The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-05-20


 The fair inference from the fact that most recipients of large pay ments from the city cashed their cheeks, often through the compli- cated procedure already mentioned rather than put these payments through their bank accounts in reg ular course, is that the transactions were corrupt and, therefore, could not withstand scrutiny if made a matter of record. It is, to say the least, most unusual to find contrac- tors, business men, and lawyers do- ing business in thousands of dollars, and all in cash. That fact alone arouses suspicion.
 Taken to Olsen
 Significant is the fact that on all of these irregular and illegal pay ments of city funds, so far as is known, the payees took them to Ol- sen at the Waterbury Trust Com pany on directions from the Mayor, the Comptroller, or the Mayors sec retary, although the Citizens and Manufacturers Bank was the regu- lar depository of the city and was the bank at which such checks were payable. Without the cooperation of Olsen, these corrupt operations could not have continued or assumed such proportions. In due course of time, it appears, Olsen was the recipient of certain benefits in return for his services, partially in the form of dis tributions of cash to him as here after detailed and partially in the form of profits received from stock transactions undertaken with money given him for that purpose by Comptroller Leary.
 After the destruction of the rec ords of the Comptroller's office, one other possible method of determin- ing the names of recipients of large payments from the city remainer, i. e., the teller's daily cash sheets, kept by the Waterbury Trust Com pany. Upon these sheets it was the custom to note the names of per- sons for whom checks were cashed, the recipients of large sums from the city being no exception. Olsen realized the damaging nature of this information and, therefore, ordered their destruction, in January, 1888. Under his orders and supervision, all tellers daily cash sheets of the Wa terbury Trust Company, bearing the names of persons who had cashed checks there and in what amounts, covering the years 1880 to 1888 were burned. The destruction of these records, after the destruction of those of the Comptroller's office and the Street Department, is indicative of the thoroughness with which the administration sought to eliminate all documentary traces of corrup- ton.
 Drew on Treasury
 The freedom with which the Mayor and the Comptroller drew upon the city treasury is striking ly illustrated in three incidents in the years 1885 and 1897. In the month of May, 1885, the Mayor, who was also Lieutenant Governor of the State of Connecticut, and, as such, presiding officer in the State Sen ate, entertained the personnel of the State Senate at the Hartford Club in Hartford. This dinner, plus tips, cost $352.25, and although a matter personal to the Lieutenant Cover nor, it was paid for by the City of Waterbury. In May, 1887, Mayor Lieutenant Governor Hayes enter tained forty-three persons at ban- quet for the Committee on Roads, Rivers and Bridges of the 1897 Gen eral Assembly at the Waverly Inn in Cheshire. This dinner, plus tips, cost $473.10 and, although it was 8 mat ter in which the city was in no way interested and should not properly be charged, it was paid for by the City of Waterbury. About 8 month later a dinner for the Committee on Cities and Boroughs of the 1887 General Assembly with some sixty persons present, was given by the Mayor-Lieutenant Governor and the bill for this dinner, including tips, to $452.45, was also paid for by the City of Waterbury. The brazenneSs and wantonness of the administration is apparent when bills of this nature, which are per- sonal, purely political and obviously not properly chargeable to the city, were paid by checks drawn on the City of Waterbury and signed by the Mayor and the Comptroller. These three particularly unwarranted ex- penditures of the city's money by the Mayor-Lieutenant Governor to- tai $1,277.80. The fact that the Mayor has annually an appropria- tion of some $500. for official enter tainment is, in the opinion of the Grand Jury. no justification for the above expenditures. This is perhaps most clearly indicated by the fact that the above expenditures were charged on the city's books, not to official entertainment. but to the fund interest on floating debt."
 Throughout their administration, the Mayor and the Comptroller have from time to time, according to available records, been the recipients of other funds from the city for which the Grand Jury has been able to find no legal nor reasonable jus tification. In April 1881, for example, the Mayor received approximately $2500. of the city's money purported- ly for expenses in connection with the charter. During the same per- iod of time Comptroller I,eary re- ceived approximately $2,000. also purportedly for expenses in connec- ton with the charter. The Grand Jury has been unable to find that either the Mayor or the Comptroller any services or incurred any expenses in connection with the of the charter other than the routine duties which were theirs by virtue of their respective offices. MT. Purcell of the Comptrol- ler's office was instructed by the Comptroller not to post these items which were paid to the Mayor and the Comptroller until October, 1881, though, in fact these checks were drawn and paid between April 2nd and April 14th. Pursuant to these J