New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-05-07
STRIFE IN THE DOCK BOARD.
WILL THE COMMISSIONERS GO TO LAw'
THE RELEASING OF PIER 3S AT LOSS or Owe"
100000 TO THE CITY CAUSES MUCH TROUBLE
MR.. MATTHEW'S REFUSES TO VOTE WITH
THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS on THE
QUESTION AND 1T rs SAID ALSO


QUESTION AND 1T rs SAID ALSO
DECLISEs TO SIGN THE
LEASE OF THE PIER TO
THE GUIoN LINE.
rhsre has been for some tnae q dim and twinhius
srsucion that the dignlfed Dock Commissioners "eio
not dwelling together in perfect harmony. IL was
wbispercd TINT within their commodous "@F
washed headquarters at the Battery, where the pnn-
c,nos and privileges Of whsfs and water fronts arc
set forth and decided, bitter strife has been raging
,h.se many days. This, report has It, Is growing
mora fierce and last night It was rmorcd that Inc
grim spectre of the law would to-day be ihVoAeu W
stem In and try to settle the trouble win inc oau9o
Of the difficulty THE TRIBUNE has already mace INC
public familiar 1t is the result OF that rehlarhso
decision of Commissioners Stark and Marshall 10 re-
lease Pier 80 to the Williams Guon steamship L,no
for ISL 800 year, despite the fact that Two o'nor
equally responsible bidders stood ready to take ho pof
for $4,000 and sac 800 respectively, thereby prac-
tically giving away 100000 of the citys fund'
in tho ten years for which the lease runs
As already explained, the ten years lease held oy
the Williams Guion people on Pier 50, ana "nich
.xn,rea ON MAY l. did not contain covenant OF TO
pewL Consequently the pier reverted 10 the DocA
Commissioners to lease to the highest biddor na'ihs
of course due regard to the best interests oil the CITY
There wcre, however, certain considerations urgen ia
favor of the Williams & Guon Company In the nrst
place Il was claimed that the omission oil the COW
enant of renewal the lease due TO an oversight
On the part OF tho lessees but matter OF TACT the
Ieass of tho pier never prepared for execution
until 1885, and then It only executed on tho part
OF tho Dock Commissioners, hessrs. Lainbeer, van
derpoel and Cunning. Tho Gulon people did not eA-
ecute the lease, nor did they furnish the necessary
bonds as required by the terms Of tho instru-
ment They perfectly aware that
they had no stipulatlons for renewal But
realizing about year ago that the pier was worth at
least $4,000 year more than the $4,000 they wore
having they began to sgItate the question OF renewal
81. nben p Nash of the counsel of the company,
called on ths Commissioners In regard to the matter
He afteryard msdo affidavit that while there he re-
ce,v,d assurances from them that the pier would be
released to his clients al tho usual advance OF hve
per cent.
Unfortunately this claim, which may be termed the
second in favor Of the company, denied pontpianh
and 10 the most sweeping emphatic manner by ohe
OF the Commissoners-ex-Judge Matthews whose sworn
denial by the way, was not laid before the sinking
Fund Commissioners printed in The CITY Record
for reasons best known to the other commissioners
Here IS what Mr. Matthews says under oath on this
point:
| In the matter Of Pier SO, North River
| City and County Of NcwYork, S.
James Matthews, Of said City and County, being ouy
sworn doth depose and say am and ever since May IL
1885, have been of the Commissioners OF the Depart
ment OF Docks have read the snidavis oil o"pheh
Nash and Andrew Underhl with the papers annexed
thereto purporng be sworn 10 February ~ 1900 i'll
IN. above matter In relation the renewal OF lease OF
said Pier 49, North River In said City, and In answer
thereto do solemnly swear that never at any ume'
either personally officially or in Board meeting or
member Of the Department OF Docks promised agreed oe
ciaed or voted directly Indirectly, to renew the lease
of said pier the Liverpool and Great western oean'
Company Qmtei or to any person acting ior' or cis
Ing to for, representing said Steam company anu
have examined records and papers In relation thereo
IN said Department and failed to find any record
communication paper showing or tending to snow thas
any or promise made to renew the SAID
| lease to the said Company -
sworn to before me this 18th day of March. 1883.
| FRANCIS f. NOON,
| Va az Notary Puzzle, N. Y. County.
Whatever vesige of this second claim remained after
Mr. Matthew's affidavit was swept away by the ophon
of the Corporation Counsel on the subject which was Ia
effect that the application Of tho Williams and Gulon
! Line shotfid be acted upon as IL IL were q nc"
natter 49,. .o-,,.,, ,,.s
that had put up $4,000 she'd on the pier AT It's own
expense as all lessees of piers who want SHEDS are
required do There was force in THIS plsS
tho steamship people were the Sb pants
IN s smpe practical way that seemed Just to the city
| and generous to the company. The proper course
would to be- he said in letter on the s crrnt
market value, less a sufficient amount TO enable then
rccoup the cost OF tho shed In ten Years go oo Nc
an allowance OF - 900 per annum would seem 20 W
as between the cy aRS hS ycsT might be- made
| without exciting unreasonable criticism
renewal Of tho lease on the old terms demolished
The advocates of tho company saw this and trcd new
tack ey srSRp ae Hss aR o t' y
The appeal which they made did not possess the msr.
of GgsaSS or it's chsaer t
wonderfully successful The substance OF IL was tha'
s 90 Slsh tS dS. o SA
to be the n%aH Steamship bs line s%a
spracyS it seems consisted in the first company offer
Ing $4,000 and the second $4,000 for Pier PIE, Ss on
bidder But the advocates Of the Williams oT zion
se fd appeal nS. a. nsuay done in such
on broad generalltios and the effect was simply as
It fairly opened the noodgates of ehivary and gen
crosby in the breasts OF tho Sinking Fund Commission
and the other Dcas Of the Sy wss so nynr o
hs he forgot all about his y. oPo o Hft
tho subject that tho William; GuOn Line must
not by rent 'rG@ e. me present market
Sss Of the pier The other officials greatly
emotions wero so deeply stirred by the remote sng-
gestions Of a steamship trust that he actually pro-
to TTs 1 TO ps1 s cr SF
were accordngly advised to release the pier TO tho
stark aud Marshall FASTENED to comply with the rec
ommendation. They had lease drawn NJ: approved
by tho Corporation Counsel and ordered to be exc
cnted But It Is here they encountered the snag that
may bring the case into court.
business man. who never allows sentimental appeals
70 influence his judgment keep him from doing what
hs thinks is right Believing that his duty In this
matter look sor the interests OF the city rather
than that of outside parties; he seadfsstly declined
10 consent to Lease OF tho pier the terms pro-
posed It was an injustice to s,oo t nGo city ny
no therefore voted against his associates.
But they being n IN. majority carried tha resolution
came execute the document II necessary 10 have
i sgpd by Mr. Matthews. as treasurer OF the noard
less compelled By court proceedings. Hence tho
trouble in the Commission. This majority can com
pei him. officer Of the Board. to afix his sigma
ture but naturally they dislike TO get out mandamus
for such pnrposc. but II Is possible that the Williams
q Guon pooplo may havo TO do so since Mr. Mat
thcws II said, remains as obdurate TO his associates
eIposuatons as nc did to the appeal OF the steamship
company.
The whole trans action. II IS understood will he ore
of the first things taken up by tho Senate investigating