The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-04-22
Tells Mr.. Moss that He Divides His Big
Salary and Commissions with His
Friend, MIR. Croker.
DAY OF MUCH WRANGLlNG
SERGEANT-AT-ARMs ESCORTS RE-
CUsANT WITNESS FROM THE ROOM.
Abraham HimmeIwriGht Declines TO
Reply Directly to InterrOgatOrics,
and Later Attempts to Explain.

NEW YORK, April 21.-Two exciting ses-
sions of the Mazet investigating committee
were held to-day. A feature was the re-
fusal of the witnesses to give testimony.
Another feature was the defiant attitude of
Andrew Freedman on the stand, and still
another feature the election from the COM
mite room of Abraham HimmelwriSht,. OF
the Roebling Company, when he insisted on
making a statement after he had refused
to answer a great majority of questions put
to him by Mr.. Moss, counsel for the COM
mittee.
The chief interest centered in Andrew
Freedman, who within recent years, has
been known a warm personal friend OF
Mr.. Croker's and associated with him in a
business way. Mr.. Freedman more
than ordinarily forcble in his answers to
some of the questions, and many of the
questions he refused to answer at all. At
other times ne was rebuked by both Mr..
Moss and Chairman Mazet for what they
termed 'impertinence.'
After Mr.. Freedmans examination had
progressed to a certain point and the wit
ness had refused several times to answer
question which he deemed a personal mat
ter" Mr.. Moss excused him for the day.
Mr. Freedman then got down from the
stand, and, turning to the newspaper re-
porters he handed them paper, saying:
Gentlemen of the press, here is a state
ment of the entire business of the Platt
companies and all of the companies for pub
lication."
This was a paper relating to the business
done by the United States Fidelity and
Guarantee Company, in which Mr.. Freed
| man and Mr.. Croker interested, and
contained information which Mr.. Moss had
desired 10 get at during the course of the
examination.
| Mr. Moss was, therefore, very indignant
| at Freedmans action, and he denounced
| the witness vehemently and recalled him
| to the stand. The questions which he put
| with regard to the paper to Freedman were
not answered, the witness refusing abso-
lutely to state by whom the paper had been
prepared. At this juncture Mr.. Moss took
occasion TO say that those witnesses who
were in contempt would be dealt with
later in a regular and logical way.
CROKER'S DIVIDENDS"
When Mr.. Croker was on the stand few
days ago he testified that he had received
dividends from the surety company. while
to-day it developed that the company had
not paid dividends. Mr.. Freedman ex-
planned on the stand in reply to a series of
questions that Mr.. Croker is a stockholder
in the company and is interested in the
business success of the metropolitan dis
trct; that he, tho witness, received salary
of $4,000 year manager for this terri
tory and commissions, and that he divided
the money with Mr.. Croker. Mr.. Freedman,
however, refused 10 name the sum that he
paid to Croker and said further that he
thought MIR. Croker might be under the inn
preston that the money paid him was in the
way of a dividend. Nearly the entire ex-
animation of the witness centered about his
and Mr.. Croker's connection with the surety
company, which has dealings with a large
number Of city officials. The witness could
not remember exactly how this connection
originated, but he did remember that there
was no actual contract between Mr.. Croker
and himself for the payment of money,
Mr.. Croker relying on Mr.. Freedmans word,
as he himself put it,
Abraham Himmelwright, of the Roebling
Company. refused at the very outset of his
examination to answer questions and entered
into discussion at the slightest oppOrtu-
nifty. After several long wrangles the wit
ness insisted making an explanation. 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 Himmewright was
escorted from the room. Another session
will be held tomorrow and Mr.. Freedman
may be called again.
Henry Mcdonald, the nominee of the Chi
cago platform Democracy for Governor at
the last state election, was the first witness
to-day He stated that he was lawyer and
resided at present in Mineral City Va.
Mr.. Moss asked the witness: You have
some knowledge of the affairs connected
with the Flushing Gas Company contract %
HOW FREEDMAN GOT HIS STOCK
Mr.. Mcdonald said he had He stated that
William Burnett director OF that gas COM
pany was a close associate of his and that
from him he had learned various facts Mr.
Mcdonald said the gas company was re-
organized in the beginning of 1895 and that
Henry j. Braker member of the Demo-
cratic Club, and the present owner of the
Democratic Club building, and another man
purchased the first mortgage bonds Of the
company and were made directors. Soon
after this Mr. Mcdonald said the Flushing
Company endeavored to obtain a contract
from New York city, under the administra-
tion OF Mayor Van Wyck. but was not sue
cessful. Continuing. Mr.. Mcdonald said:
Finally il was arranged by Mr.. Braker
with Mr.. Croker that the stockholders of the
company should turn over TO Andrew Freed
man 20 per cent. of the stock of the COM
pany to be held for the benefit of Mr. Croker
and Mr.. Freedman
Mr.. Hoffman asked IL Mr.. Mcdonald was
present when that arrangement was made
The witness said he was simply stating what
he had been told Continuing Mr. Mcdonald
testified: This stock was contributed by
the different stockholders pro rata and was
issued TO Mr.. Freedman. Thereupon Mr..