The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-09-12
OLD WAY OF NAMING JUDGES.
The Judiciary NOminstors Recall Some OF
Richard CrOker's Testimony.

Tn Judiciary NOmlnStOrs Recall Some OF
Richard CrOker's Testimony.
The Judiciary Nominators, who rave in
the field an independent ticket for Justices
OF the Supreme Court, dug up yesterday
some OF Richard Croker's testimony be-
fore the Mazet committee and sent IL out
under the heading Lest We Forget This
is the statement:
The following description OF machine
made judge making is quoted from the
official report Of the Mazet COMMITTEES:
speaking of judicial candidates, he
Croker admitted that they were assessed
and that they are selected by the executive
committee and the advisers Of Tammany
Hall, and are expected to pay a part Of the
organization expenses. Some Of the most
eminent Of our Judges testified to direct
conversations with MIR. Croker about their
election contributions. Justice
Barrett saw him on his behalf and for
Judges Van Brunt and Truax, n the
subject of nominations and contributions
was discussed by them. 1t was two years
ago that Judge Van Brunt was reelected
and l Justice Barrett) went myself to the
leader Of one Of the parties, Mr.. Croker,
and asked him to use his power to bring
about the denomination Of Judge Van
Brunt.'
"All Judges excepting three) nominated
by Tammany for many years back have
paid substantial election contributions,
~aggregating many thousands Of dollars,
some being asked by Mr.. Croker and some
paying directly to him.. The contributions
sworn to by Judges OF the City Court this
year were half a years salary.
W also refer to Judge Pryor. who said
that Mr.. Croker asked for $4,000 from him
which he paid by check. and the Surrogate,
Ransom. who paid 81, 900, and was told to
pay that amount by Mr.. Croker. and who at
first protested against the size OF what he
called the assessment.
1T was after Mr.. Croker gave this evil
dence that the judges testified, and all the
judges who were nominated on Mr.. Cookers
ticket in October latter that testimony
made the regular contributions, the City
Court judges increasing their former con-
tributions to half a years salary and munich
pal judges paying large sums likewise;
MIR. Croker corroborated Judge Pryor's
testimony that he was asked $4,000 for his
nomination for a vacant half term in the
Supreme Court. He said;
81 told him that there were 1900 dis
tricts in the City of New York "
and | thought that the Finance Committee
at that time would exact about $4,000 as a
contribution
Mr.. Croker said the conversation took
place in Tammany Hall, where the Judge
had gone to arrange the matters.
0. II was a common thing for judicial
candidates to nay in money that way? A.
Yes. sir.
Q. IL was a common thing for them to
come to Tammany Hall at the proper time
and arrange the details? A. ] should think
so. l could not recollect where else they
would go.
q, But it was for the purpose of getting
into line with the OF SANITATION and cOntribut-
ing TO the organization expenses. was IL not?
A. Yes. sir; helping the organization out.
Q. We're these assessments that were
paid by the Judge and by other candidates
entered into any account books? A. No.
q. No account kept of them? A. No.
Judge DAILY testified that he had n~Otifca-
ton from Mr.. Croker that his failure to
respond to the demand for patronage wa
considered to be q personal affair n that
for that reason he would not be renomi-
mated"