The Waterbury Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1917-1946, 1932-05-27

torts bitingiy to a pointed the
question.
or not on that answer, and IL I am.
] would expect to be prosecuted
for It," he said.
Testimony SO far presented left
the judgment on perjury" in this
case to be determined by judg-
ment on whether the mayor or
someone else was mistaken In his
Testimony or fabricating 1t. For
1.-THE mayor contradicted many
points In testimony that had been
offered by others.
However, he made one telling
point in the inferred charge that
he had been brlbed to help GER
tain taxicab interests through a
stock trading account in which he
admitted he and John A. Sisto.
| broker, shared.
After Seabury had presented his
telling evidence indicating Walker
had accepted $4,000 in bonds as
his share In the profits on an ac-
count In which he put not a penny,
Walker called for certain records,
Those city records showed that
six months after the delivery of
| thO DShu5 al HbCStiObt dihGi
vetoed an ordinance that would
have meant million dollars more
revenue In one year for the cor
poration in which the broker, John
A. Sisto. was interested.
Il offer 1t (the record) particu-
larly to the committee in answer
to the insinuation Or inuendo that
Sisto bribed me or tried to infu-
ence my official judgment" Walker
said.
Much had been made of the Slsto
testimony by the Hofstadter in
vestigating committee conducting
the hearing.
The dapper witness testified. UNI
der protest he said, to his gifts 10
widowed sister and then launch
cd an attack on what he inferred
was a trial by headline" that had
been conducted by the Hofstadter
committee from the beginning.
This attack followed the intro
duction OF testimony concerning
the huge account on record for
Sherwood. who, Walker said, was
a clerk and tax expert for a firm
OF attorneys with which he once
was associated.
II recognize the headline pur-
pose in that" Walker said, land
I have no objection to that because
am used to 1t, but repeat again,
and II will answer all those ques-
tons:
II know nothing about his
(Sherwood's) personal affairs, his
personal banks accounts, nor his
personal operations. do know
that he had a score of clients that
came in and out to Blauvelt and
Warren and Warren and Mcintyre
but didn't come there on law bust
ness but to see him. know that
he had score of clients for whom
he did income tax work and made
reports"
In this connection, Walker pre-
viously had denied any financial
transactions with John j. McKeon.
who gave him the Sisto bonds;
with J. Allan Smith who bought
the $4,000 letter of credit to which
Walker contributed $4,000, he said;
with Frank II. Fageol OF the Twin
Coach company. or William O'Neil
Of General Tire company. both
hackers of Equitable Coach COM
pany. These men, or their cor
porations, had kept state Senator
JOnH ~. liItuu vi w
on their payroll as contact man"
At the end of the mayors testi-
mony yesterday, he delivered n leo
ture on what he hoped the investi-
eating committee might do toward
"lifting the load of taxation" from
taxpayers. who he said were un-
duly burdened by mandatory legis-
lation forced on the city by up
state legislators (mogt of whom are
republican,.
Walker, II was believed. had
completed his testimony before the
committee although Seabury called
all witnesses to reappear today.
Tammany Hall. It was evident, was
pleased with Walkers conduct of
his own defense.
Others than walker partisans
were not no sure the mayors wise
cracks and clever retorts would
save his political life. 1t appar-
emily was accepted generally that
charges for Walkers removal
would be filed with Governor
Franklin ID. Roosevelt.
Typical views of this group were
expressed by the New York Times,
independent democratic newspaper.
which said today that Mayor
Walker had been his own worst
enmey during the hearings:
HE elected to appeal to the APP
plause of the baser sort" 1t said.
apparently he felt no obligation
to satisfy the sober minded and
law abiding people who make up
the strength of the community.
There may have been no
technical crime in this (Walkers
acceptance of gifts). 1t may not
be sufficient to warrant Mayor
walkers removal from office. But
II was morally and politically q
high crime and misdemeanor for
a public servant thus to
abuse the proprleties and disre-
gard the decencies OF official 1ife."
In event charges are flied calling
for removal OF Walker, Roosevelt
probably VIII not rule on the
charges until after the democratic
national convention. Lack OF time
for study OF the charges would be
offered as the reason for such de-
lay.
Regardless OF the outcome Of
such charges II filed, friends Of
| Walker probably would move to
renomInate him for mayor, and
proceed with campaign on his
behalf In the belief they could win
by n substantial majority.
Walkers last campaign resulted
IN victory by margin Of more
than 100000 votes. Another such
campaign was forecast during
Testimony yesterday by Tammany
M ft4N- .Nr ~ ~ ts4st tAY