New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-10-18
ABUSES IN The DOCK BOARD.
WHAT THE COUNCIL OF REFORM SAYS.

WHAT THE COUNCIL OF REFORM SAYS
THE MAYOR CONDEMNED FOR SURPRISING EVIL
DRYCE-FoOD FOR THOUGHT FOR TAXPAYERS
To ne Edtfor Of The Tribune
SIR. The refu sal of the disbursing boards of
the cy government to evidence from taxpyero
the waste and xtravagance OF the departments Is
novelty the public affairs OF this CITY, and Is rfed
wholly to the present Msyoralty. The Mayor made an
effort time OF making the la st city budget by
the Board OF Arportionment torefuse the Council O. Ke
foru right accorded TO all taxpayers by law, to pre-
sent the evidence it had Obtained OF the excessveDess
o. the acquisitions OF OF the departments ana II
was not until adistngushed lawyer OF this city, VINO hsu
charge OF the for the Council, read 10
him the law governing the matter aud demanded
under 1t hearing, that he withdrew his opposition
Subsequently. when the Council attempted TO introduce
snar evidence before the Sinking Fund Comm ission-
ers the Mayor refused the ground tn he had
found every statement made by the Council al lhe
former hearing before the Board Of Estimate anu APP
portionment to be Yet all these statements
were taken from official documents which were pnt mo
the Of distinguished public accountant not con
neoted with Council. After exhaustive tx 'iui-
nation he rendered his official finding, which not only
confirmed every rial statement OF the Council but
n ade even stronger case az unst the city.
The Council put tho hands OF each member Of the
Sinking Fund Commission. their refusal to grant
hearing, a printed statement drawn wholly from the
official records and signed by the undersigned con-
mitee OF the subject containing the following
among other facts: The amount asked OF the srkinS
Fund ConmssIouers by the Dock Department wtS
nearly three great as the average expenditures
OF that department IN the past fifteen years. which
average was double what was actually nec-ssarF. TINS
amount was granted by the sinkingFundCommissoner'
on OF the previous question b. MT lvns without
momcpt's confederation the propre,y tho appca
ton OF this sum In 1884 this department employed
seventeen wntrhngors ana docK masters, at cost OF
600 600 whose chef duty collect rents and
dues which the Finance Department formerly DID, ana
Is ready with slight, n any. mere se Of Its
clerical force Some volunteer service rendered by
these dock the Stale IN docking vessels. bur
this any authority Of law, and even with
such authority three or four men were all that were re-
CURED While the average OF salaries AMI office ex-
penses even under Tweed's bureau OF whsrves.
which preceded this department WIS &c. 27 year the
average for the items, with no increase
duties exclusive OF the construction "i the
river wall $l32,4oO under TINS department. For the
last i've years the apartment ns gwen rs @
amounting on tho AVERAGE TO Sl32ooO year, 10 com
pany the head or which Is notorious parry man'p',
drsdsiHx "a 500 per cent greater than the average
amount OF the preceding years, nOi~llhstauahg tua
nneeoths OF tue dock property Is leased iof TERN :"
yesrs QUE of the of these leases bong that
The shall Keep tho property dredsed anu tha' no
m srket rate dredging. besides giving 10 1t the use Of
floating dredging property iree OF charge wcn COZ,
the cry 5000 OOOa clear loss TO the city OF more tnan
A. AN iIl1strarlon Of the powers OF this department,
and the abuse powers two piers have reccuty
been leased to the Railroad company Tor
a term of NIFTY years al yearly rent OF s5500o dor
winch sponsiDe parties stood ready to give $4,000
year the same rent that Is paid lot the same 80
piers IN that vlenity-a loss TO the CITY OF $4OOoOOO
The amount OF money spent on public worAs, Other
than the building OF piers. etc. and mamie
than 5000 900 OOO little Of winch is cssd for on JusIh
able. Tue Dock Department has sp,nt more 'han QUE
hall OF all the money appropriated TO IL on masonry
bulkhead, purely project OF engineers without prece
dent or ustiucaiiou well settled mechanical prmci
pies winch ~ far has been only fsilure Out OF the
twenty Of the water front OF The ciiY, INT
ffteen We ,rs ana at cost of $64S7OOO Tas wall not
ouly nothing to the acco no st and nco Ne 81
the docks but serously dimnsnss Dotu' since 70 pro
.'o. ~ ..o ,r,Tttv = q. bern fnnnd necessary 10
deposit bank of broken stones In the sup against the
extending forty eet into the slip and brought up
To- the surface water. pieventng ali use or
vessels OF any considerable draushL Al tue InereAse m
from the covered piers. which for several years
lave been allowed steamship ant railroad coiups-
ana have cost but about $-ooO1O Ai'er "rcn,
ing exam nation the late DOCK Lerencf, cOMOsed
of from all the commercial bodies OF TINS
cry, condemned ths WAL III All rs features Tue Iepi.
Of Two different cOnnittees. one drawn by Gustav
tchwab. ami the other Oy seth Low. late Mayor OF
Brooklyn The latter report mended that tue L~g-
isture should he pettioned to prohibit any further
Tnis department IL employing corps of eneineers at
cost OF between $4,000 and $4,000 yeaI, Chiefly IN
repeating surveys already made. For building peers
an re- rs ~ Inc for95ion OF tins depHrI-
ment although about the same amount aud Character OF
such work done previous to 1870 as aimee mere Is
upon which engineers can be employed eI-
cept wall, aud according the annual reports
OF the Commissioner OF Docks aud General Mcclellan.
engineerin-chiet ia 1871 and 1872, all the
engineering required for tins work Was
ns GSe lat year t5. d-part@snt has spsn 47oo
on anu 81 $4,000 OIL their helpers when nothing
was by the department reqMrlng eDglheering
service which a skilled dock builder could not have
performed -.,
Extraordinary that the Commissioners OF the
Fund should attempt suppress snch Facts ana
~ OF them axe such haste To lavish the pubc
money upon abuses l. Is equally ineNplcdDl Die
tina they should attempt to justify before the pubic
their refusal light these abuses by ASSERT
Ing that that not the final consideration OF the
reQui.tiOn OF the Dock Department, but that must
before the board again III detail when tue money
IL from the treasury Tor they had IN their hands
the recent well known decision or the supreme Court,
IN precisely this that after the authorization OF the
Issue OF given amount ~ bonds 10y the Commissioners
Of the mixing Fund.0n the application OF tue DOCK Co-
Disroncfs, these Dock Commissioners cal upon
the Controller for the fun proceeds OF these bonds In
detail or bulk FOR purpose defined I'm the law, and
that there existing power refuse their demand.
IL. Il. TOMPKiNs,
j. &. "a DKRs.
joins NOBLE 5TEARNs,
department Committee OF the COuncIl OF Reform
ter-l ORR oct IL, 1856.