New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-12-29
DOCK DEPARTMENT AFFAIRS.
MIR. WHITNEY AND THE TRACY SUITS.
CLOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION BY THE ASSEMBLY
SIR COMMITTEE.

SUBCOMMITTEE.
The subcommittee of the Assembly Committee
on Commerce and Navigation concluded lts lhFcot-
CATION of the Dock Department yesterday. COr-
nnratIon Counsel " hitney and Commissioners Lam
bier and Vandsrpoel were examined. ut. whitney
appeared before the committee little after II
o'clock. with all the papers ana correspondence
bearing upon the Tracy suits. lie SAID 10 the COIN
mittee:
have gone over all the Tracy papers and correspond
enc and would like to go down through the whole mat
tar from thc herpning | have refreshed my memory
from the papera and believe shall be able 10 eNplfn
wbib rr1eiysd from the Dock Department concerning
the Tracy Leases ia dated January @6 lstl. Inc ne
partment called upon 10 institute proceedings Tor I'M
maid rent with accrued interest one was on lease 10
David Tracy for the sum OF $1,000 On Fenrn
airy % Informed the suretlcs one OF WhOIn wa DhlO
Tracy that I'm default Of payment, should proceed
against them unless the sum due were paid inmne
diately This not being done, the conplnts nh ns
meanwhile been prepared, were tiahrlilcu 20 e ,
Department for yerihcatlon March ~ ana so sii.
mcut accompanied thelh lnat inc NeIlu'atio',
made by the member Of the ID department having lLe
greatest knowledge OF the i1ctr On Marth ~ ,, All
a statement from the DOCK Department tna' 9l,.I ,
gent search for David Tracy s. could not ne o9Ad ou
believed TO be IN NGwJesey, On nPriI tor ~, gur
communication "a the DOCK LeplrtIehl So a LUZ
Their nforms and advice 20 enable me To pr9-ced
did institute summary proceedings since nii
taken possession OF Tracy property without due no
tice Tracy might put In counter cainl WhIcn "uuu
render proceedings useless lost nothing lhrouRn
his DELAY The property all obtained OF
NV letter stated that summary proceedings Moud
secure the desired results. ON April 20 the Dock De
partment requested me TO begin summary proceeding.
Dock Department concerning fourteen piers covered in
the leases stating that warrants had Deen Issued 70
August the defendants put in Their hnh"et'
that the terms OF sale had not been c9nphed WIN.
This is an important point In the defence Inc
CITY agreed In the lease TO do such dredging a. was
necessary give depth OF ten feet at low water as
soon a. Iossibc after execution OF the lease The
defendants claimed that this had not Dcc dnne as vas
true september - asked the Dock Department Tor
terms OF sale and information ~ 10 the depth Of water
about the piers aud whether the agreement DAD Dceh
carried out. The issue whether the
llHpON4thAlu
crcumstances similar , ca ond xeyyyorE
Steamboat Company, where there had been M agree
ment Tor repairs. did not take ap the Tracy case
until after this case settled in septcubcr, 1879
when the city won. The trials were then pushed. All
went against the defendants by default, except one
EarIy i'm iSsO Mr. Wheeler my resistant, took charge Of
The cases Although Tracy had undoubtedly been us.ng
ihc city outragcousy, there was danger that Lc would
beat the city the dredging claim before the decision OF
tho case IN the Court OF Appeals The executions were
returned unsatished in sixty days You could never
know there innuInerabe Judsmens AGAINST them them
good For nothing but viii get them before The Court
AMI see II there lis any thing 10 be levied On
"Tbcrc il no doubt said Mr.. Williams, " that
the principals IN these lca-cs are situated as You
say We don't lind any fault with your conduct CON
cerning the lrlcya, but We do regarding the sure
ties. IL Is question as to "hcrc thc responsibility
lcs IL seems that the law officer OF the city might
give notice TO the Sheriff when persons IN Judgment
are sad To be paying taxes according 10 the roll
Mr.. Whitney then said that hc would proceed at
once against the sUretcs and see II he could get
anything
questioned concerning the case OF Pier No. L. They
stated that a line Of steamers was now landing
there because the new pier at twenty -thir-st was
not vet finished. Pier No. ] was not NJ Tor ocean
steamship use, owing 10 the rocks at low water
The rent paid for this pier was T3l, 100 IL had
been rented at public auction.
d" Does your lease permit the charging OF an adj
mission fee there T. Mr. Williams asked.
4" We have gwen no such PERMISSION said Alr.
Lanbeer 49,
| " DO you know Of any restaurant there
"Only by seeing IL once. have no oilclal knowI-
edge of IT, One of the conditions Was that no
| taurant should be put there
| Mr. NanderpOel thought there was charge
| for Omission there the pier below was open. lie
| had been there, but had paid nothing. A. II the
restaurant, he had know ledge OF anythng OF the
| kind Mi. NanderpOel, being questioned 40 to his
statrmont that no communication had been received
| from the Law Department asking for information
in the Tracy eases said that he probably ms
| taken He vas then questioned AZ TO the condition
| of the wharVcS along the North River. He admitted
| that there was 40 opportunity below Twenty
tbIrd-st for any sailing vessel from the Southern
| ports TO land only canal boats with coal and
| lumber could pass in 10 the bulkheads.
| Mr. LaImbccr stated that the following piers had
been built this year, North River, Nos. 20, 81 80,
A. 81 % NEARLY completely, and 80, piers ut Fifty
eighth and Thriy-elghth sA., and Nos. II and u,
East River. Piers at Twentieth and Nlnctecnth-sts.
| had been built especially tor the public These
| said he "arc concessions 10 the Legislature. We
have expended or will have done by July,
| 1878 900 on piers. We have built more piers
than were ever before built III any one year Of this
| Department The great obstacle to completing the
uikhead wall along the North River is that owners
| of property are IN tho way