New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-08-06
CONTEST OYER n PIER.

EXPLANATORY LETTER FROM THE DOCK coMAus-
sIONERS TO MAYOR GRACE.
Mayor Grace addressed letter to the Dock Com
missioners July 21 with reference to the pier now
constructing at Leroy-st., North River which is the
only pier between the only pier between the Battery
and Twelfth-st. not leased to private persons The
Mayor concurred in the views set forth in resou-
ton of the Board of Aldermen that the pier Should
not he leased exclusively TO any individual company
corporation but did not approve of the resolution
for legal reasons. The Dock Commissioners have
replied to the Mayors letter, going into long re-
cital of facts IN connection with the pier Some
points of the reply as follows in style little
lofty
In transactions OF such magnitude az the leasing Of
such valuable property il is usually the thai the
preliminary negotiations proceed orally rather than in
writing The person desiring to lease on the Com
missoners instead of writing 10 the Board Negotiations
Tor purchase or lease usually take place in conferences
between all the Commissioners and the party making the
request rather than in the instance open Board
meeting with the public present When the terms and
coma nave been thus arranged the Board reduces
instance which, when accepted becomes the formal
The criticism which TO he suggested by you is
tWood First THAT the piers shonld be exposed at pub
lie auction with the privilege Of exclusive use, etc.
that the city should always toe receiving the high
est possible price and secondly that the Of 900
was 700 low IN TINS case We Will take mp the matter in
the order suggested.
It is not doubted by but that the satnte con-
ters on TINS Board the power 10 lease these properties
otherwise than at public auction. AS matter OF fact
had been s IeasS otrSic ,b? LOT enclnslve u.s.
in the same manner employed i'm this This was the
universal rule never dcvatcd from either i'm the
case OF foreign or domestic commerce IT would
II was hardly necessary for any member OF the Board
TO oHer any excuse ~ ms particular instance, for
ploylng the same m thod OF leasing that invariably
used in al similar cases. But it may be asked
lion With the Hight TO use them c%csveg e e1c
even though the law authorizes the board employ
variably employed another method While there are
many other good reasons that viii be regarded as
tglX linda
the existing laws when property j. sold public auc-
vessels may he AT the p ace by the Haror
Master can bc sold 1t is not lawful offer at public
auction the right to "use exclusively" or ia mi mn
structures The Department OF Docks conferred OF Il
special circumstances to exclusively" and TO pnt nm
suitable structures. but this power has exercised
discretion after examining the special You cannot
oSGee that ing discretionary power shall Toe
the right Ia - use exclusively" etc. would worth saw
$4,000; without IT, about 5000. n pat up at public
worth then say 5000. bur # sold in the method
adopted the right TO use exclusively" etc. can e pro-
yded Tor ana he city he in position TO realize all that
Was The price Of $4,000 a fair one in the spring OF
lsISt 1t IL certain that IL considered Very full
class had ever been rented in The city for more ot
certain but that even at ts time the price about
No Ohei OF larger Tor such been
made Ia this Board II certainly very large return on
the money expended by tue city in building the src-
ture, viz $37 53S. 1t certainly a much larger sun
than other ees our rivals charge for accommodations
much better and facilities much greater.
The fact tai so short time elapsed between the for
he to sha
Cqnard steamship Company, aud the assigning OF such
lease by that company 10 Mr. Staru seems to be con-
nd tcsr rims a. soon bfr bi tTe lat ar ffnslly1
is considered, however, that the Cimard Steamship Com
pany appears above, had really been entitled 10 This
pies than years previous TO the time yyen
II assigned any presumption Il was Originally
acquired for the purpose OF dsposlug OF il certainly dis
appears anu no ground of suspicion remains seems
to be assumed IN your communication TO this Board
Ic 'hls Icase rol me Cunard steamship
company f 10 Mt pr, Starln, and that il the Board
back The pier, aud it is for Ills reason reason
tIact thar consent II til" Board lad POsslP TO re
10 the assignment II would have done something never
is the universal rule permit tenant to assign his
lease If the party 10 whom the assignment proposed is
any possibility, have benefited the city have refused
assent to the assignment. The consequences would have
been that the per would have continued in the Cunard
company: Ihat company was not III the position of a
One of series of Sh ,i as
stanecst Thought best to make
In doing this the Cunard Company parting with
considered of more value than the retention of the n,eg
but no idea entertained by that company OF Giving
the pier to anyone least of all To tine city Nor could
anyone ask or expect such thing. The Cunard Com
pany never parted with this pier MI Strin except
on the condition that the city should thereto
THIS was done, but If II had not been the pier would sim
have seemed most extraordinary thing for depart
ment OF tins city to do 10 refuse to consent assign
ment OF lease TO reputable and most important rev
eoastwse enterprise because the pier had origin
ally leased to a foreign line which had concluded
TO part win ii under all the circumstances narrated
Especially would IL have been IA extraordinary dis
crnlnaon against an American enterprise when il is
considered that by it's refusal city could NOT regain
the property, or gain any possible advantage.
The main reason for the recommendations your com
municaton appears to be that persuaded That
the merchants of that vicinity need pier which shall be
toned there 10y the liarbor Masters, payment the
regular rates OF wharfage fixed by law. thus uscd
Will not bring in of $1,000 So 600 IL would
certainly not be gain but decided loss in revenue 10
take back this pier 90 done als give nm
$4,000 per year. and then put IL to the suggested
where the revenue produced could 600 10
5000 Inns course cannot then zoe successfully urged
on the ground OF gain To the excheqner the city sin
the general question IL that deserves attention and
the tact that you have 10 what seems a ,ecjed
opinion as TO its wisdom should receive most carpfG
consideration Mt the hands Board The CITY has -
per IN that Immediate vicinity, which no perma
neht engagements "f any kind exist 10 complicate mat
tcrs The pier named would be every way as uspf,
Tor the purpose designated in your as would Pier
a. FROM your OWN point o view, would not be better
To devote tins pier 10 the named than under such
circumstances as exist, To endeaVOr TO receie from
engagements already made and which believed To DE
nna aud binding on the city, both in good
consciencei %