Evening star., 1932-07-29
ROOSEVELT WEIGHS
WALKERS DEFENSE
Governor Soon to Act on
Mayors Sweeping Denial
of Official Misconduct.
Continued From First PaRe.)

Continued From First Page)
! New York behind the Investigation"
! Seabury was unable to find or to
charge that had caused the wrongful
expenditure or loss Of single dollar
to the people of New York City out
OF upward Of $4,000, ,000, 900 expended
during my whole administration"
Walker denied he had sponsored
legislation to limit the number of taxi
i cabs" which Seabury said had been
done to increase the value of securities.
| Walker denied J. Allan Smith of the
Equitable Coach Co., holder Of a city
franchise, had put up the money for q
| letter Of credit on which Mr.. and Mrs.
I Walker travelled to Europe Walker said
! he put up $4,000 as his share in the
$4,000 letter Of credit used jointly by
his party. The $4,000, he said, covered
all the Walker expenses.
! Sees Partisan Move.
/ This partisan political committee"
Walker wrote, was created for
the express purpose, by sensational
charges and If possible by spectacular
| testimony. to blacken the reputat ton
| of the city administration and thus
| divert public attention from those
| GODQlllO0
of affairs throughout the Nation"
Walker said his appearance as a
| witness had been staged as a climax
just before the two national conven-
| tions"
! He also intimated Seabury's IS "con-
! cluSionS" had been timed so as to en-
| barrass Gov. Roosevelt just before his
/ political future was to be determined
! oy the Democratic National Convention.
/ In denying Seaburys conclusion"
| that he had been untruthful and evasive
! on the witness stand, the mayor said:
This conclusion is so devoid Of fair
! play and even decency that I find it
dlthcult to exercise proper restraint in
| referring to it."
Paul Block Defended.
Seabury charged the mayors ac-
ceptance Of approximately S225 900
from a brokerage account with Paul
Block, newspaper pus..ss er, without in
vestment was imprope. because Block
subsequently became interested in a
corporation which sought, and pro-
cured. approval from the Board of
transportation of a tile which said
company intended to manufacture for
use in the subway"
1T is difficult to speak of this with
restraint" the mayor said, mot merely
| because an inSinuation is made against
me, but because it seeks to reflect upon
| Mr.. Block as one who might seek
favors from the municipal authorities
The record is totally barren Of any
evidence that he ever did or ever.
would"
OF seabury's Conclusion" Walker
further said
After IA months of investigation
1 hot
did not succeed in finding anybody who
did seek favors from the municipal
authorities and who gave the mayor,
any gratuities, either substantial or un-
| substantial"
Sherwood Not Agent"
Walker expended hundreds of words
| in denying Seaburys statement that
he concealed his interest in financial
| transactions of close to million dol
lars by having Russell T. Sherwood,
missing accountant. handle them for
him.
He stated repeatedly that Sherwood
was never his personal financial agent.
In answer to SeaburyS charge that he
mad refused satisfactorily to explain
the source of the vast sums of money
deposited by Sherwood, Walker said:
when 1 testified I did not know
about Mr.. Sherwood's accounts was,
under oath, fully cognizant of my re-
sponsibility This sworn testimony
NAV not be arbitrarily rejected Not q
person on earth has sworn to the con-
trary, nor has documentary evidence
been submitted to the contrary"
Seabury Charged Neglect.
Seabury charged that as soon as II
became known the Legislative Commit
-, H. u
accountant vanished and Walker
failed and neglected TO cause his
agent to return. or to cooperate with
the committee in its efforts to locate
him"
He said he had no knowledge, direct
ly or indirectly, of the reason why
Sherwood had fed. or why he had
failed to comply with a subpoena or
dering him to appear before the inquiry
board.
Declares Testimony Lacking.
He said thousands of witnesses had
been questioned in private and secret
hearings" but that not one had &C
cused the mayor"
Seabury's charge that Walker vio-
lated the city charter by holding 10
bonds in a company which was awarded
a $4,000 city contract brought from
Walker the reply:
The charge that I violated the
i charter, either in fact or law, knowing
ly or unknowingly is untrue"
! He said the bonds came into his pos
session without his becoming aware OF
J the business the company was in; that
| bonds represent a mortgage on a COM
pany and not an interest in it, and
that the contract to the firm was
awarded on the basis of competitive
| bidding
More than two-thirds of the trans
actions covered by Mr.. Seabury's COM
! plant and summation he added, re
late to my first term.
Refers to Popular Vote.
"As to these, Mr. Seabury would set
! up his opinion of my fitness for the
office Of mayor as against the decision
of 867522 citizens who did me the
! honor of voting for me at the last city
election, representing a plurality o.
99,647 votes"
/ Walker sought to use RooSevelts de-
cision in removing Thomas M. Farley
| as sheriff of New York as a boomerang
to aid him in his defense.
He contended that a majority of the
charges made against him were basee
on events of his first term and that
could not be removed for acts occurring
prior to his present term Of oflce.
| LAW-ABIOlNG VETERANS
DECLARED UNAFFECTED