The Saint Paul globe., 1899-04-22
RATHER A WARM DAY
MAZET COMMITTEE STRUCK A
COUPLE OF TARTARs IN FREED
MAN AND HIMMELWRIGHT
MADE THE DAY INTERESTING
tempt and MIR. Hmm eIw light Was
Elected From the Committee
Room by Sergeant-at-Arms-
Moss Threatens to Punish All
Witnesses Guilty of Contempt.


NEW YORK, April N.-Two exciting
sessions of the Mazet investigation COM
mittee were held today. A feature was
the refusal of the witnesses to give tes-
timony. Another feature was the defiant
attitude of Andrew Freedman on the
stand, and still another feature the ejec-
tion from the committee room of Abra-
ham Himmelwright, of the Roebling COM
pany, when he insisted upon making a
statement as to his reason for refusing to
answer questions put to him by Mr.. Moss,
the counsel for the committee.
The chief interest centered in Andrew
Freedman, who. within recent years, had
been known as warm personal friend
of ME- Crokers, andn associated with him
in personal way. Mr.. Freedman was
more than ordinarily forcible in his an
swerS 10 some of the questions and many
of the questions he refused to answer at
all. At other times he was rebuked by
both Mr.. Moss and Chairman Mazet for
what they termed 'impertinence''
After Mr.. Freedman's examination had
progressed to a certain point and the wit
ness rad refused several times to answer
d 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 newsnaner
representatives, he handed them a paner
saying:
Gentlemen of the press, here is a
statement of the entire business of the
Flatt companies, and all of the COM
panies, for publication
MIR. MOSS ANGERED.
This was paper relating to the busi-
nensS zone by the United States Fidelity
and Guarantee company, in which Mr.
Freedman and Mr.. Croker are interested
and contained information which Mr..
Moss had desired to get at during the
course of the examination. Mr. Moss
therefore, was very indignant at Freed
mans action, and he denounced the wit
ness Nehemently, and recalled him to the
stand. The questions which he put with
regard 10 The paper to Freedman were
not answered, the witness refusing posi-
lively TO state by whom the paper had
been prepared.
At this Juncture MIR. Moss took occa-
sion to say that the witnesses who were
in contempt of court would be dealt with
later in a regular and logical way.
When Mr.. Croker was on the stand a
few days ago he testified that he had re-
ceived dividends from the surety COM
pdnN, Wnlle To-Day II developed that the
company had not paid dividends. Mr.
Freedman explained on the stand, in re-
ply TO q series of questions, that Mr.
Croker is a stockhOlder in the company
and is interested in the business success
of the Metropolitan district; that he, the
witness, received a salary of $4,000 a
year as manager for this territory and
commissions: that he divided money with
Mr Croker. Mr.. Freedman, however re-
fused to state the sum 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 q dividend.
Nearly the entire examination of the
witness centered about his and Mr.. Crok-
erS 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
shere was no actual contract between
Dir. Croker and himself for the payment
4f money, Mr.. Croker relying on Freed
mans word, as he himself put it.
MR. IIIMMELWRIG BOUNCED.
Abraham Himmelwright, of the Roeb-
ling company, refused at the very outset
of his examination to answer questions,
and entered into a discussion at the
slightest opportunity. After several long
wrangles the witness insisted upon MAX
ing an explanation. He was ordered
down from the witness stand by Chair
man Mazet. but refused to leave the
stand. Then Mr.. Moss called for the SER
geant-at-arms, and Mr.. Himmelwright