The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1899-04-25
WITNESSES IN


New York, April 21.-Two exciting
sessions OF h Mazet investigating
committee were held. today. A feature
was the refusal Of witnesses TO give
testimony. Another feature was the de-
faint attitude OF Andrew Freedman. on
the stand, and still another feature,
the election from the committee room
Roebling Company when he insisted
upon making a statement after he had
refused TO answer a great majority OF
questions pun TO him by Mr.. Moss,
counsel for the committee.
The chief interest centred in Andrew
Freedman, who within recent years
has been known as a warm personal
friend OF Mr.. Croker and associated
with him in a business way. Mr.. Freed
man was more than ordinarily forci-
bic in his to some OF the cues
tons, and many OF the questions he
refused 10 answer at all. At other times
he was rebuked by 10Th Mr.. Moss and
Chairman Mazet for what they termed
'imperinence."
After Mr.. Freedman's examination
had progressed 10 a certain point, and
the witness La refused several times
TO answer a question which he deemed
a personal matter" Mr.. Moss excused
him for the day.
Mr.. Freedman then got down from
the stand and turning to the newspaper
representatives. he handed them a pa
per saying: Gentlemen of the press,
here Is a statement of the entire bust
ness OF the Plat Company and all OF
the companies for publication"
This was a paper relating TO the bus
mess done by the United States Fidei-
ity and Guarantee Company, in which
Mr.. Freedman and Croker are inter-
ested, and contained information which
Mr.. Moss had desired to get at during
the course of the examination. Mr..
Moss, therefore, was very indignant at
Freedman's action, and he denounced
the witness vehemently and recalled
him TO the stand. The questions which
he put with regard to the paper to
were not answered. the wit
ness refusing absolutely to state by
whom the paper had been prepared.
AT this juncture Mr.. Moss took oc-
casion to say that those witnesses who
We're in contempt would be dealt with
later in a regular, logical and legal
way.
When Mr.. Croker was on the stand
a few days g he testified tina he had
received dividends from the Surety
Company, while today it developed
that the company had not paid divi-
dends. Mr.. Freedman explained on the
stand, in reply to a series of questions.
that Mr.. Croker is a stakeholder in the
company and is interested in the bust
ness success of the Metropolitan dis
tr1ct; that he (the witness) received a
salary of ST., 900 a yea as of
this territory and commissions and that
ne divided this money with Mr.. Croker.
Mr.. Freedman, however, refused to
name the sum that he paid to Croker,
and said further that he thought Mr..
Croker might be under the impression
that the money paid him was in the
way of a dividend.
Nearly the entire examination of the
witness centred about his and Mr..
connection with this Surety
Company, which a dealings with a
large number Of city officials. The wit
ness could not remember exactly how
this connection originated, but he did
remember that there was no actual
contract between Mr.. Croker and him.
self for the payment of money, Mr..
Croker relying on Freedman's word,
as he himself put it.
Abraham Himmelwright, of the Roe
ping Construction Company, refused
at the very outset Of his examination
to answer questions and entered into
a discussion at the slightest opportu-
nifty. After several long rangl the
witness insisted upon making an ex-
PLANTATION. He was ordered down from
the witness stand by Chairman Mazet,
but refused TO leave the stand. Then
Mr.. Moss called for the sergeant-at-
arms and Himmelwright was escorted
from the room.
Another session will be held tomor-
row and Mr.. Freedman may be called
again.