New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-01-24
DOCK BOARD FINANCES.
THE FASSETT COMMITTEES HEARING.

PENDING OF TILE cITY,s MONEY:


began. in Part " Of the Superior Court. inveStga
non OF the Dock Department. senators FaSSett pre-
sdinG) Ahcarn and stewart were the members Of the
committee present: and \. b. Boardman conducted the
examination Of witnesses. william VI. wins Is In
Europe. The relations Of the city and It's Dock De
partment and the waterfront and private owners of
piers and Of bulhIeads in a marvellous tangle and
legislation for It's unrav.ling Is called for. Mr.
Boardman in preliminary statement said that the
object Of this investigation was 10 present to the
Legislature fair statement Of the existing clrcum-
stances lie gave historical account Of the case and
indicated the difficulties which have embarrassed the
Dock Department since its creation in 1870, under an
&C, which contemplated the requirement by the city
% whole waterfront OF the city, with its piers,
wharvcs, etc.
Henry NJ. Tate. the committees expert accountant,
put In evidence tabulated report prepared by MIN,
showing among many other details. that the total
receipts OF the Dock Departemnt. from May l. $50,
10 January l. 1901 Sl0,3o6,oO9 90, and the total
expenditures Sl7 3O3 or So There had been cN-
pended for property S910,2l0 -. for construction,
j. 3I9l47 49, and for general repairs, office expenses,
salaries etc. - .203,l2- 81.
The principal witness was Edwin 4. Post. the
president Of the Dock Commission. Mr. Boardman
examined him rs TO the reasons which had prevented
hi, commission from going ahead with the new plans
of city piers, bulkhcad, &c. - laid out Mr.. Post
di,cIancd any share in The blame for delay. There
had been legal difficulties about The acquisition Of
river front property James &. Carter, who was en-
gagged as special counsel TO the cry by the Corporation
Counsel, Office. had advised tn department to take
possession of pier and then have the courts scttl-
the ma ter. Mr. Boardman asked
Q.-Iad any proceedings To cond mn property bech
taken when you became Dock Commissioner! A.
Q.-Whatl A.-wen | can't name the cases;
Q.-Ilavc yOu communicated with the La" DcPdH
of the city IN reference to the carrying ou u "'
plan ,,A.-lcr. ....,,.,,.,,. .,,.. xo, .cnt to
the Corporation Counsel Al suppose In regard l"
fifteen or twenty pieces OF Property .,a o,
q Have not yOu main aimed In season ana OUT
officially and privately sine You became p%A 'H'n
missioner. that this plan should be carried ou' u
Undoubtedly.
Q."lou think it i, TO the interes. Of the city III"
it Should be- done A-Ecyond doubt. ,..u, ,,o
Q.-That the street should be widened from Inc
Bat crv to -iNty ir~i. It.. A.-Bcyond doubt
Q.-Tlat new piers should be built In accordance
with that planl A.-Boyond n doubt. ~
.. That new stone buikhead> should be buili' A
Beyond q doubt. 49,. T.. A.,
Q;-A9d YOU think it ar important matter Tor the
senator fa,-ctt What r Ic9'on nat It, th ,, '"'''
should not be pressed that could mIl iGh Won
know Of whether they arr or alr NO pr",N ito tbc
What reason, have been gwen to Won That they
we're not prc~~cd A-Ilat they would be- prc'''p 81
o,",Yon have settled the Cornell case SO far a, Won
o.-Nnd if isn't settled Al hear it l. settled
The Cornell case which frequently referred e" !,
an interesting example # hlw "a" city has suffered
from the present dc,dl lch The city wanted 10 ph'
a pier at !. B. Cornell, bukhead from twenty S'A'"
to Twenty sevcut--t. ON the North River anc Siar'en
IT toward the end o.! $50 or the beginning oi I-7"'
After most Of the work WI, douc injunction wa
obtained AGAINST the connection Of the pier with the
land The pier waS new pier - and wa, 10 be let %
the Anchor Line Company, which HAD 10 20 To br"'h
Ivn after work the Iier was stopped Apparently
no action was taken in The Cornell case for zen years
OF other suit, referred -. the first was that OF
Lancden against the MAYOR, which wa, decided ~ IN"
Court Of Appeal, in l-73 Then there was ""l''m'
against the Mayor which wa, decided I'm the CONT Of
Appcal, about I--7. Then came The kns'land
Charton.>t case. which Is now pending In The zen
cral Term, The whole question involved rlnS u'
amount Of money be paid per running foot i'r Inc
bulkhcad The IAncden case WAS tried before ''r"ver
Cleveland a. referee who awarded 800 running
foot, The Kins~lnnd was before jury Who
awarded $500 running foot.
Mr. Bcariman. continuing HI, examination, asked:
Q-You are In possession Of letter asking the Cor
poration CounscP- Once two years ago. when Mr. Beck
man VA. Corporation Counsel what must Dee done To
carried out A-Ycs
o~AYd thai crier was not answered. A.-No.
Q-Do you know why A.-NO
Q-Mr. Cartcr's advice was explicit 49,.
Q-Thcn what prevented You from M II "ut
He was member Of the Law Department! A
The Why not take his advice well as the
senator Fa,,ctt Why. VI. Carter Is paid good
deal more than the Corporation Counsel ,,u
Mr.. BoaIfman- Treating ~ thi' quc''l ~ lrahhIY, =
it not your Judgment That the cty la, Loaf great
deal 81 money by the way tbs matter mas been
"j @&hc yoi G'H SAY whcr the blame should be
placed You don't assume any ~ IL youisehl N'-'"
O." lon admit hat tie interests Of The city demand
Thai the plan ought 10 be- proceeded with Atm
o.|Nnd Won admit that there, some one 70 blame.
but you don't ASSUME the blame Al don't assume
tho blame
Mr. Bo4rdmar intimatcd plainly enough By the trend
Of hi, inquire, AID by his side remarks. though he
didn't get il into evidence. that the Law Department
must be- responsible for some blame.
tlr. Post aid that. ,uppp-inG every legal dlihchN
were ont ~ the way, he. Dock Commissioners
would cudcavor Ia carry ont the present plan, WIN
the mobilization that TIE East River. th" exterior
street should be drawn IN from 200 feet TO 100 feet
There al,o mile Of pier room practically To-, "
the centre II the city, between West Eleventh Il. ana
head a, the rnlrel slate Government forad' The
Conmi- ion to 20 bcl 0nd the line Of that hulhh'Al
win the head, 81 piers. Mr. Post was nm favor ~
= l/i.atiyc mobilization Of the plan which would
made he believed they would bee rold 10 morrow.
rhc cost to the civ Of carving ont the ne" pr"
and odd 81 mlion-- more than 800 OOOOO A-k'H
to make suggestion, for immediate legislation. W..
a, example Of what might be- proposed: - T. pa
some mi pv which the dock could hc taken np
demnton Of the property FOR the latter propo-I
ilon Mr POST In the Interpretation of "sciznre mat
Mr.. EOirdman put on H. "o1lH not CONSENT !" "''"''
any responsibility. .,., mol, no
uartmcnt testified favor of notifications Of the ne"
plan. which would draw ~ the exterior su,'l WI
Inc Fat River and would allow the building ol P'
by excavation in th% strip br mS,ion MI' ~ Wr POST
The investigation viii DO resumed To-Day al II d. "''