New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-01-15
Whitman to Subpoena Bank
Accounts to Determine
Where Money Went.
CONVICTED "BAGMAN"
TO AID IN SEARCH
Rubber Stamp" Signature Stun.
bling Block in Probe of 81, AGO.
900 Campaign Fund.

District Attorney Whitman having
agreed 10 q suspension OF sentence in the
case OF Arthur a. Mclean, the Demo-
cratic state campaign treasure, after he
pleaded guilty to accepting contribution
from a corporation Is now preparing 10
find out how much help Mclean can Oe
to him in carrying on his Investigation
OF campaign graft "a II relates to Ne"
York County. From data already Oh
tanned the amount Of campaign collec-
lions by the Democrats during l9ll- j.
has been estimated approximately At up
ward Of 10000.
Mr.. Whitman wants to know how much
Of this amount was used. The principal
depository OF the campaign fund was the
Fourth National Bank, In this city There
We're several other smaller accounts IN
other banks.
Mclean. as treasurer of the committee.
vas the only Democrat who Ilrally IN
dorsed contribution checks and was also
the only person who could issue WIN
drawal checks. He was indicted because
his Endorsement in his own writing was
affixed to a check made payable 10 him.
The bank accounts will be sUbpenaed
and Withdrawals on McGean's checks VIII
he investigated to determine how the
money was spent. McLean's explana-
tons as to where the money vert Will be
necessary. as the bank accounts will not
show who got 1t.
Two of the difficulties that beset Dis
trict Attorney Whitman in his efforts 10
fix responsibility for several hundred
thousand dollars not accounted for are
first. many of the withdrawal checks bore
McLean's signature made by rubber
stamp. That stamp was kept In the
Offices of the state committee. No. 1
West oath street. and was available iVf
use bv others than Mclean. Second, it
is no crime 10 take campaign contr.Du-
tions from he fund. provided the dis
bursement Of the money is accounted for.
Mr.. Whitman SAYS the whole object of
his inquiry is to find crime ana not merely
TO establish who had the handling OF
large sums for disbursements. Another
lead that may be supplied by Mclean Is
evidence TO show disparity in tho &C
counts Of the "bagmen' who reported 10
Mclean.
It is believed that most. if not all. OF
the large misrepresentation OF contriou-
tons were effected by the 'bagmen di-
rectly TO those higher uT or through
go-between.
II can't discuss the Mclean case at
all. / don't know Yet what J shall do,
but | think that Mclean may be OF some
help TO me-" was all that Mr. Whtman
would say. II is known that the question
of jurisdiction stands in the way.
Although the second Indictment against
Mclean was dismissed when he PLEADED
guilty the District Attorney can ask ior
a new indictment charging the same
crime. II McL.ean's case had gone to inc
Jury and he had been either convicted or
acquitted and the other indictment mad
been dismissed it could not then be used
against him again, because the law does
not permit a person 10 be placed IN Jeop-
ardy twice for the same offence.
No one in the District Attorneys once
would discuss the question as 10 whether
McIean's plea OF guilty wa entered %
any agreement with the District Attorney
a 5 to any promise that the other inoict-
ment would never be used. 1t was said
that the question would probably be ad-
Indicated by the justice before whom the
case was brought.