New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1921-08-27

the markets pay for rental or extor-
ton Is added to the cost of food"
The Mayors reply follows:
II have your letter of August 90,
1921, relating to Edwin J. O'Malley,
Commissioner of Markets.
'Y our letter is most extraordinary.
This is especially so since the minutes
Of your investigation show that Mr..
O'Malley demanded to be heard when
certain Incidents were testified to and
you, personally, refused and insisted
upon adhering to the refusal, to per-
nit him to be heard. 1t is grossly
shocking to the universally possessed
instincts OF fairness TO punish man
not only in advance of the completion
partmcnt, but Immediately following g.
deliberate refusal to permit him to be
heard in relation to the matter, by tho
very one suggesting his punishment
Your letter can only be understood
5 publicity incident OF the impend-
ing municipal campaign. will not do
you the injustice of accepting the idea
that you, as lawyer arc disciple
of the doctrine Of hang first and in
1uire afterward'
81 hope that the extraordinary char
execution Of Mr.. O'Malley without
hearing is not a reflection of animus
angendcred by his revealing that your
committee placed convict in his de-
partmcnt as an Investigator.
probcrs Referred to Swami
"Your statement that the resembling
of the cancellation OF two permits in
volved is insufficient is as far wrong
ole Not ~
original decision to revoke was to in
tmidate witnesses. I understand that
your sub committee have put on record
during the last three months every ono
who could be reached by a thorough
fne-combinG process who had any real
or fancy grievance or claim to make
against any one IN the city administra-
ton. Therefore. nothing that the Com
missioner has done or can do can affect
any disclosure that it is possible to
make.
"If eny witnesses before your COM
mittce have committed perjury, the
man with whom to take that up is the
District Attorney Of New York County.
II am saying nothing in criticism or
defense of Mr.. O'Malley at this time.
If at the close of the investigation of
his department, and after hearing all
that may be said on his side Of the
drive you arc making upon him, and
properly valuing the credibility of the
type Of witnesses produced on both
sides, conclude that Mr.. O'Malley has
been dcrelict in duty or guilty Of mis-
conduct, shall take such action as is
merited. l viii thus be doing precise
~ what you would be the first to insist
should be done in fairness to you if you
were similarly situated"
Statement by Hirshf1eld
Commissioner of Accounts Hirshfc|d
insisted in his statement that if the
testimony given by William Minder
and Mrs. Bertha L. Katenkamp before
the Meyer Committee was true then
they withheld certain information upon
their examination by him on October 4,
1920. They then denied under oath,
says the Commissioner that there were
any grounds for proceedings against
any employee of the Department. Of
Markets. Minder particularly. says
MI. hlrshicd, denied that any stand
holders in the Washington Market had
at any time complained to him that
they were approached or held up for
money.
The Commissioner then told of cx-
aiming Samuel Buchler, Il deputy COM
missioner in the Department of Mar
kets, with reference to the character
OF and some experiences with Barnet
Cohen, the Meyer committee witness.
ne upshot of Buchlcrs testimony was
that Commissioner O'Malley had re-
fused to give market stall to Cohen
because OF his alleged bad business
record. Buchler said that Cohen once
called at his law office and offered TO
"hire Buchler as his attorney fo-
l,o00.' Buchlcr says no was then con-
nected with the Department OF Mar
kets az n deputy commissioner and in
terpreted the offer as an attempt at
bribery. He turned Cohen out Of his
Office, ne said.
Comment on Widows Case
Commissioner Hirsh1eld commenting
on the case Of Mrs. Katenkamp, a
widow, said ut seems az If an attempt
were made 10 make it appear that Mr..
Mindcr's ard Mrs. Katenkamp's exam
NATION before me was prearrnnged, and
That had something to do with pos
sible shortcomings in the Department
OF Markets, when, AS q matter of fact,
both Mr.. Mindcr and Mrs. Katenkamp
when they appeared before me on DC
toDer 4, 1890, denied under oath that
any money was demanded by any ono
from Mrs, Katcnhamp, and in tnct |
was assured by Mr.. Minder that every
thing WAS all right in the market"
Preliminary TO the above Mr. Hirsh- |
field issued tho following statement:
"Ths Meyer Legislative committee