New-York tribune., 1875-02-18
THE CONTROLLER ARRAlGNED By THE
DOCK DEPARTMENT..

MEETING or THE LAW COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD
OF ALDERMEN TO HEAR RGES-C0AIMISSI0NER
WALES ACCUSES CONTROLLER GREEN - ASSER-
TIoNs THAT HE CAUSED GREAT LOSS TO THE
CITY by NEGLECT TO APPROVE stRErIES AND
BY REFLECTIONS or LOW BIDS.
The Committee on Law Of tho Board OF
Aldermen, composed OF Aldermen Purroy. 5handley and
Billings, deputed by the Board to hear any complaints
against the Controller held its first session yesterday
There we're present. beside the Committee, John b. Has
kin Commissioner Wales, and others. Besides these,
there were summoned as witnesses: Tx Commissioners
John Wheeler, Commissioner OF Accounts Lindsey j.
Howe Commissioners OF Public Works George M. Van
Mort Charles Deyn, Judge James W. Fowler, Deputy
Commissioner OF Public Works L. p. Barker. Deputy
County Clerk GumbetOn Nathaniel JARVIS, Clerk OF
the Court OF Common Pleas. and Thomas Boese, CLERK
OF the Superior Court.
Commissioner aes said no wa. there In response to
the summons Of the Committee or he would not Oe out
of his bed He was suffering from acute pain in bis
left sde and would wish the Committee TO deer taxing
his testimony against Mr.. Green until be felt 10 better
condition. John B. Haskn said he appeared as cit
zen and taxdayer to prefer charges against Controller
Green for gross mismanagement OF his oihcia duties
and for obstructng tho growth aud prosperity OF the
city Ho wished however. for couple OF days, as he
was preparing written charges and specifications
against MI Green, and he had not completed thom lie
would support his charges by witnesses.
It was stated that Deputy County Clerk Gumbleton
had not yet completed the record Of judgments against
the Controller but that he would nave them ready ln
few days The Committee seemed disappointed at the
delay. Commissioner Hales said he had drawn mp some
rough memoranda OF charges, prepared from the re-
cords Of the Dock Department. lie had not intended
10 present them at this meeting because they not
complete but rather than allow the Committee to ad
journ without having transacted any business he would
present the charges.
when the present Commission took Office In 1873, the
the Commissioner said, they found Pier 20. l, N E. ia
an unfinished condition In August. 1873, the Comuis-
soners decided that certain amount OF granite was
necessary complete It, In October lS73 the propo-
sails having advertised according TO law, the Com
mssioners met with the Controller open the bids and
award the contracts The lowest bid for $25 O00
Tho bid and the accompanying suretes for its proper
performance were the Controller in order that
the should be approved without delay 1t was
deemed necessary that the granite should be obtained
s early as possible order that work might be carried
on before Winter set in, when work Is practically
On Jan. 30. 1874 the Controller informed
the Department that the suretes not approved.
Proposals were again advertised aud on Feb q bids
were again opened and tho awards finally made ou
March "a 1t expected by the Commissioners, when
they first advertised for proposals for the granite that
the work would be completed In 1874. They lost more
than three months, because the Controller delayed the
work by his neglect to ascertain whether or not the
suretes were good. 1t the judgment OF the Dock
Department that the pier, when completed, would pay
to the city rental OF $4,000 per annum His action cost
the city $4,000, by delaying the work six months.
1t caused loss to the city In other ways There are
steamers scows, and mechanical appliances belonging
to the Department, tho OF which Is dependent on
these works. which paratyey useless unless
the work Is allowed to go 1t is like army In the
feld the necessary appliances must be kept up. Com
missioner Wales could good reason why there
was delay OF three months and nineteen days tnd
ing out whether residents OF this city proper
sureties or not.
Another instance OF the Controllers neglect Mr.
Wales stated that connected with the building OF
bulkhead wall the city waterfront. The Dock De-
partmen decided that four should be built for
the purpose OF mixing concrete and taking It to points
where It might be needed. IL was believed that 1t
would be In the interest Of economy 10 do this On
jan H. 1875 bids were opened for the On Jan.
81 the lowest bids sent TO the Controller 80 far
there is no evidence that Controller has taken
on them The lowest bidders were Pullman Brown, and
the next lowest Tooker Bailey The Controller called
the attention of the Commissioners to the absence of
one word from the form specification OF the lowest
bidders The Commissioners thought this hypercritcal
The witness had impression that II was prompted by
prejudice the part Of the Controller. Subsequently
the Commissioners sent 10 the Corporation Coun-
sci to ascertain whether tho form of the bid
legal The Corporation Counsel finally decided
that the bid formal and In accordance with the
requreme IS OF the law Accordingly the contract
awarded 10 the next lowest bidder. Tho witness was
informed by good lawyer that tue rifng informally
did not vite the leguty OF the bid and that tho opn
ion OF tho Corporation Counsel was not good law.
The Dock Department Is much hampered by leases,
especially those for steamship companies There
three applications for wharf room These re-
Qlired covered pier known as shifting piers The De-
partment recently advertised for proposals
these piers The bids opened the presence OF
tho Controller, ana transmitted to the Depart
i.
from him rs yet. In tina the
lowest bidder made the mistake those who bid
for tho building or tho The witness bearing 10
mind the course pursued IN tbs former case and tho
opiuioa Of tho o. - At.0r .COsass. osllad the Con