The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-04-11
Williamson Had Not
 Feared Income Taxes
Continued from Page I,
Did Not Receive Amount

Williamson pointed out that tn newspapefmen were charging hin with receiveing $24 4,400 in 1885, whil his income tax records did not shoy 1t, "becaJise 1t was an amount hat not received"
 In the cross-examination of Ed ward c. Levy, confessed conspira tor, 1t was admitted by Levy that h, feared prosecution on income ta. evasion charges. He was charge, with receiving more than $l2O, ,O0C of which he claims he retained bu about $20,00O.
 Knew Nothing of Lawyers
 Williamson reiterated today tha he knew nothing about the city, hiring of lawyers as lobbyists, claim ing that he thought he was in com plete charge of the legislative pro gram, batting himself on the bacl tor having big job." He denied that he was front man for Mackenzie, collecting fee for legal work rather than for legis lative services.
 Near the conclusion of the morn ing session today, Murray read iron the record of Williamsons testi mony, his statements given Marci 29, 1888, the day of his alleged con. fession.
 Alcorn Queried Him
 The record showed that Alcorr said, T understand you would like to amplify some of the statement, you made. You now have an Uppor. tunity here to do so."
 To which Williamson replied, T thank you, I had a long talk-a. you know-with MT. Hickey yester. day. will proceed in my own way if you like"
 Concluding his reading of that section for the time, Murray ques. toned Williamson about previou. statement in the trial, to the effect that Alcorn did not know he hae talked with Hickey, County Detec. tive Edward J. Hickey)
 Didn't Know About Alcorn
 Williamson claimed he did no know how Alcorn knew about tht conference, unless Hickey told hin in a telephone conversation.
 On the previous appearance be. fore the grand jury, March 8 Chi. second appearance) in the evening Williamson said, T will be glad t tell you anything I know" He denied at that session, how. evor that he had ever split ain, mcney in 1935-1937 with anyone bu Mackenzie
 At that same session he was ques. tioned at length about telephon, conversations he allegedly had witt Leary and Mackenzie during Decem ber, 1887 and January, 1888.
 Alc0rn Knew About It
 At that session, which followed the appearance of Mackenzie as . witness, Alcorn confronted William son with the fact that he ney Williamson had met Leary ant Mackenzie in the Danbury court house in December, 1887.
 He also showed a remarkabl, knowledge of telephone calls be tween Mackenzie and Williamson. During his trial testimony las week, Williamson said that at { meeting in Danbury, Leary told hin city records had been burned anc he was considering the burning ot others.
 Had Denied 1t
 In his early grand jury testimony Williamson steadfastly denied any special meeting with Leary.
 "If I ran into Leary at the court. house in Danbury, it was casual one that does not impress itself ir my nind," he said.
 T have come here to convey the truth about my dealings witt Hayes, Leary and the others yol asked about" he told the jury a, the same session.
 Later in that same session, he ad. mitted meeting Leary and Macken. zie in the Danbury courthouse, but as far as the transcript of the day had been read, he had not admitted the conference about the burned records.
 One of the few clashes of the morning was between Attorney Mur. ray and Special Prosecutor Alcorn when Murray, reading from the rec ord referred to payment of $340( |instead of $34,000.
 Fastening to correct MT. Murray lthe special prosecutor was answered with, What's the matter, Mr. AL |corn?"
 "Your enunciation is bad. that's |all," came the reply. Well, thank God, I don't have tc ' take any lessons from you," replied Murray. You're the first man that lever complained of my enunciation.
 In his testimony today, William son reiterated that Hayes was never present during any payoffs, and theSe was never discussion between himself and Hayes on the question Eof fees.
 Resumes Story
 Starting of the 55th day of the trial. former Compensation Com missioner Charles E. Williamson, resumed the stand for further cross |examination by Defense Attorney lJames D. c. Murray, counsel for IMayor Frank Hayes.
 Williamson spent two days on the Etaud last week testifying to work (which he had accomplished for the city in the General Assemblies of h9S5 and 1887, for which he had been Ipaid $58;400, half of which was split With former Controller Daniel J. |Ieary, and the balance with former Labor Commissioner Harry Mac kenzie.
 The latter was in the front spec tator's row today, apparently await tng call by the state at the concltI- sion of Williafnson's testimony. He has been present throughout the days of Willian1sons testimony.
 Indicative of . long and ardu0us session, Attorney Murray started again with the reading of the min utes of Williamson's grand jury testimony. The reading started last Thursday. Defense counsel were AZ A. s-4 4 s~.