New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-10-12
,c1DS TO CHANGE FIGURES.
-,rcrpy EMPLOYED IN THE OLD
DOCK DEPARTMENT

TESTIFY THAT NAMES AND PRICES IN
Do,Rns ORDERS WERE FREQUENTLY
.,-rRrp BY COMMISSIONER PHELANs IN
OBJECTIONS FOR THE BENEFIT OF
CERTAIN CoNrRACToRs-A WITNESS
WHO TRIES TO SHIELD THE
ACCUSED COMMISSIONERS
rLATI.Y CONTRIBUTED.
o.. Commissioners OF Accounts continued their
,rss,ra,on yesterday OF the old Dock Board and
q. methods James J. Phean. the former Dock
comr,ss.oner. whose name has been mentioned fire.
.usntly in the previous testimony, was present
I'D cross.sxamined witnesses In his own behalf
tn. first witness was Edwin A. Gregory, OF No. SS
,,.rbst,an-ave clerk in the Department. who
-. snpo!nted in April 1855. Afterward he be-
..na assistant TO the treasurer OF the Board. Mr..
phean He sad ne frequently used acids In chang
Ing the orders MADE by the treasurer, and he dd
!, =, the latters suggestion He changed the prices
frequently he said. and often the names. too
This vas done ne added. in cases where the per-
.,n named had refused to M the contract at the
n,ics contained IN the tredsurer's order.
louis : kellogg. another c.erk. testified 70 the
sam. effect lie said that he had frequently made
such changes In the treasurer's order and always
used acids a; Mr. Phelans suggestion. Kellogg
identified one OF the orders Of the Morris Dredg-
changed from lsa4 10 49,. cents
John 5. Howell. a contractor, OF No. a West
Eishty-n!nth-st.. testified that he made BID on
March 5. 1880 furnish "r.p-rap' at CO cents a
cubic yard but he did not know that the award
vas made TO John \. Hooker at 6S cents. Howell
aid tha; ne had been SO unsuccessful in securing
Dock Department contracts that OF late years he
aid little or no attention 10 any discrepancies that
might occur between the recoroed od and the con-
cbsr'es " Hask.ns was recalled and showed by
the records that forty eight piles that were re-
jeced by Mr. spooner. ne cAg ,etr at EAST Ninety
Pier No 70 The North RIVER. hash ms showed
that the jug MaR n tooH ninety nine pes
Farty-e.sht OF them were rejected and were taken
down the river to Pier No IL. where they were
The next witness was John 5. Ga,ely. an IN
speotor. who called to corroborate Haskins
The piles rejected Ga1ely said, were little short,
some Of them were not straight. and several we're
not strong enough for the pier al Ninety ninthst.
The next witness, Allan ". Spooner. SAID he
jected many Of the piles because they would not
stand the impact necessary to drive them. others
rotten In The core. and others irregu-
plies We're supplied by a. J. Murray William Tay-
ior. Graves and Steers and other contractors. but
Peter French and Martin Miller dock-buders.
corro5oratcd the earlier witnesses Gately
called ana ltn.ei that ne had on Thursday had
s9nyeFsatoa with Mr.. Haskns in which he said to
Haskns Those O1e forty-eight piles were ac-
Gitely denied that he had had a conversation Win
Haskns and denied fatty that he had received
money for accepting piles
DO you mean to say tina, you never received any
money from A J. Murray asked Commissioner
Terry.
q never received money from nobody" Gatey
rep.!ei holly.
Sr Haskns resumed the stand and said that he
had held conversation with Gately on Thursday.
and that then the after said that the forty-eign:
plies would never nave been accepted had they
been furnished by 4 j. Murray
Henry Doyle. one % the dock builders, who used
the defective f0rtysight piles at Pier No. 10 said.
They were bad iot. some OF them were as
crooked rams horns others were rotten AMI
Others short too narrow In the girth." He
planned that the poorest Of them used 10 I'LL in
between the outer and nrer tiers. and OF the whole
lot about SIX were poor that they broke of while
they were being irv-n
The hearing was adjourned until Tuesday after
o'clock.