The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-03-23
PUTS IT UP TO HAMILTON.
FOWLER INVESTIGATORS SAY HE
ALONE CAN EXPLAIN.


The New York Lies self Invest igating
committee, in a letter to Andrew Hamilton
made public last night, formally answers
the charges which the legislative agent
has made against it. The investigators
deny that the auditing committee Of the
board Of trustees ever knew the purposes
to which the Hamilton payments were put
or hat they were oognizant Of the secret
service duties which he performed.
They declare that there Is not the slight.
est foundation for Hamilton's statement
that records and documents have been
ignored by the committee to give a false
color to transactions in which he has been
concerned. The committee discloses the
efforts which IL made 10 get Hamilton to
return and intimates that he avoided the
committees agents. Hamilton alone. the
committee says, can disclose what has been
done with the big sums paid him.
The committee says that it waited .
reasonable time for Hamilton to reply to
its invitation, and that when no answer
came it withdrew its request that the suit
against Hamilton should be deferred.
ut must be said" comments the oonn-
mittee. that your previous actions did not
encourage the committee in the hope that
you would avail yourself Of the oppor-
tunity to appear before it,
The letter adds that on January 4, 1905
the committee SEM a cablegram to the
manager Of the New York Life's Paris
Office, saying that the committee required
Hamilton's return at once to assist 1t In
making its report and urging the manager
to leave nothing undone toward inducing
Hamilton to return Immediately.
Committee has authentic information
that he is physically able to come now,'
wired the investigators.
The manager Of the Paris office replied
by cable that he was unable to see Hamil-
ton, although he had made several attempts.
The letter say that the main question
before the committee was what Hamilton
had done with the company's money, ST.
800, 200 of it, which had come into his hands
in the last ten years.
"You alone could tell as to the great bulk
Oh IT, ooHlctfuHB ONcI SlUO,VUU dpIodrs
from your vouchers to have been paid to
you for legal services Your receipts for
the 5000 900 or th~ereabouts received for
what has been called your legislative bureau
were simply receipts in the ordinary form
and threw no light on what you had done
with the money. Even if every one Of these
receipts had been examined by the audit
ing committee from time to time, they
disclosed nothing as to the particular uses
to which you put the money or the persons
to whom you paid it. They simply show
that sums OF money from time to time were
being paid to one who was a lawyer re-
tanned and engaged in the legal service
of the company. They did not show.
nor did any records or books Of the COM
pany, that there was a legislative or secret
bureau or that you were engaged in any
such work.
you have. moreover, failed TO observe
that out of the 81 800 600 over $500 900 is
not claimed to have been received by you
in connection with your legislative work.
The vouchers you signed for the various
a~ggregating S2s5 900, which Mr..
Mccall repaid because you did not, read
that you were to account for them. At that
time you were acting in O legal capacity
for the company in connection with It's
real estate purchases n mortgage loans.
There was no reason for any one on the
auditing committee to suspect that you
would not account in accordance with the
terms Of the vouchers, though you have
done 80.
Then there ia the sum OF SIS 900 you
used out Of the check given you in June,
M ,-.fI -LtaL - .a., 49,. GkaAA
and which you deposited to your own
In your bank and checked against.
That use by you Of this srIm neve came
before the auditing or other committee.
The same is true OF the 800, 3s8. AZ you re-
ceived in 1905 out OF the c%ompany's credit
the State for the overpayment Of its
franchise tax in previous years. The
resolution Of the finance oommitteet 10 which
you refer does not mention the agreement
under which you claim that sum. It sim
ply authorized the president to execute
assignments Of part or parts Of the tax
credit awarded to the company against
The State OF New York in payment Of the
expenses attending such award or for cash
upon any transfer to a purchaser
an interest therein You can read the
condemnation of that whole transaction
n the report OF the Armstrong committee,
which is much more sweeping than anything
hat was said by this committee in its re-
BORT Of February 2, 1909"
The letter says also that the same is true
n reference to the payments amounting to
900 made by the Paris ofice-the
to make these payments and
damilton's receipts for them were never
before any auditing or other committee.
furthermore. there were no entries on the
books in the home Office concerning these
payments. The letter continues:
until this committee directed whatever
,apers there were pertaining to these pay
nents TO be sent here, on information that
payments had been made from Paris, they
lad lain in the Paris office. They disclosed
but the fact OF payment 10 you.
nd refer in no way to the purpo se or pur-
,oses for which the money was directed to
70 RENTED. You alone can furnish the in
ormation showing what was done with
hese sums"
These facts, says the committee, make
lear the reason why it desired from Hamil-
on information as TO the use and DISPOSE
on OF "these large surns Of money
4Had tho information disclosed that