The daily morning journal and courier., 1899-04-22
THEY REFUSE TO ANSWER
WITNESSES BEFORE THE MIZET
 COMMITTEE IN CONTEMPT
MT. Moss Says They Will be Dealt With Later in Regular and Legal Way Some of MT. Croker's Testimony Proven to be FaIse-His Partner on the Stand,

the stand.
 New York, April 1.-Two exciting sessions of the Mazet committee were held to-day. A feature was the refusal of witnesses to give testimony. Anoth- CT was the defiant attitude of Andrew Freedman on the stand, and still an- other feature was the ejection from the court room of A. Hmmelwright of the Roebling company when he insisted up- on making a statement after he had re- fused to answer great majority of questions put to him by MT. Moss, counsel for the committee. The chief interest centered in Andrew Freedman, who within recent years has been known as warm personal friend of MT. Croker and associated with him in a business way. MT Freedman was more than ordinarily forcible in his answers to some of the questions, and many of the questions he refused to answer at all. At other times he was rebuked by both MT. Moss and Chairman Mazet for what they termed "inpertinence." Af-
 
 progressed to a certain point and the witness had refused several times to an swer a question which he deemed "personal natter MT. Moss excused him for the day.
 MT. Freedman then got down from the stand and, turning to the newspa- per representatives, handed them pa per, saying: "Gentlemen of the press here is a statement of the business of the Platt company and of the business of our company-a statement of the en- tire business The statement was a paper relating to the business done by the United States Fidelity and Guaran- tee company, in which Freedman and Croker are interested, and contained in- formation which MT. Moss had desired to get at during the course of the ex- animation. MT Moss therefore was very indignant at Freedmans action, and he denounced the witness ve- hemently and recalled him to the stand. The questions which he put to Freed man with regard to the paper were not answered, the witness refusing abso- lutely to state by whom the paper had been prepared. At this juncture MT. Moss took occasion to say that those witnesses who were in contempt would be dealt with later in a regular logical and legal way.
 When MT. Croker was on the stand few days ago he testified that he had received dividends from the Surety com- pany. while to-day it developed that the company had not paid dividends. MT. Freedman explained on the stand, in re- ply to a series of questions, that MT. Croker is a stockholder in the company and is interested in the business sue cess of the Metropolitan district that he. the witness, received salary or $15,O00 year as manager for thls terrl-- tory and commissions and that he dl- vided this money with MT. Croker. MT. Freedman, however, refused to name the sum that he paid to MT. Croker and said further that he thought MT Croker might be under the impression that the money paid him was in the way of dividend Nearly the entire examina- tion of the witness centered about his and MT. Croker's connection with this surety company, which has dealings with a large number of city officials. The witness could not remember exact lv how this connection originated, but he did remember that there was no ac- tual contract between MT. Croker and himself for the payment of money, MT. Croker relying on Freedman's word, as he himself put 1t.
 Abraham Himmelwright of the Roeb- ling company refused at the very out set of his examination to answer ques- tions and entered into discussion at the slightest opportunity. After several long wrangles the witness insisted upon making an explanation. He was or dered down from the witness stand by Chairman Mazet, but refused to leave the stand. Then MT. Moss called for the sergeant at-arms and Himmelwright was escorted from the room. Another session will be held tomorrow and MT. Freedman may be called again.