MS
private affairs He pleaded that such matters
d,d not concern the city OF New-York or the
people OF New-York and were outside the scope
OF the inquiry.
Mr.. Moss differed from him. Il VIII tell you
frankly" the counsel said. how II does concern