The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-04-23
He REFUSED TO ANSWER
Meters Wouldn't Give Away the
Whiskey Secrets.
HE WAS PRODDED BY MOSS
Chairman Mazet Directed That Contempt
Proceedings Be Brought Against Him
Immediately : The Building
Department.

New York, April 22.-Beyond the
enunciation of stringent line of action
against contumacfous witnesses, the
preparation to make speedy example
of one Individual. tU-day's session of
the Mazet investigation committee was
comparatively uninteresting and unim-
portant. Neither Mr.. Croker nor any
of the better-k known persons associated
with him was examined and the affairs
of the Tammany leader did not come
into prominence.
After one more session. on Monday,
it is announced the committee will ad-
iourn until May 9, and in the interval
it is presumed they will submit a pre-
liminary report to the legislature and
possibly to proceed against several wit
nesses for contempt.
To-day's proceedings opened with an
Investigate ton of the proceedings in this
city of the Maryland Whiskey COM
pany. Mr.. Moss had several times init
mated that this brand was being sold
through the influence of city officials.
Samuel Meters, Broadway tailor who,
Mr.. Moss seemed to think, had fur
thered the sale of the Maryland whis-
key, refused point blank to answer a
number of question, and Chairman
Mazet directed that counsel should
bring Meters before the court for con-
tempt as soon as possible. The other
witnesses confined their testimony al
most to the building department.
Proceedings in the Mazet investigat-
ing committee opened in a somewhat
sensational manner this morning. At
torney Clark, assistan, counsel to the
ice aISraCciurr SaiI Ia
desired to call the attention of the COM
mittee and of witnesses to the penal
code, a section of which provides for a
years Imprisonment or fine of $500 or
both, for refusing to attend or to an
swer questions propounded by COM
mittee of the Legislature.
you will observe said Clark. for
continuous refusal to answer proper
and material questions. a witness COM
mits a misdemeano1 /, is the purpose
of the counsel of this committee, with
the approval of the committee at the
proper time, to cite such contumaclOuS
witnesses to the constituted criminal
authorities of this county for present
ment, Indictment or punishment, not for
a moment doubling that the constitu-
tional officer of the county, the district
attorney. will lend his aid to the proper
observance of the laws of the state
DR.. O'Sullivan, representing the city
uepai.iiien., '.i,t..,,;s iltu a.
liouhcei''eil a. 1i'liiiiuatloi.i n;.at H., 90
LAIN Piotes'r as ~ ~. D'c,,,I
, ,iiat WV ai'u MaLe' . u't ne
ivan l,au no ltsr' ~ t5,z use -, Gu ~
couisel. noWeeel. eol.ei'Ge1 !',9 .'s'. te
questions as to their materiality or pro-
prety, and not judges as to whether
the witness was contumacious or not.
Lucien Bonheus the first witness, tes-
tlneo tnal ne at ol,e tllile ilau sollie
connection WIN tne Marylano WhisMey
company. he salu ne ieit ne con,
pany because ne diu no' ilhe lne hlIu
OF saieslnen .i'al were ehsaSeu. ~;
SAID there We're complaints from haitl-
liade III ulsrepu'aoie iesoit - III ILLS
Guy.
Samuel Meier retailer on broau-
way was the next Wlthess' anu "teil
asked IL ne naa taken an orue, lol
Maryland whskeS' SAD: !hat IS my
business, ana though chairman Ma-
Zet orderea MN to answer ne el"aeu,
lie also refused 10 say Whelner ne vas
employed py any member Vi lhe cry
government to sollclt orders Tor Mary
lana Whlskey IN ulsoiueliS lesoits.
Mazet directed lhe stenosfapher 10
furnish counsel with minutes OF the les
timony, and directed counseI TO axe
Tie HeIesSaiS etSP' ~ ~ ms AANi>i " :
fore the court for contempt.
Charles Halght, an architect' testl-
fed regarding letters sent 10 MN by
William J. Fryer MEMBER or the poard
of building examiners and chairman
of the Now York building law comlnls-
sion. Mr.. Haight said that Mr.. Fryer
had sent a Mr. Young TO nm with a
letter Of Introduction with an idea that
Mr.. Young might do some work for the
witness. Mr.. Haight testified that he
had forgotten who Mr.. Fryer was and
did not treat Mr. Young with cordial
ity. Mr. Fryer then wrote to Mr.
Haight letter, which. was produced
in evidence. In this communication
Mr.. Fryer chided Mr.. HaiSht for this
treatment of Mr.. Young ana stated IN
part:
II write now to say that perhaps it
may turn out at some future day that
you will know who / am. AS 1t has
turned out it will be just as well, and
if it should ever happen again that
you need my help it will be necessary
for you to bring letter of introduce
tion yourself to me-