If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. • • • " y P ommittee To New Jerse •nto S Allegedecial C cor~p Civilt Conduct, Inquire I d Misdemeanors OfficersCrimes an of this State. FINAL R1!."PORT • • .. · ...• .···j,:';<:S?i;, A • • ·f· ·~t;'Y-.- W. ,~,,~~.. ~ 'V ( \I'r''''' OJ.. /"'. .... ~. 4 . Ab"s~ '" 91162 .' • 1934 • I) . 1'. • BEST AVAILABLE COpy .. t, ." . "I. _ ,.j , .,: f "",'- \ I, ,,' "'!.",;,,- , 974.90 CoPY' 3. I62 N.J. Special Committee. 1934 to inquire into alleged corrupt conduct, crimes and misdemeanors of civil officers of this I!Itate. Final Report 'r,, - Due " ~. " L New Jersey State Library Department of Education . ~ ~ . " • i#..' Trenton, New Jersey 08625 .-. .',~~- ,,' , - " c!!f P'U~Tl.D IN U.I.A. ~- {~~i~~~~:>: . -"""-."'-. " BEST AVAILABLE COpy .:'.< ~ ""'. \." ~. fBROPERTY OF : J , •.. T ,.- NEW JEIilSEY STATE LlB~ARY "',:' "ij' ." '1\ ~ '.:' ';, JUN 22 1!69 ,>: ... -::~~-~(""~-'';'~;' ,-'~_\I. The Committee: .' '.- w. STANLEY NAUGHRIGHT, Chairman~ ANTHONY]. SIRACUSA THOMAS S. DOUGHTY t'o :, ERWIN S. CUNARD ] OHN ]. RAFFERTY ..'i" ....: . r'~ " . "'';:' _, :'~;,(.~ ~ --. ''.:'If'~ . ~_·tJT:· . '~, ." • _ ...... -~~>" FREDERICK A. BRODESSER, Secretary ALEXANDER CRAWFORD, Sergeant-at-Arms .. fro ._ 11' f~ . ;: ;f~~' '~~ ~~;:~ .. '. ,~', - ] OSIAH STRYKER, Counsel. :.. .~" . "".. --,. .::.. ..... ~- ..(0, . ' '~~'~L' • ,. .. '. ~ ,,' ' . .. " .. "" -".:", ""<~ ~ ...... ~ :3:': ,-" " . , ,~ .. '- '!#' .:.. :"i.:" •• • • • FINAL REPORT of the Special Committee appointed by resolution of the General Assembly to inquire into alleged corrupt conduct, crimes and mis­ demeanors of civil officers of this State. II To the House of Assembly of the State of New Jersey: This Committee was created by resolution of this House adopted on March 19, 1934, and directed to in­ quire into alleged corrupt conduct, crimes and mis­ demeanors of civil officers of this State and to report thereon to this House as soon as practicable, to the end that impeachment proceedings might be instituted against any civil officer of this State who should appear to be subject to ~mpeachment. This Committee presented its first report to this House on June 4, 1934, recommending the impeachment of John McCutcheon, former Comptroller of the State of New Jersey, and of William B. Harley, former Com­ mon Pleas Judge of the County of Passaic, to which report was appended suggested articles of impeachment. The proceedings which followed this report have become a matter of legislative history. The preamble of the resolution creating the Com­ mittee referred not only to the McCutcheon-Harley matter, but also to the charges made against the Prose­ cutor of the Pleas of Monmouth County. These charges have been investigated by this Committee. The Committee deemed it advisable to commenC6 its inquiry in Monmouth County prior to the completion l)f, the Harley-McCutGheon investigation. To that end it engaged investigators early in the month of April and assigned to them the work of inquiring into the enforce­ ment of the law in that county. The number of these investigators was increased from time to time during -- .... -... ,·~~tli""--··i • • • • • • i '--. 2 3 the summer of 1934 and their work was conducted under time and expense involved. As a result of the partial the supervision of this Committee and its counsel. examination which was made of such files ~ome startling The first public hearing was held on September 11th. irregularities were disclosed. Fourteen public hearings have been held and a large volume of testimony has been taken. Prior to the com­ mencement of public hearings, as well as subsequent Burglary Indictment Against Thomas Calandriello. thereto, the Committo~ conducted numerous private hear­ Jonas Tumen became· prosecutor of Monmouth ings, at which 123 witnesses were examined. The inves­ County on April 1, 1930. On the 20th day of June, 1930, tigation made by the Committee was attended with great Thomas Calandriello and Walter Buckley were indicted difficulty. Almost all of the Monmouth County witnesses by the grand jury of Monmouth County for burglary, who were summoned before the Committee were very the charge being that they had broken into the office of reluctant to tell what they knew with regard to condi­ the American Railway Express Company at Red Bank tions in the county, and it is the opinion of the Com­ late at night and. had stolen a number of express mittee that but for this attitude on the part of witnesses packages. wIJO were summoned at private hearing much additional Both the prosecutor and Mr. Crook, his chief county testimony of importancG would have been obtained. detacti ve, when examined concerning this case, testified It is impossible to state the testimony in detail with­ that the State had a strong case against the defendants out unduly extending this report. A summary only can and that in their jucl.gment the evidence was sufficient to be