The daily morning journal and courier., 1907-03-14
HEALY TO PEOPLE OF STATE
REMOVED TAX COLLECTOR IS-
 SUES 4 STATEMENT.

Asks the Commonwealth to Judge Whether or Not Governor Woodruff Was RIght-GOes Into Details of the Transaction With Steele and Hart man.
 Hartford, March 13-Frank E. Healy, who was removed as tax commissioner by Governor Woodruff on February 19 on the ground that he had offered to secure a Hartford county commission ship for Howard M. Steele, of New Britain, for $1,2OO, to-day made public statement of nis own position in the matter and accompanies it with the complete testimony taken at the hear ing before Governor Woodruff at which MT. Steele and MT. Hartman, of New Britain, were the witnesses.
 The evidence makes total of some thing like 3O,OOO words, and the delay
 in making formal reply to the charge
 on which he was removed, it is stated
 by MT. Healy, is due to the time neces-
 sary to a careful review of the evidence
 and the unexpected delay mechanically
 in getting the mass of evidence into
 type. 4.g
 In opening MT. Healy gives a copy of
 the legal documents in his case and
 then proceeds as follows:
 To the People of Connecticut:
 On February IF I received notice to
 appear before Governor Woodruff on
 February IA to answer charge that I
 had said to Howard M. Steele, of New
 Britain, that I would secure, or at
 tempt to secure, for him the nomina- tion as county commissioner of Hart ford county if he would pay me $1,200 for said purpose, I appeared at the hearing without counsel, and on Febru- ary 19 the governor removed me, for cause, from the office of tax commis- sioner In justice to my own reputa- tion I am publishing the entire testi- mony so that the people may judge for themselves as to whether the evidence before the governor warranted the ac- tlon he took thereon.
 It is a self-evident fact that the tes- timony of witness depends upon his own truthfulness and the reputation he has established for veracity. When two people get together for the pur- pose of framing up a story brevity is as essential for its success as that the story of each shall not materially differ, and where plenty of time has been de- voted to rehearing the testimony al- most invariably the same words will find expression in the evidence given by both witnesses and where witnesses are not telling the truttp they always try to evade answering a question by an affirmative or negative. In making comments on the evidence as it was presented I will not indulge in per sonaities beyond what the facts will warrant.
 The story told by Steele and Hart man was as follows:
 In their two interviews with me there was no suggestion on my part of any demand for money to be paid by either of them in securing my help in the in- terests of Steele, and both agreed that I tried to discourage Steele by advising him to stay out of the contest Hart mans testimony of the conversation on the afternoon when he and Steele had their interview with me was that right ! at the opening of the interview I ad- vised him, as friend of Steele, to tell Steele where he was, and that within few minutes after that took place In 1 the afternoon l told him that he would have to put up $12O0. 1 Hartman had DrnviOuu1V factiHeJ ] that I had never advised him to tell Steele not to go into the contest, so ! that either one other of his statements was false. Hartman claims that when l demanded $1,200 that I was talking | to him, and that Steele said nothing and you will notice in his cross-exam- l nation that no two of the statements that he said he made after the $1,200 | incident are similar except that he | wanted a few days to consider 1t in" and that Steele testified in his direct examination that he could not remem- Der anything that Hartman had said in connection with the $1,20O but on | hearing Hartman testify Steele again | went on the witness stand and I re- member Hartman did say "he wanted | to think that over for few days" and | that he again said i've will see you later" But Hartman testified that the $1,200 l was mentioned only once and that aft | CT the same had been mentioned both | he and Steele stayed in my office for 1 half an hour so that Steele's well see you later is from the fulnes of his imagination, and this is in the same l class as Hartman's testimony that he | didn't think 1t was right" and the fall- ing from his moral plane by asking for a few days to consider 1t in. If the | 1,2OO was only mentioned once during | the interview either he or Steele is lying, and as for what actually took place, Steele in his examination, made three distinct statements as to what wa said about the $l,2OO Steele admit ted.
 Steele admitted that at the cloe of the interview I told Hartman that be- fore he advised Steele to go into the contest he had better see Bailey who was familiar with the situation, and Hartman testified I didn't advise him to go and See Bailey, and then grew faint-hearted and wouldn't swear that Ii I didn't advise him.
 Continuing, Mir. Healy in his state- ment says:
 How Is it possible for me to do any, thing in the interest of Steele when had publicly stated to all my friends