New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-11-22
WAS THE FUND A BRIDE?
COLONEL MURPHY SAYS NOT A CENT WAS
so USED
INTERESTING EXTRACTS FROM THE MINUTES
OF THE OYSTER DEALERS ASSOCIATION
AN IGNORANT OFFICIAL.

The investigation into the methods of the Dock
Department Yesterday productive Of much In
terestiug testimony which throws some light on tho
intended use of the $4,000 said to have been paid
10 Coonel John O'Byrne for his work In connection
with the oystermcn's bill The morning session was
particularly interesting from the fact that Colonel
Michael Murphy, who introduced the bill, appeared
as a voluntary witness to tell what his connection
with It really was.
He said that James W. Boyle handed the bill to
him and. according TO custom he turned 1t over 10
Mr.. Beckman the Corporation Counsel at that time,
who added the amendment reservng to the Dock De
psr,ment the power to allow the oystermen the eX
elusive of the pier at Chares-s or to revoke the
lease at will The bill, amended, was introduced
u as favor TO Mr.. Boyle" who was friend OF inc
senator. 1t passed the Senate and then went to the
lower house, where Mr.. Murphy said he lost sight Oh
Il. He announced most emphatically that he never
knew that Colonel O'Byrne connected in any way
with the bill and he had never he'd any consu'ato
With him about it. He was not even aware un"i
Wednesday that $4,000 had been raised TO deraS
the expenses of legislation. He believed That 1ne
oystcrmen had been Outrageously deceived II they
thought they deriving any benefit from inc iuhu'
i regard the abs traction of this money ne CON
tlnucd as one Of the worst crimes ever commt'ed'
as the bill was most simple one, which had pdsscu
myself and not cent needed or USED lor les'-
lstive purposes Colonel Murphy then SAID mat h9
agreed with the remark OF Shea. whom he considered
(" buncoeds He closed his testimony by Offering his
services to the Commissioners in probing the aar 10
the bottom and suggested that It their duty TO
Investigate the career of the bill from the time OF its
Introduction TO the time of its passage.
Jacob l. Housman was the next witness he Is
an oysterman in Chares-st, and is the man who' I'D
1857 volunteered TO take the lease of the pier for
the benefit of his associates when Shea refused 10
take it, He agreed with Boyle that the rent was
too high, and the latter promised 10 see the DOCK
Commissioners and endeavor to bring about reduc-
tion He reported sfterward that he was unsuccesS-
ful. The lease, however was sold 10 Boyle Tor
$500, reduction of 81 900, Housman paying the
deposit of % per cent. The lease was made In Hous-
mans The latter did tell Shea that he had
given away 81 900 not to any one in the DOCK Dc
parment, but to Boyle. Il gave 1t to Boyle he
said "because he did a great service. because !
had promised to get the lease of the pier for the
oystermen" Though Boyle never asked him for the
money he had given It out of gratitude, and never
asked the association to recompcnse him for the out
lay. lie said that he was given to understand that
the S130 900 raised counsel fec for O'Byrne,
and did not believe that 1t was too large.
Timothy Shea the oysterman who exposed the deal
scandals, recalled at his own request, and said
he desired TO correct the impression which had been
made in the accounts of Wednesdays proceedings that
lie had been in favor of the oyster dealers bill until
the assessment for the s3 900 legislative fund was
made Il won't call anybody lar he said but
I will say that Mr.. Housman has not told the truth.
! was never in favor of the BILL and said to Hous
and Boyle. l told the former that IL was moth
ing but bribery and he knew It. I further told him
that If It passed / would go into the Supreme |
Court and have it annulled unconstitutional special
legislation
shea then created stir by saying that every oys |
tcrman in the room knew what the $4,000 had been |
raised for and II they swore that the money
for counsel fees they did falsely. After again ex
pressing In most fOrcblc manner his aversion TO !
Icing regarded pervertcr of the truth, he closed |
by saying honor would be found still In existence
among the oystermcn and believed that Foster and |
Housman would retract their statements.
Mr., shea was a good prophet. for he had
finished william Foster obtained permission TO say
something. He asserted that his contradiction of
shea's testimony entirely unntennonsl, and due
to a misunderstanding of the question which Mr. Clark
had put to him. He understood the latter 10 say that
according TO Shea the $4,000 had been carried and
paid to Colonel O'Byme by Foster himself whereas
the money really carried by Merrill, Foster
merely going with him. Mr. Clark tiled 20 get some
further Information from the witness regarding the
counsel fees" but successful only In extracting
The opinion that the amount was "a mighty big one.
and the whole transaction downright skin from be
ming 10 end
William NJ. Negs secretary Of the Oyster Dealers
Association, then called TO the stand. He said
the association organized for the mutual proec-
minutes Of Its meetings with him. lie said that tho
suggestion of employing Colonel OByrne as counsel
had been discussed generally by the members of the
organization, but he could not say positively who
lad proposed the lawyer. Boyle, Frazier, Housman
and Sharer were the most prominent in advocating
bis selection The members thought that $4,000
was a large price pay. but Colonel O'Byrnc hal
said that the bill couldn't be prepared without
counsel or brought to crisis for less than that
amount
What do you understand by being brought TO
crisis ?" asked Mr.. Clark.
why, before the Legislature and through it,
piled the witness.
DO you consider that 1t has been brought TO a
crisis now ?" was the question of the Corporation
Counsel, and MIR. Negus compelled TO admit that
it had.
BY an examination of the minutes it was found
that the subject had first been brought before the
Association at meeting December 20, 1888. when
:" the matter Of securing the exclusive use Of the
slips was referred to the Law and legislative Com
mlttee.' The next time mention is made Of the sub
1ect at a meeting March 81, 1859. from the
minutes of which the following is an extract The
President made few remarks relating water fronts
that there IS liability that this franchise IS 10 be
taken away and the oyster barges compelled to seek
another locality and advising that the matter of
said removal be agtated TO if the place which
now occupy could not be set aside. That he had such
a conference with certain gentleman well posted
in the matter. who Informed him that he thought
tie location could be obtained permanently by going
to the Legislature. and 10y using proper means and
influence and have bill passed favOring the pcrma-
nent occupation Of the present position occupied
by the oyster barges and that this must be done by
ana through the Wholesale Oyster Dealers Planters
Association. On motion of Mr.. Foster a committee
appointed"
Inc minutes OF the meeting of March &C. 1880
showed tha this committee had conferred with
had
lake TO have bill introduced into
the legislature and passed obtaining all
that was needed or desired by the association. tina,
the expense would be $4,000 and he would under
take IL for that sum.
Frederick j. Thompson, the next witness ,s Tho