given of the more important matters covered thereby. se~ure a conviction. The prosecutor further stated that Among the witnesses examined at public hearings this evidence had been obtained and was available shortly were Jonas Tumen, the prosecutor, Harold McDerJp.ott sfter the commission of the offense. Notwithstanding and J. Victor Carton, the assistant prosecutors, Harry this, the prosecuto::r has failed far four and a h~lf years B. Crook, chief county detective, and John N. Woodward, to brmg this indictment to a tFial. When questiOned by chief clerk in the prosecutor's office. The testimony of this Committee concerning the reason for this failure he Messrs. Sacco, Zuckerman, Mustoe and Kent, four of the gave no explanation except to say that on three occasions five county detectives in the prosecutor's office, was the case had been set down for trial. He was unable to taken at private hearing. With the exception of Mr. say, howe~er, why the trial had been postponed or McDermott and Mr. Kent, the witnesses connected with whether the postponement had been at the request of the prosecutor's office were frequently evasive in their the State or of the defendants. He admitted that he answers and impressed the Committee as being either had had ample opportunity to bring on the trial. No unwilling to tell what they knew concerning the manner more adequate reason for this delay was secured from in which the prosecutor's office has been conducted or any member of the prosecutor's staff. Carton, when tes­ as being grossly ignorant of matters which should have tifying before the Committee, disclaimed all knowledge been within their knowledge. The prosecutor during of this case, although the files of the prosecutor's office the course of his testimony professed a startling lack of disclose that he wrote at least one letter concerning the knowledge of the affairs of his office, which in itself is date to be fixed for the trial thereof. significant. Both the prosecutor and Chief Crook admitted that A complete examination of the files in the prosecu­ Thomas Calandriello has a very bad reputation in Mon­ tor's office would have been impracticable because of the mouth County. This is borne out by the prosecutor's --.-. .•...... 4 5 • records. They show a charge for assault and battery and Henry Silver for carrying revolvers in a motor which apparently has not been ilisposed of, the record vehicle on the l3th day of January, 1932, in violation of being marked" weak case"; two other charges of assault Chapter 138 of the Session Laws of 1922. and battery, both of which were dismissed by the justice Lillien was reputed to be a notorious racketeer, rum of the peace before whom the complaint was made and an­ runner and bootlegger. The prosecutor admitted that in other criminal charg'e against the same man, the nature of 1.932 he knew of his reputation as a racketeer. Lillien was which is not stated. In addition to this they show a found in Spring Lake by a state trooper, with a man who charge of atrocious assault and battery against him gave his name as Silver, at 2 o'clock in the morning with which appears to have occurred in 1934, in which no two .38 calibre revolvers and forty-eight .38 calibre car­ indictment was found, although it would appear from tridges in the car which they were driving. He was the record that the case was presented to the grand jury. arrested and held in bail to await the action of the grand An additional charge of malicious mischief appears to jury. have been presented to the grand jury in April, 1934, 'While the minutes of the grand jury were not avail­ lmt no indiotment was found. able to the Committee, the records in the prosecutor's While Crook denied friendship for Thomas Calan­ office show that an indictment was voted by the grand driello, it is significant that he was a guest at Calandri­ jury on April 28, 1932, and that three months later, on ello's wedding, which occurred more than two years after July 28, 1932, the grand jury reconsidered this indict­ the indictment for burglary. A group photograph of ment and withdrew it. The prosecutor, both assistant the wedding guests was produced in evidence before the prosecutors and the chief county detective were ques­ Committee, from which it appears that not only Crook tioned concerning this case. None of them, except Mr. but a number of other men prominent in the political life Carton, the second assistant prosecutor, would admit of Monmouth County were present on this occasion. that he had ever heard of it. Mr. Carton, who admitted In the opinion of this Committee a delay of over foUl' that he had heard of the case, claimed to have no definite years in prosecuting an indictment for burglary where knowledge concerning it. No reason was given why the the evidence was sufficient to secure a conviction and indictment which was voted on April 28, 1932, was not where the defendant is a man of bad l!eputation .consti,.