New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-06-12
PRICE FOUR CENTS.
WAS 1T A CASE OF FORGERY Z
WHY THE BUILDING BILL WAS OPPOSED.
SOME LIGHT ON ACTION AT ALBANY IN THE CLOS
ING HOURS OF THE LEGISLATURE

| SOME LIGHT ON ACTION AT ALBANY IN THE CLOS
| ING HOURS OF THE LEGISLATURE.
Much dissatisfaction has been expressed by prom
inent architects and builders in this city at the fail
| ure of the Legislature to pass the Building bill
which prepared with great In the interests
of the property-owners and the general public,
and which approved by Mayor Edison and In
spector Esterbrook. and heartily advocated by tho
latter. Since the adjournment Of the Legislature
considerable light has been thrown upon the infu-
ences which were at work to defeat the bill. Two
of the Fire Commissioners who were credited with
| secretly working to procure its defeat and who
spoke openly as not being in favor of the BILL con-
fessed aftsrward that they had not read it and did
not know its character. Politicians who were
known to he opposed to the measure have given
several excuses to conceal their motives. II is
serted by friends of the proposed law that 1t was
too purely in the interest of honest building TO meet
th the support of all the politicians. When
attempt made, late in the session, to call the
bill up for a vote in the Assembly it was believed
that majority of the members wero
in favor of passing it, but its consideration
was prevented by the objection Of Mr. Van Allen,
of the With Assembly District Of this city, Mr.
Crane, of the XXIIId, and Mr.. Roosevelt, of tho
XXIst. The action of the latter caused particular
| surprise, ipasmuch as he was known TO have been
the Senate. and was expected to become its vigor-
ous champion when it should reach che Assembly.
| This surprise was heightened the part of Ne.
Esterbrook last Saturday when he heard from
William S. Andrews, a lawyer and ex-AssemblF-
man of the Democratic persuasion, that Mr. Rooss-
| Welt had told him of dispatch signed by
Colonel Emmons Clark, Secretary of tho
5sssaae sSsTa OF of the propessd % When
| spoken 10 OH the subject by, TRIBUNE reporter
yesterday. Coloaei Clark said he had not sent such
II do not remember having sent either a tele-
gram a letter to Mr. Roosevelt while the Legisa-
ture was in session." he added, land made
no attempt to defeat the bill. have. not
read the BILL aud could not have known oil any
! Objectionable features in it,"
! This statement gave rise to theory that perhaps
forged telegram had been made 70 play a part In
| the defeat of the measure. Mr. Andrews at the re-
quest of IRIBUNE reporter, wrote the following
| statement of his connection with the matter:
NV recolectionis that having received letter from
NcwYork, asking me to do whatever might be- be In ny
the provisions OF which familiar, made some IN
quirez about IT, and learned from Colonel - Murpnys
able to have the bill ordered third reading because
Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. Crane and Mr van Aen' an hepao-
prised at this. and thinking thai there might be
mistake, went 70 Mr. Roosevelt who was In ms seat m
opposed to tue bill He said that he had objected 70 ~
being ordered to third reading that ne Saa NOT naa
thprt were come persons In NewlOrk III WnOn ne h11
confidence that were opposed TO It, aud tt lie had seen
or received Il cannot say whch dispatch fr0m Colonel
Emmons Clark the effect that II ought mol 10 pass
1.-The last day OF the session shall be glad 90 hsvo
Mr. Roosevelt either corroborate or correct TINS sta
ment according 70 his recollection OF the coh'ersaio.
Fortified with this statement TRIBUNE reporter
| called on Mr. Roosevelt. who, after readIngtt.
| denied that he had made the assertion about tbs
dispatch from Colonel CLARK, and added an explan2-
ton of his course in helping to defeat the DILL M.
Roosevelt said /" had several conversations Win
! Mr Andrews in Albany. and, although do nos
recolIect this particular one, have no doubt tbas
! NJ is correctly reported except that L never TO
ceiyed so far as now recollect, dispatch or any
| communication from Colonel Clark on the subject
| and certainly did not speak about ono
| TO Mr. Andrews. Mr.. Andrews must have
| confused INV remarks with those of somebody else.
| received numerous letters from builders against
| the bill Originally favored il, bat it came down
from the Senate the last moments OIL the session
! containing a number of amendments that
| / was told were very obnoxioue: one IN
| particular designed to increase enormously inc
business of "a certain firm dealing in u partcuiar
| kind of stone. In other words, from all 1 could
learn number OF jobs had been put IN the BILL and
! n was proposed TO rush lt through wltnoas
| debate or examination III the CLOSING
moments of the session. i therefore objected to ats
| going 10 third reading absolutely without any ex-
amin alton aud afterward found that Messrs. Crane
and Van Allen were alsoopposed to the bill have
NOT the slightest recollection of either seeing or re-
| ceiying dispatch from Colonel Clark, and cer-
| tainly said nothing TO Mr.. Andrews about one