The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-04-16
NEW YORK BRIDGE COMPANY,
The Reply Of the Superintendent 10 the
Committee or Fifty.


Committee or Fifty.
The following Is the substance of q reply from Mr.
@. Kingsley, General superintendent of the New
York Bridge Company, to the report of the nvesti-
cation into the AFFAIRS OF the company by SUBJ
committee of the Reform Committee Of Brooklyn
All that has been d0ne--as the subcommittee
themselves rcport-whether credtably or dis
gantly, has been done In their knowledge and with
their authority aud appropriations But who are
their assailants ? The Committee Of Fifty are a
body of men appointed by one =. T. Back
house ut meeting of people, OF which Backhouse
was chairman, held IN one corner Of this
point made against the Bridge Company is that
Brooklyn has no voice in the management Of its
affairs rms i donbly false. Brooklyn could alone
people, and, second, her corporation. as a city.
The people OF Brooklyn are represented in the COM
W. Socum, John II. Prentice, Dcmas Barnes Sey-
mour L. Hustled, Alexander McCue, James s. T.
and Arthur W. Benson: The Corporation Of Brook.
Ign is represented by the Mayor, Comptroller and
City Treasurer. How much farther would Nicker-
turn out Messrs Van Anden, Prentice General
socum, &C., and put in the Common Councs 1t
is again argued that the provision of the law
authorizing the purchase of the bridge by either or
both cities, after its completion at an advance OF
331s per cent upon the stock Of the private stock
holders Is eXacting upon the cities. This IL rdcl-
lous The stock held by private parties Is wholly
unproductive. The law provides that no dividend
bridge cannot be finished inside OF seven years from
It's commencement. An advance OF 33's would not
cent on the money invested by them, and an argu-
ment that the advance provided for would, II paid
by the city, be exorbtant, is simply asinine. The
committee state that payment OF amounts due nom
New York city has oecn delayed by an injunction.
This statement is wholly false. Not only has there
never been any injunction restraining New York,
but that city has paid Ill the calls which have
been made upon her for instruments. With ref
erence to the allegation that much OF the lnm-
har lnG thn IA
the New York ana Brooklyn Saw Mill ami
Lumber Company, in which am said to be inter
$313,945 81 paid by the Bridge Company for lumber
during three years the whole amount paid by the
Company is "a no 81. This Saw Min Company has
been In existence fifteen years, ana, as already
stated by the Treasurer of the Bridge Company, who
| Is In no wise connected with 1t, these purchases
were made OF that saw mill because II was the
cheapest vendor at the time.
As to the matter which the subcommittee regard
as of most serious import In the buildng,cf the
bridge-viZ., the reception by him at the hands of
services performed and the capital cmpioyed-he
says that at the outset this sum has been paid to
him by the distinguished men controlling the
| building OF the bridge, openly and above board
ana the fact of the agreement under which
1t was paid ana the payment itself, have
He says:-"The first act for the construction OF
bridge the tide-waters OF the East River
a SefGne e f With IN aG Sy whose
memories are ever fresh with me, stood by and we
pushed II through. Then the government at wash
ington doomed up before the task, and AS the
structure was to cross an arm OF the sea Congress
had to be got to move.
The assent Of Congress was at length obtained.
Then came the rksOnle, weary business OF getting
Brooklyn and New York and men of standing to
subscribe. Then, at length, the work of building
the East River bridge became Il fixed fact. Up to
that moment the company had not expended a dol
lar, nor had anybody but myself. IL had been my
business, and had borne the expense and given It
my time was out Of pocket over a quarter of
million before blow was struck. had put II out,
too, when chances Of reimbursement where hopeless
i'm the extreme.
tell these gentlemen Of the committee that not
then, nor at any moment during the whole strug-
gle had the motive OF making the enterprise pay.
But wanted In 80 far as my humble capacities
would permit, ] wanted to build the bridge. SO
the directors wanted me. When the subject OF
compensation considered, some talked OF
twenty per cent, some fifteen some ten, and some
five, upon all expenditures till the foundations
were mp to high water mark With my concurrence
the directors finally fixed 1t ut five per cent, ana
this Is the $l25,O00 have received. As salary the
amount Is less than any company could get my
services for during the same time and in the face Of
One-half the Universities Az "a remuneration to a
contractor taking charge OF so grand an enterprise
IL Is we'll ngh insignificant.
Every man must have somewhere an object In
life with which q greater than money allies him.
This IL NINE NY object IL to build the bridge. |
know it will BIZ accomplished