New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-10-17
CROPSEY ATTACKS CLARKE
Brings In Union Bank Case as the
Issue in Kings Campaign.
QUOTES GRAND JURYMAN
Denies That District Attorneys
Office Lacked Facts for Indict-
ment Until Recently.

once Lacked rdCbS lol lHultb-
ment Until Recently.
James z. Cropsey. Republican candidate
for District Attorney NJ Kings County.
again attacked District Attorney John F.
Clarke. the Democratic candidate, last
night. when the Republican Central COM
mittee met 1T the Johnston Building to
rstify the county ticket. I'm his speech OF
acceptance last Saturday tho Democratic
candidate labored heavily in defence NJ MS
attitude in the Union Bank matter MT
Cropsey declared. I'm fact. the burden OF
the defence was go great that he evident
" feli that II could not he borne nv stat
ing the facts exactly they exist
He referred to Mr. Clsrke's statements
thst the first evidence received from the
Banking Department upon which an indlct-
ment could he procured was this year l9u'
and nothing involving the commission OF
n crime upon which an Indictment could he
found was. during the seven months that
the bank was In the hands Of the state
Banking Department. between its closing
as the Mechanics and Traders Bank ana
its reopening as the Union Bank. I'm lsn)
reported 10 the District Attorneys office
ny any bank examiner" lie continued.
In the public investigation IL was shown
Just what had been submitted TO the DIS
trict Attorneys office in 1900 showing the
commission Of crime by officials or the
bank, and a copy OF the evidence thar was
given upon this investigation is IN the pos
session OF the District Attorney, so that
II will be easy for him TO correct any
statement that may he made. !
orion H. Cheney who was then one OF
the deputy superintendent Of banks
testified that I'm the early part or august,
1906 he personally delivered TO the District
Attorneys Office two letters written by the
then superintendent Of Banks, and also
transcript OF the evidence or certain WIZ
nesses who had been examined regarding
irregularities and criminalues connected
with the Union Bank.
Moreover. copies OF the letters and OF
the testimony which were submitted Uy
Mr. Cheney are on file in the Banking De-
partment. What the testimony was tnat
was so submitted was shown on the m
vestiga ton by the testimony Of the Superin-
tendent Of Banks and other witnesses
The Case Against Sullivan.
This showed that a Justification Of the
records OF The bank had been made, al the
direction o. David A. Sullivan, the presi-
dent. that the Justification consisted III
charging against the account OF uS
positor the sum OF 10000. thus making ~
appear that the depOstor had drawn tnat
much money. when. in fact that nad uot
Z
OF the loans Of Mr.. Sullivan that TINS was
done Just prior u the time that the panh
examiners were 10 make an examination
of the institution. and that II was zone loI
| The purpose of having the bank make u
| better appearance or showing on tne CA
animation. and that. after the eNaiii iIi<,
ton had been MADE, otner LdlSe elI.i
We're made By crediting 10 the account u
the depOsitor in question the sum or SIo''u"v
which had been charged against MIN.
And these acts, It must be remerDerpSo'
snr-a.. of
| tober. 1907 The testimony 10 which | nave
! referred was sufficient not only 70 1ustits
bur 10 require his indictment. Not"ln-
Standing, no indictment was lou iisloo .ba+
Besides. II appeared IN the evidence lnal
was submitted 10 the District Attorney
| Office at that time mat otner people' IN IN
ployes of the bank. were sald 10 nav
! knowledge Of the transaction we're these
other people called before the grand jury
/ at that time. was the proceeding peIore
| the grand Jury closed without having these,
or other witnesses, produced VINO inlsnI
furnish the necessary truth or cor opo, % "a
| ton 10 secure the indictment OF other ON
! Gals OF the institution
The TESTIMONY of the foreman Of that
/ grand Jury rs 70 the effect that one OF the
/ Offcials of the bank and one or IT'S EN-
ployes were called as witnesses, ana that
! upon this evidence the District ATTORNEY :
Office advised the grand jury that no'nlhs
could be done bur 70 dismiss the case.
Not content with this and apparently
/ feeling that the case was not being fuily
I
! tornev's Office the grand jury ende5vored
/ 10 secure the presence Of additional Wit
nesses and TO direct that suop9nas snould
| he served upon certain persons whom the
/ grand jury thought might know ABOUT the
/ transactions IN question.
subnrnas Not Served.
But the foreman Of the grand jury testi-
fed that although ne Ore EN- tne SUD-
/ served. and that while they were insisting
/ that thew should be served their term or
J Grand Jurors ended This foreman further
| festiNAd that the Union Sank matter in
! question was not brought before the grand
| fury bv the District Attorneys once untll
/ eight or nine DAYS after II had met
! What was the reason for not calling other
witnesses before this grand jury. especial
lv those whom the grand jury desired 70
( hesr9 WHY was the presentation OF this
matter DELAYED SO long after the grahu
J irirv convened II II be said tnat the
| Grand ilirv was busy with other matters.
and therefore that there was no time 70
| take ND this matter properly, then why
| u.as NOT the matter presented IN q full ana
proper way 70 some subsequent grand jury
! n was the evidence given before the
! grand Jury In question that the examiners,
who are conducting the investigation.
,bouebt m get FOR a number NJ weeks. but
/ which evidence was said 70 he lost Then,
when the question Of the lost records IN
! the District Attorneys ONCE was heconl-
! ing q serious one. the testimony was suo-
As the Democratic candidate has seen N
| 10 state that no evidence showing the com
! mission OF a crime upon which an lndict-
/ ment could be found was submitted 70 MS
| of7re al any time prior 70 1911. Ter MIN say
What the evidence was that was actuallN
/ given before the grand jury that was con-
vened in August. 1905
Additional facts. bearing upon this MAJ
ter shall he presented from time m time
/ hv me- during the campaign. and the voters
/ will have an opportunity Of knowing what
tho conduct Of the District Attorneys once
was regarding this matter IN 1908
/ The Democratic candidate further SAYS
that the evidence connecting Sullivan with
! this transaction was not secured till this
wear. and II was IF such a character that
Z ~ could not have existed and did not exist
/ in 1905 The only tangible evidence upon
which indictments could be secured against
Sullivan WAS not procurable against him
! till recently
/ have not seen the evidence as II vas
| given before the grand iur' this wear upon
| which sullivan was Indicted for the crime
witch was brought ~ the attention ~ the
| District ATTORNEY Office I'm l@S. and 7 do
/ not know upon what evidence that indicf-
rent was based but 7 A. know that a.
,aas, ono witness whose testimony could
show Mr. Sulivan's part i'm the crime was
not called nor sworn before tho grand jury
Charles y Kelby. one If the three can
dIdstes Tor The Supreme Court bench. cent
IN his formal resignation as chairman -
the County General Committee. IN accord