The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1899-04-22
THE PRODERS SNUDBED.
Witnesses Refuse to Answer Ques-
tiOns in Gotham's Investigation.
ANDREW FREEDMAN DEFIANT.

Close Personal Friend and Business
Associate OF Mr.. Croker Lays Him
self Liable For Prosecution For
Contempt.
New York, April 22.-Two exciting
sessions of the Mazet investigating
committee were held yesterday. A
feature was the refusal of witnesses to
give testimony. Another feature was
the defiant attitude of Andrew Freed
man on the stand, and still another
feature the election from the commit
tee room of Abraham Himmelwright,
of the Roebling company, when he in
sisted upon moking q statement after
he had refused to answer q great ma
iority of the questions put to him by
Mr.. Moss, counsel for the committee.
The chief interest centered in An
drew Freedman, who within recent
years has been known as a warm per-
sonal friend of Mr. Croker and asso-
ciated with him in a business way.
Mr.. Freedman was more than or
dinarily 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 Mr.. Moss and Chairman Mazet
for what they termed "impertinence."
After Mr.. Freedman's examination
had progressed to a certain point, and
the witness had 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 news
paper representatives, he handed them
a paper, saying: Gentlemen of the
press, here is a statement of the en-
tire business of the Platt companies,
and all of the companies, for publica-
ton"
This was a paper relating to the
business done by the United States
Fidelity and Guarantee company, in
which Mr.. Freedman and Mr. Croker
are interested and contained informa-
tion which Mr.. Moss had desired to
get at during the course of the exam
ination. Mr.. Moss, therefore, was
very indignant at Mr.. Freedman's &C
tion, and he denounced the witness
vehemently and recalled him to the
stand. The questions which he put
with regard to the paper to Mr.. Fred
man were not answered, the witness
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
were in contempt would be dealt with
later, in regular, logical and legal
way.
When Mr.. Croker was on the stand
a few days ago he testified that he had
received dividends from the surety
company, while yesterday 1t developed
that the company had not paid divi-
dends. Mr.. Freedman explained on the
stand, in reply to a series of Ques-
tions, that Mr.. Croker is a stockholder
in the company and is interested in
the business success of the Metropoli.
tan district, that he (the witness) re-
ceived a salary of $4,000 a year as
manager for this territory, and COM
missions, and that he divided this
money with Mr.. Croker. Mr. Freed
man, however, refused to name the
sum that he paid to Mr.. Croker and
said further that he thought Mr..
Croker might be under the impression
that the money paid him was In the
way of dividend
Nearly the entire examination of the
witness centered about his and Mr..
Croker's connection with this 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.. Freedman'B
word, as he himself put It,
Abraham Himmelwright, of the
Roebling Construction company, re-
fused at the very outset of his exam,
ination to answer questions, and en-
tered 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 Mr. Moss called for
the geant-at-arms, and Himmel-
wright was escorted from the room.