New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-12-04
District Attorney Prepares
Evidence to Put Before
New Grand Jury.
CLARK BACK FROM
HIS SUBPOENA TRIP
Prosecutors Assistant Returns
with Documents To Be Used
Against Mclean.

from his Office yesterday and put I'm the
entire day at his home shaping up the
evidence which he will begin TO present
| to-day to the new Supreme Court grand
| Jury investigating campaign funds and
| contractor graft. John X. Clark, Assistant
District Attorney returned from Albany
last night with documentary evidence
| which will be used In presenting the case
against Arthur A. Mclean, the Democrat
ic State Treasurer.
John A. Hennessy, who plays the part
Of the ammunition wagon and supply
! train for the John Doe outfit met Clark
| in Albany and introduced him TO three
new witnesses who will be heard in the
| proceedings before Chief Magistrate Nc
Adoo in the near future.
Madison r. Aldrich, the Poughkeepsie
| contractor. who testified he was held up
| for 81, 800 by Thomas Hassett, Of State En-
gineer Bensels office; Matthew Van AZ
styne, of Albany. treasurer of the Shaugh-
! messy Construction Company, a CORPORA
ton. who testified that he sent a 5000
campaign contribution from that corpora
| ton to Arthur A. Mclean, and Harold '.
| owens. of Utica. secretary Of
the Dale Engineering Company, cor
poration. who testified that he sent 500
campaign contribution from that corpora
| ton to Arthur A. Mclean, after Everett
p Fowler had solicited 1t. will be tho
chief witnesses before the grand jury to-
day.
| Supplementing their testimony docI-
mentary evidence which Mr.. Whitman
was working on yesterday will be pro-
duced, and indictments are expected 10
!, follow.
| The District Attorney has in his posses
| sion the receipt Of Arthur a. Mclean for
the 81, 900 contribution of the Shaughnes-
sy Construction Company as well as the
postoffice registry receipt signed Arthur
A. Mclean. by Z. J. Burke" which was
returned 10 the Shaughnessy Consuuc-
ton Company by mail as evidence that
it's 81 600 contribution had been delivered
| TO the right place.
Van Alstyne testified at the John Doe
inquiry. however. that he had sent
check for 81 90 Of the Shaughnessy Con-
struction Company TO his bank, the
Commercial National. of Albany, Tor
which he purchased a draft on New YORK
| City. and IT was that draft which went
| TO Mclean, under date OF october ~, 1872.
The letter accompanying IT, Van Alstyne
said. explained that the contribution was
| from the company. and McLeans receipt
was made out 10 THE Shaughnessy Con-
struction Company"
| Clark, on his trip 10 Albany yesterday.
| subpenaed the cancelled check or the
construction company, its copy OF the let
ter with which the company sent the con
| tribution. and the banks records Of the
proceeding. including the draft which was
cashed by Mclean.
! In the Dale Engineering Company case
the documentary evidence is simpler and
more direct. and Mr.. whitman now has
the cancelled check of that corporation
Endorsed by Mclean. with which to sup
plement the oral testimony of Harold V.
! Owens, the treasurer.
The three new witnesses brought for
ward by Her messy yesterday will TESTIFY
on Monday either at the John Doe III
quiry, or before the grand jury, and until
| that time neither Hennessy nor WHIT
man will make their names pubic
Both men are inclined 10 believe that II
the names OF these prospective WITNESSES
became public there would be such ire
mendous pressure brought TO bear upon
| them that they might be dissuaded from
taking the witness stand.
Designating them simply as Messrs.
| "a" "B" and &C." their respective stor-
res were outlined yesterday in substance
as follows:
"Mr. 4 was asked for 5000 before
road repair contract he was bidding on
l,I, Tod raH
with the grafters. finally gave IN, In part.
and agreed 20 give them 5000 He pald
over that amount and subsequently, when
the contract was awarded, he found that
he had been awarded one-half of II. In
other words, he got only what he paid
| for.
This case was not a campaign FUND
case. but was simple graft In the nrst
degree, similar I'm most OF its circum-
/ stances TO the experience OF Aldrich. OF
Poughkeepsie. except that in the Aldrich
case that contractor was held up at the
end of his contract. just before the final
payment, instead of In the beginning, be-
! fore he had even been awarded the con
| tract.
MIR. b is ready TO testify that he WAS
4
1912 campaign. for sl.coo. lie then had
| three road contracts, and he was told TO
send his check TO Norman T.. Mack, Ar
thur A. Mclean or George NJ. Palmer.
You must send your money In such
way says he was told, that IL won't
be credited to you; give the name ot
| some one else as the donor of your con-
| trlbution. because we don't want II known
! that we are shaking down contractors
| B says he sent II letter with his check
| giving the name of another man 10 whom
the contribution might be credited, add
| ing to that the line. AS per instructions
Mr.. G is In the business OF selling
road work implements, such as oil
| sprinklers, cement mixers and the liNe
| He says he was approached by certain
persons In the Hampton Hotel I'm Albany
when the good roads referendum on the
| $50 900 coo bond issue was on. They asked
him for $1,000. and said: we need
| lot OF money 10 put this thing through
and II II goes through we'll see that your
company Is favored on machines 10 be
used
Mr.. & refused TO be 'bled, and says
] that he can supply the name of another
man, also In his line who was the Al
bany agent for an out-of-town firm, VINO
was likewise approached for $1,000. anu
| who also refused to come across.
| Iustice Davis Yesterday adjourned the