The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1916-1920, 1919-09-19
MORE GRAFT Barred
BY INDUSTRIAL QUIZ
Baldwin, Manager of State In
surance Fund, Called in
Inquiry.
CLAIM FRAUDS SOUGHT
Case Where $1,000 Was Paid
to Obtain $4,000 Told in
Testimony.

Further evidence Of the existence OF
a system Of graft within the organization
OF the state Industrial Commission was
developed yesterday In the Investigation
by jeremiah f. Conner. special commits
sioner appointed In April by Coy. Smith
10 inquire into the activities of the
commission
Neither Commissioner Common nor
Miles NJ. Dawson. the attorney who is
conducting the examination Of witnesses
was prepared last night to say to what
extent graft may have been rampant
among the subordinate employees but
the trend Of the testimony brought out
at yesterdays hearing seemed to indi-
cate that the investigator still had many
lines of inquiry to follow up.
So far the investigation has dealt
principally with the payment OF lump
sums to claimants for injuries received
In which remuneration may be claimed
under the workmen's compensation law.
The total claims thus settled during the
last year will aggregate more than
$50, 900, and may reach as high as
$500 Individual cases in which the
claimant is alleged to have accepted a
lump sum-at the instance OF and after
agreeing to share what he received with
certain representatives Of the commits
sion--at present are engaging the atten-
ton of the investigator. but 1t was APP
parent yesterday that Commissioner
Conner intends to determine, II possible,
just why the practice Of making lump
sum settlements was permitted to ex-
tend.
In this connection r. Spencer Baldwin,
manager of the State Insurance Fund,
who was the last witness called yester-
day brought into the testimony the name
OF John Mitchell, former chairman Of the
commission. who died on September 9.
It was, Mr.. Baldwin testified, after
conference with Mr.. Mitchell two years
ago that he made up list of cases that
might be settled on the lump sem basis
In "order to clear the books" The wit
ness referred to the conference with
Chairman Mitchell and advanced II as
an explanation why his suspicious were
not aroused after 1t came to his atten-
ton that subordinates in the commission
were advocating among claimants the
desirability of accepting lump sum set
Elements.
Nothing to Stir Suspicion.
This procedure. he said, had the thor
ough approval OF the commission. and
consequently there was nothing to
arouse his suspicious in regard to the
activities of his subordlnates in encour-
aging lump sum settlements.
Mr.. Baldwin said he would look
through his files in search of some such
corroborative documentary evidence, Ut
added that he believed none had been
preserved This drew the following from
Mr.. Dawson:
'It is a rule, Mr.. Baldwin, in law that
testimony concerning conversation
with a man now dead is not admissible.
! permitted you to testify concerning
the different cases that you have men.
TONED Of that conversation because
did not wish to shut you of from any
thing that you considered to be reason
able but do you not think that the full
responsibility. in view OF your being
manager of the State Insurance Fund
and therefore responsible for its finan-
cial conduct, was upon yourself for hav-
ing permitted this lump sum settlement
evil to arise within it7'
II do not think that the full RESPONSE
bility was upon me for 1t"
Mr.. Baldwin was asked concerning
his investigation of a charge against an
employee of the State Insurance Fund
who was alleged to have obtained 5000
from ono Samuel Cavoll for having Sc
cured a lump sum settlement for 81 900
In adjustment of a claim in November,
1918 The charge against the employee
eventually was dismissed, according to
the record. and among the papers refer
ring to the case the counsel for the in
arata naffh Nd
what purports to be an affidavit exc
cuted before Barney Wayneck, a former
employee of the commission, who. 1t was
testified on Wednesday. negotiated claim
settlements on behalf OF accident VIC
Tins, to the effect that he had paid no
money to any attorney or any one else
in connection with his claim. Mr.. Daw-
son continued his questioning:
Q. The amount that was given up was
5000?
A. Yes, the amount was 1000, and II
was charged the claimant brought homo
only $500 to his mother. and explained
that he had given UP 5000 to men in the
Office of the commission. l sent n man
out to interview the boy and the boy re-
pcated the story.
@. Did he make any statement as to
the person to whom he paid the 5000?
A I understand he made a description
OF attempted to describe two employees.
] then had him brought in the ONCE for
the purpose of Identifying these en-
ployees. He came into the claim bureau
and later he said the story was false,
that he had not paid a penny to any one
In the office. that he had spent this
money. or, think, he added he gambled
some OF II and told this story In order to
satisfy his mother. and repeated It, be-
cause when the investigator called on
him his mother was present. and he re-
pudiated tho statement and then made
this affidavit
Q. Mr.. Baldwin, Is the file of the
Cavoli papers on your desk or in your
possession personally up In the State
Insurance Fund at this time?
A. / think it Is likely, because I had
n brought in.
9. Do you remember when you had
4 brought INF
A Yesterday or the day before. I
had intended to mention this case my
self az an instance of attempting to