Evening star., 1932-01-12
SHERIFF ORDERED
To MEET CHARGES
Gov. Roosevelt InstructS New
York Official to Answer
Seabury Counts.
~ III. Associated Press.

ny the Associated Press.
ALBANY, N. Y. January 12.-Gov
Roosevelt today requested Thomas M
Farley, sheriff of New York County
under the scrutiny of the Legislative
Committee investigating the Democrat
tc administration Of New York City, to
an@Her to the Governor the charges
brought against him by Samuel Sea-
bury. counsel to the Investigating Com
mittee
seabury, writing to the Governor
declared that II think l am con-
servative when I say that but one
conclusion arises from perusal OF tIals
testimony (that given the conlmlUOeel
and that conclusion Is that Ihomas M
Farley, the present sheriff OF tne
County Of New York, Is unnt 10 hoIu
Office Of sheriff, and that 10 permlt
him longer to do so would be a grave
i,iustice and affront TO the citizenship
Of this county"
A file of correspondence made public
by the Governor contained letter 70
himself from Farley, citing press ac-
counts of Seabury's complaint;
1"There IS" Farley wrote the Gov
ernor mo basis whatever for any
charges against me and / am eager 70
answer any that may be mace py
Judge Seabury" "
Given Copy of Charges.
The Governors request that Farley
answer the charges was conveyed In
a letter to the sheriff from the Gov
ernor's counsel, Samuel I. Rosenman,
which said m part:
"The Governor is in receipt of let
ter from Hon, Samuel Seabury, dateo
December 30 1881, of which the in
closed is a COPY. On the Governors S
behalf 1 desire also to acknowledge re
ceipt of your letter Of January 4, 1882,
addressed to him.
"At his direction, and in accordance
with the usual procedure, am for
warding q copy Of Judge Seaoury
letter to you, with request that you
LET me have your answer thereto at
your early convenience.
In demanding an answer TO the
charges from Farley the Democratic
Governor followed course established
in similar complaints brought against
members of Tammany Hall who held
high Offices in the governmental depart
ments of the city Of New YORK. one OF
the previous instances involved charges
directed against Mayor James j, walker
and another against District Attorney
Thomas c. T. Grain. Both were ao-
solved after the Governor had received
satisfactory answers.
Seabury's Letter.
seabury's letter to the Governor said
Il take the liberty of sending you
herewith transcript of the testimony
offered before the Joint Legislative
Committee In so far that testimony re-
lates to Thomas M Farley, sheriff OF
New York County. From reading 1t,
think YOU will have no difficulty In
reaching the following conclusions:
That Thomas M. Farley was through
out the period hereinafter mentioned In
control of, and responsible for, the ac-
ttyities of the Thomas M. Farley Asso-
ciation, a political district club, and
that during that time the Thomas M
Farley Association was the resort OF
professional gamblers who operated
there under the protection which Mr
Farley was able TO afford them:
"TThat in 1926 Thomas M. Farley
caused structural changes to be made
IN the club house to accommodate pro-
fessional gambling there and TO OBJ
struct the police in the performance OF
their duty to suppress such gam
bling,
Tells of Gambling Raids.
s"That the police were required to raic
the Thomas M. Farley Club House or
two occasions because Of the commar
gambling therein, arresting, on the sec
ond occasion some 20 prisoners, includ'
ing two particularly notorious charac,
tiers, to wit: McKeever and Baby
Frolich-the latter an associate OF tn'
late Arnold Rothstein.
THAT Thomas M. Farley at the pup
lie hearings before the committee falsel!
swore that all the persons so ARRESTED
were members of his. club, engaged, a
the time Of the raid q o'clock in TIT
rnorning), in the estimable work o
packing base balls, rubber balls, Ma,
poles and skipping ropes for Ma,
party to be given at the club Tor IN
benefit of the little children In IN
neighborhood.
THAT from January /, 1925, to Sep
tember %, 1881, a period OF less thal
seven years, during which Mr.. Farley
total income, according to his sworl
testimony, did not exceed s87 900, n
deposited in his bank 1896 6,503.66.
SHERIFF Thomas M. Farley was give
every opportunity to explain the source
of the money which went into his ban
accounts, and the best explanation h
was able to make was the utterly unbe
lievable statement that prior t
1922. while he was the business agen
of a union, he accumulated over 500,
900 In cash, which he kept in tin bo
in his home, and that it was from tn
moneys kept In this tin box that n
from time to time made the deposit
which appear in his bank account
."