New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-03-18
TrpN ON IJE ITE HTS

Tho familiar saving about honest men coming
by their rights when rogues quarrel among them
selves Is irresstibly brought to mind by recent
revelations that have been made in Brooklyn.
The facts, so far as they have been made public,
are briefly these: There is n contest for the
control of the Brooklyn Elevated Railroad Com
pany which il composed of the former company
Of that name and Of the Union Elevated Rail-
road Company. The two parties among the
stockholders are nearly equally divided, but there
Is n block of 23,792 shares which holds the
balance of power and about which there is
mystery that needs clearing up. This stock, it
appears, was issued in 1856, at the time the
Union Company was seeking permission from
the Aldermen for the erection Of It's road and
WAS placed in the hands of Henry J. Cullen jr.
lately dcceaScd) rs trustee il is now held by
Anthony Barrett, Democratic lawyer, whose
relations with the dominant ring in Brooklyn
politics are close, as were those Of the late Mr..
Cullen. One Of the stockholders has brought
suit to proven, these share from being voted at
the pending election, and also to have them
cancelled on the ground tia, they were Issued
without consideration.
OF course, interest centres in the purpose for
which thi, stock was issued, and in whose in
tere,t. Il is greatly to be hoped that all the facts
NAV he disclosed at the tlll Of the suit Just
mentioned. Of course. suspicion naturally turns
first - the members of the Board of Aldermen
IN 1886. On July in that year, 10y vote of
Is to 1.-The one negative vote being cast by
James Kane, since Registrar report was adopt
cd giving tho Union Elevated Railroad permis-
sion 20 erect It's structure and fixing its route.
Uhoeo Aldermen ba,-e hncn tona1 sinco no
disclosures and unanimously deny any knowledge
that corrupt means were employed to influence
them. Even Kane says that he knows nothing
Of corruption, and insists that his own vote was
east in the negative simply because he thought
the granting Of the application not for the best
interests Of the city. On the face of it, We must
say that it is extremely improbable that the Al
dcrmen were tempered with directly. 1t was in
1886 that the Broadway revelations were made,
and Jachne was just getting accustomed to his
cell in Sing Sing when the Brooklyn application
was granted. AT that time Aldermen were on
their good behavior. 1t was decidedly to their
interest to be so. Hence the dcnials that have
boon made may be accepted rs possibly truth
full as far az they go.
BIT il has long been notorious that certain
politicians werc interested in the Union Com
panys enterprise, and it seems highly probable
that the 90, 792 shares Of stock which are now
in dispute were set aside in their interest. How
far any members OF the Board of Aldermen were
concerned in the transaction can only be con-
jectured as yet. On this point "The Eagle"
which INDUCES in spaSms of fcrocity toward
ring and gang" has been throwing some in
terestng light by showing how certain Alder
men serving the city without salaries have in
the course of a fcw years grown wealthy, and
now wear diamonds, own handsome houses, drive
fast horses and indulge in other luxurkS Among
those it names are McCarty (nOw State SENATOR,
McGarry and Coffcy. An investigation like unto
the Broadway inquiry in this city in 1856 would
appear to be badly needed in Brooklyn 1t is
all the more necessary when we remember that
it is the Brooklyn Elevated Railroad Company,
practically, which has secured the right to bridge
the East River and erect three miles of elevated
read across Manhattan Island.