The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-05-20

ed by Williamson, only $12,200 was actually received by him and he di- vided this $12,200 equally with Mackenzie. The other half of the SPA, 400 prrportedly received by Will liamson was in fact retained by Comptroller Leary.
 Between the end of the 1895 ses- sion and the opening of the 1937 session, there were no dealings be- tween the Waterbury officials and Williamson and Mackenzie. Early in 1887, however, Williamson and Mackenzie were asked to come to Waterbury to meet Mayor Hayes and Comptroller Leary relative to the Waterbury legislative program. In response to this invitation, Will Hanson and Mackenzie went to Waterbury and conferred with the Mayor and the Comptroller at the Diamond Ginger Ale Company office. In this conference Williamson and Mackenzie were again requested to undertake the city's legislative program, and, after some discussion, they agreed to do so, at which time the Comptroller drew a check paya- ble to Williamson in the amount of $5,000. The Comptroller then telephoned to Carl D. Olsen at the Waterbury Trust Company who brought the $5,000 in cash to Leary's office and left with a city check to cover the amount. This payment is striking example of the manner in which these large sums were paid by the Comptroller with out appropriation and without sub mission to the Board of Finance for approval. Of the 5000 in cash for which Williamson indorsed city check and voucher, he in fact re- ceived only $2,500 which he divided equally with Mackenzie. The other $2,500 was retained by Comptroller Leary.
 Large Sums to Williamson
 Thenceforth throughout the 1887 session, large payments were made by the city to Williamson for lobby ing services rendered by him and Mackenzie. The checks were made payable to Williamson and indorsed by him, but on each occasion he in fact received only half the amount stated in the city check and voucher which he indorsed, the other half being retained by Comptroller Leary. On many occasions, when the Comptroller presented check and voucher to Williamson for signature, the Comptroller had the cash with him at the time.
 Pursuant to this arrangement, in 1887, Williamson and Mackenzie again handled the so-called legisla- tive program of the City of Water bury and for these services checks aggregating $34000 were made paya- ble to Williamson's order in 1897. Of this sum Williamson in fact re- ceived only $l7000 which he divided equally between himself and Mac kenzie-that is, $8,500 each. The other half of the $34,000 was re- tained by Comptroller Leary. In 1887, as in 1885, the payments were made by Comptroller Leary, many of them in the State Capitol, and the orders concerning the legislative program were given by Mayor Hayes, who again was Lieutenant Governor and presiding officer of the Senate. AS in 1885, Williamson conferred practically every morning of the leg islative session with Mayor Hayes and received orders from him con- corning bills in which the Water bury administration was interested. In neither year, did the Corporation Counsel know of the employment of lobbyists by the Mayor and Comp troller.
 Between his defeat at the polls in the fall of 1887 and the inception of this investigation, Comptroller Leary has met with Williamson and Mac kenzie and they have discussed the existence of records of an incrimin- ating nature, particularly relating to the transactions above mentioned.
 Mayor Was Familiar
 There is no doubt that Mayor Hayes was thoroughly familiar with the details of the arrangements, not only then but in 1885. There is, therefore, reasonable ground to be- lieve that the $58,400 paid by the city of Waterbury to Williamson for lobbying services in the 1885 and 1887 sessions of the General As- sembly was divided equally among Mayor Hayes, Comptroller Leary, Williamson and Mackenzie, and that the one half of each check which Comptroller Leary always retained was divided between himself and the Mayor, as Williamson divided his half with Mackenzie.
 Among other beneficiaries of the Hayes-Leary regime was John M. Golden, of New Haven, now Direc- tor of Public Works for the City of New Haven. Golden sought re- ward from Comptroller Leary for his political activity and ill conse- quence secured from Comptroller Leary contract for the sale of a quantity of cement to the City of Waterbury in 1892. Pursuant to this claimed contract, Golden received approximately $8,000 which appears on the available records of the city as having been paid to the New Haven Supply Company, the name under which Golden chose to con- duct this transaction. There is no record whatever of the actual re- ceipt by the city of the goods claimed to have been sold by Gold en, and for which the city paid approximately $8,000, so far as is known, without the approval of the Board of Finance. The city's checks payable to Golden or to his New Haven Supply Go. were cashed by Olsen at the Waterbury Trust Con- pany. There are no records to indi- cate payment by Golden of any sum to any person for the material. The Grand Jury has, therefore, conclud- ed, that the sums received by Golden were reward from Comp troller Leary for political services rendered the Comptroller in preyi- ous political campaign and was an illpUal iISa Of the citv's m0ney If