New-York tribune., 1921-09-01

Ed,Uin J.
tee resumed the hearing during the aft
ernoon. He said that there was no
further necessity for recalling O'Mal-
ley to the stand, as the committee had
all the evidence necessary to show what
was going on in the department.
Mr.. Brown added that the Commits
sloner during his two-hour statement
had said mot single word or made
one single allegation intended to clear
HIM or his department of the charges
that lnferentially rested upon them be-
cause of the evidence that had been
given.
I'VE are here investigating the con-
dltlon Of the city," he continued, "and
at this time we are engaged in nvesti-
eating a department of the city with
reference to ascertainng whether or
not it can be reorganized so as to be
more efficient and with view to find
ing. out whether it can be conducted
with greater economy and benefit to
the community than at present. 1t was
during an investigation with this pur-
pose in mind, or these purposes, that
the evidence in relation to the Depart
ment of Markets that was objected to
by Commissioner O'Malley was drawn
out.
He showed great anxiety after the
first witness presented evidence which
reflected upon his department to imme-
diately answer it, and he was informed
that an opportunity would be given to
HIM to answer, but that the commit
tees orderly procedure could not be
interrupted to enable him to answer
each witness as he appeared upon the
stand.
He appeared to-day and after a
Tune he consented to sign a waiver Of
immunity, and professed to be in a
position not to protect himself because
he was not lawyer. But he finally
signed it and he was permitted to talk
Tor TWO hours or more to this commit
tee IN relation to the inconsequential-
tiles of transactions that had been
proved before this committee in rela-
tlon to him and his department, with
out saying, until it came to cross
examination, one single word or making
one single allegation intended to clear
him or his department of the charges
that inferentially rested upon them
because the evidence had been given.
Defense Called Worthless
"Now, in the consideration of a case
of this kind, where the witness has
summarily withdrawn from the com
mittee, the question remains whether
or not the committee should exercise
Its authority to compel him to retugn
The committee did not ask him to
come. He came because he wanted to
come, and clamored for further hear
ing. He had his opportunity as few
witnesses have ever had to say what
he had to say, and he said nothing
which tended to clear his department
or to clear himself before questions
were asked upon cross-examination.
He did say on oss-examination
that he had never received the $1,5O0
from Hibbard. He denied that, and
am not going to argue the question of
fact as to whether he received it or not
1t is an issue Of fact, and the people
who listened to Hibbard and to Michel
and to O'Malley himself must form
their opinion in view Of all the testi-
mony and of the degree Of credibility
which they are to give to the witnesses
that have appeared touching upon the
administration of Mr.. OMalley's off ce
and the degree Of credibility which
they are to give him.
Il have concluded, after thinking the
matter over and giving it due consid-
GRAFTON, that there is no duty resting
upon it to force the appearance of
Commits ssioner O'Malley, who left the
a committee substantially as soon as
the ross-examination began, and there
was nothing in the dialogue between
MIR. Wallstein and Mr.. O'Malley that
justified him in doing so. and he was
distinctly asked if he refused to an
swer further questions, and he said he
did refuse, before he left.
at is a matter of public duty, not
only on the part of the committee but
frequently evaded, of calling attention
of the public authorities to the com
mission of crime which is at the ex-
pense of the community at large, and
when crime is committed officially the
guilt is doubly great and the suffering
OF the community hundred-f old
greater than it is in the case Of the
commission of crime by an individual.
1T is my deliberate judgment that
the evidence that has been presented
before this committee in relation to
the Department of Markets demands
Investigation by the criminal authori-
from the District Attorney which I
proceed to read into the record, ad-
dressing me:
81 would be much obliged if you
would communicate to me any and
every case developed by the committee
that you think justities presenting the
evidence to the grand jury. | do not
want to send for any of the witnesses
until you have entirely finished with
them for fear that in some way it may
interfere with the comm ittee's work.
think, probably, it would be better
for ne to Wait until you are through
with the witnesses in each case before
send for them and prepare to present
their evidence to the grand jury.
'(Signed) EDWARD SWAMI.
"'District Attorney
More Evidence Expected
Il am by no means satisfied that no
further evidence will appear, corrob-
oratlve of the evidence that has al
ready been given of malfeasance in the
Department OF Markets. l am pretty
well satisfied there will be more. But
| am not in the habit of boasting of
what is TO be produced when a con-
troversy is on. But whether more is
produced or not, the evidence of the
witnesses who have already been heard
IN this matter is now complete, so far
as | know, and l move that the min
utes of the committee, so far as they
relate to the admin ration of the De-
'"F'~sa' Of Market Ind the "''vsF'a