New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-01-27
DENIES
CHARGES IN REPLY
Continued from page

rod IN tho course of my judicial du-
To- a school for perjury conducted Dy
his same Max Sulkess-the mead oil tle
nrivate detective agency-and ! pup
{iclv cautioned those interested III 'hc
administratan of the criminal law
AGAINST accepting testimony procured
60, tho, source. Twice in open court
7 bad warned Assistant District Attor-
novs that this detective was so un-
scTnnulous that / would not allow
verdict of guilty 10 stand which was
founded on his testimony, or on any
testimony procured by him, unless II
was corroborated. $500,
cribs same detective was the 'accci-
orator of much Of the disorder OF
which he made complaint. ire himseii
brought il about for the purpose. oil
using the machinery Of the criminal
law TO Cypress and destroy the oppo-
nents of his employers. In fact, ne
acted as an assistant TO Mr.. Breckin-
ridge He was most assiduous IN MS
preparation of the cases against THESE
defendants.
Work in Prosecution
HE first interviewed the witnesses
al his own home, then conducted tnem
NAMED in attendance while the state
,nents of the witnesses were being
taken down. He frequented the ante
room of the grand jury while the mat
tors were unde- consideration, and was
IN constant attendance at the Criminal
Courts Building and in communication
with the witnesses during this period.
"The records of this Office show that
IN numerous occasions Sulkess was
personally in conference with Mr..
breckenridge during the Intervening OF
these witnesses Many Of the wit
nesses' produced by Sulkess received
sums of money regularly, which pay
ments we're made 10 them IN the gulse
of payments for confidential services.
There we're sufficient grounds for
the belief that the indictments were
being used as weapons in an INDUSTRIAL
struggle; tina: some part of the evil
dence TO be used against the defend
ants was tainted evidence in the form
of papers stolen from the labor union
AGAINST which the activities of this
pTivate detective were directed; that
these stolen papers of the union had
been purchased by the Assistant Dis
trict Attorney, Mr.. Breckenridge, with
full knowledg' while he was prepar-
ing the casel 1915, that the papers
had been 8. m; that $1,000 OF the
funds of the city was paid for these
stolen papers, the payment being made
in weekly instruments of $50 so as 10
disguise the true nature of the trans
action. The vouchers taken therefor
each week falsely recited that they
were given for confidential services.
| am unalterably opposed to the use OF
this character of proof. | would never
countenance the commission OF one
crime to obtain conviction OF another
crime.
Dopey Benny as Witness
an eleven of these cases the prln-
cipal witness against the defendants
was Dopey Benny lFsin), a notorious
gang leader, then under suspicion for
murder, and sui sequsntly indicted for
having committed the crime of murder
in the first degree. He is now in the
Tombs prison awaiting trial. Another
witness largely relied on by Mr. Brock
nridge was Joseph Miller. alias Jew
Murphy. a notorious gangster, who was
also indicted for murder in the first
degree on May 81, 1916, and is now
awaiting trial.
Both of these men were indicted
for the murder of Frederick Strauss,
the old City Court clerk. Strauss was
murdered on January Q. 1914, but the
murderers were not indicted for the
crime until came into Office two years
later; this. despite the fact that Mr..
Breckenridge knew. as early as 1915,
hat the Dopey Benny FEM gang were
.esponsiblc for the Strauss murder"
I'm proof Of his contention that he did
got Vronghnlly induce the court to dis