New-York tribune., 1881-12-25
THE D0CK DLP4RIUENE.

| EXAMINATION OF 1HE CORPORATION COUNSEL BY
! TIE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE.
! Tho counsel lol ,hc corporation. W. c. Whitney,
testified before tLr Subcommittee of the Assembly
! Committee on Commerce and Navigation yesterday
in regard to the relation between his department
and the Departments Of Docks. After Mr. Whitney
| had been placed under OATH the chairman. Air.
Williams, said:
"i Il haas been stated NJ Whitney, that a large
number of account, IN arrcar, has been sent by the
DurI, CouHi 90 you lJr collection, ani that
1t Is rj.cy that any communication is re-
cciycl .loiu you III return. Nha; are tho facts in
the ca-e.'
Il think 10 viii be best" Mr.. Whitney replied,
to put in the letters which have passed between
the two departments" He then produced the letter
book of hi- office and various letters received
10y him. from the Dock Department.
4 letter vrit.cn to him in March, 1850, by the
Dock Commissioners asked that proceedings might
b, begun for thc col lection of ci1ims mentioned in
an accompanying statement. The reply from hr.
Whitney stated that "a large part oI those claims mad
not been received ior cOrctIon and asked for docu
mcnts ON which the claims were founded. Other
CORES uOndcuce of She same general tenor was read
In reply 90 question Nj W nItucY sand thar ne had
never been informed that Burnham, the dciaultlug
iookkecper of the Dock Department, left property
m the hand, of Mr. DlmOtk. lie never knew
whether or not Buruham ever filed bonds lie
never was instructed to begin suit against the
bondsnen.
In the matter of the suit against David Tracy, II,
W. Wheeler, one of Mr.. Whitueys assistants tcsti-
fed 20 the particular, of the case, as lac hal the
matter III charge. tie said the Tracy suretles had
been proceeded against with the principals but
nothing was ever recovered.
The attention OF Mr.. Whitney was called to
lease drawn in favor OF The Hudson River Tunnel
Company, and 10 the testimony Uf Comm .Oner
Naulcrpoci that the lease hal been altered after
leaving thc office of the Dock Department in such
manner that the company was exempted from the
payment of several months rental tie denied
emphaiicaIiy that the alterations had been
made ia his Office. Mr. Whitney having testified
still further regarding the communications between
the Department of Law and the Department OF
Docks, the chairman OF he committee said:
Tho fact AS shown hy the communications, Is
that you have been unable to get from this Depart
mcut facts upon which to base actions"
-" In most OF ne cases, ~ you can see, was the re-
ply. Mr. Whitney also said that when an execution
was issued it was given 10 the Sheriff for satislac-
ton.
A copy of resolutions passed by the Commissions
ers WAS produced imposing penalties IN certain eases.
Mir. Whitney said that the resolutions had never
been s.ut 10 his office TO hi, knowledge.
The minutes of the Dock Department were
examined and no record was found Of the Scn-
ding Of tie resolutions to. the office OF
the counsel for the corporation. Commissioner
L1lm3aer said he could not account for the neglect
and added th3i the reason why the Dock l., part
mcut had done no hing more IN the matter was that
the rulcs regarding the removal Of distractions on
piers and bu.knoadS were being revised IN
Mr. Nhuney's Office. Mr.. Whitney remarked
that thus was the first he knew Ot it.
Mr.. Lam beer said he had taken the rules
to Mr.. Andrews one OF Mr.. Whitneys as
sstlnts. To tins the Corporation Counsel replied
,uat while he recognized Mr. Lgmbcer rs very in
uu.nial member OF the Dock Experiment. that de-
p3r. r.meut generally communicated with hlm Of
ticIaIy. Ihercupou Mr. LaImUecr gracefully
knO gcd his mistake III carrying the matter to
Slr. Andrews instead OF having the department. COM
WIWcatc officially with the Law Department.
In answer TO n question Mr.. Whitney replied
thai when MI.NanderpOel testified thatnOtccs had
been semi TO hs LAlr. Whitncys Office TO collect
penalties hc stated what was not sO-he was mis-
taken. lie thought that there difficulty uu
der the llW in enforcing penalties If the Dock De-
urut iu the matter. Ihe chairman asked hun If he
/ thodsAl chat the Dock Department had been
uciIcct IN Is duty, bat Mr. Nmtney refused 30 say.
The committee adjourned mtll tuesday at l
o -cloeA. MMen % LAAL AcAlng VIII be had