New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-04-23

investigation is finished They will hold ses-
sions on every Tuesday Wednesday THURSDAY
ana rr,day. Before the Legislature adJourns
NEXT Friday the committee Will present pre-
Erninary report to the Assembly, merely OUT
lining the results so far obtained that MAKE "
desirable that the investigation Should DE con-
tinued. and asking for the necessary power 10
proceed with the inquiry.
Frank Moss called his nrst witness "hen
the committee reconvened yesterday morning Ill
the Board Of Trade rooms Lucien Bonheur. he
testified that Morris Untermyer. who IL part
ner OF Randolph Guggenheimer president OF the
Municipal Council. invited him TO organize the
'inside company" of the Maryland Wh'skey
Company and he accepted the orer III Is Mr..
Moss purpose to show that this Maryland
whiskey Company Is backed by Tammany cap
ital. and that saloonkeepers who purchase 's
product are protected from arrest for violation
OF the excise laws. Proceeding with his testi-
mony. the witness said that various statesmen
were engaged. among whom were Philip Straus.
Samuel Miers. a Broadway tailor; FRANK sex
TON. a brother Of Police Commissioner Sexton.
and young Timothy. Sullivan. Witness said ne
subsequently left the company because he did
not wish to remain as dummy. and because ne
did not like the character OF the statesmen who
were employed.
Then Samuel Miers was called, but at the very
FIRST question put to him by Mr.. Moss II was
seen that he was a hostile witness Asked as
20 whether he took orders for the Maryland
company he refused 10 answer on the now we'll
trampled ground Of personal affairs" He re-
fused to say whether he had solicited orders Tor
wh,skey in dives" and concert halls, and in
places In the Ten6erlon but he admitted that
he was a personal friend of Chief Devery and
Commissioner Sexton. He refused TO answer
question as to whether he divided his comms-
sions with an offlcial of the police. He was d.
rected by Mr.. Mazet to reply, but was dehah''
TO PROCEED AGAINST MIERS.
Then the committee took the first step toward
the punishment of contumacy The chairman
instructed the stenographer TO furnish Messrs
Moss and Clarke with transcript Of the wit
ress's refusals to questions. and instructed the
counsel 10 proceed against Miers at once 1t is
understood that the case will be before the Dis
trict- Attorney next Monday or Tuesday. Then
should Mr.. Gardiner hold back the matter from
the Grand Jury Governor Roosevelt Will be ap-
pealed to- "
Frank Sexton did not respond when called by
Mr. Moss and Charles c. Hatsht tpohstResRnd
MIR Haight Is an architect. and he testified that
some time ago Mr.. Young, representing the
firm Of Samuel Mcmillan Co. came to him ana
presented a letter signed by William j. Fryer
q member of the Board of Building Examiners
Mr.. Young wanted an opportunity TO DO some
estimating in Mr.. Haights office, but witness
cid not recall Mr.. Fryer at the time, and told
Mr.. Young so. Soon after Mr. Haight received
a remarkable letter from Fryer, who stated
among other things: Il write now to say that
perhaps IT may turn out at some future day
i-,a0x hn am
was printed "New-York Building and Appraise-
ment Company" and bore the names as di-
rtctors of Samuel Mcmillan and Cornelius
O'Reiy members Of the Board Of Examiners
and of Commissioner Thomas J. Brady. The
witness construed the letter as threat that IN
an official capacity Mr. Fryer might have &C.
casion 10 pase upon his work and plans.
Thomas l.. Feitner, President of the Tax De-
partment. in testlfying next said he had been
unable to find any records OF personal assess
nents fer Mr.. Croker for the years le96 lSS':
1898 or 1899. II appeared consequently that
Mr.. Croker had not been assessed for personal
taxes at all during those years.
William j. Fryer then took the stand Be
sides being connected with the New-York Build
ing and Land Appraisement Company. he said
he had been a member Of the Board OF Build
ing Examiners for ten years. and was also a
member of the Building Code Commission He
styled himself in an advertisement In The Rec
ord and Guide as q consulting architect ana
engineer, services POOd, charges hlgn, out nSIu
TO diploma either as an architect or engl-
neer, and had never taken degree at col
lege. The perfunctory manner In which the
Board Of Examiners does its work was shown
in the witnesses statement that at its last week
~ meeting seventy-seven appealed cases were
passed upon In three hours or less than three
minutes for each case. That the Board should
devote no more time TO cases involving difficult
constructive and engineering problems was re-
garded by Mr.. Moss as being hardly conducive
10 public safety Counsel endeavored to
<ofv hoxy hui
vices are good and charges high had been the
architect for In the last ten years. After long
mental effort the witness could remember only
two small buildings. for which ne had been the
architect In the course or long examina-
ton upon the question OF hreproof materials
Mr. Fryer agreed that all the concrete systems
were practically alike. but he was unable TO
satisfy the committee why some companies, par
ticularly the Roebling. were favored by the
Board Of Examiners. and other manufacturers
barred. Fryer admitted that he was the arch-
tect for the Third Avenue Theatre which was
burned in 1895. but said the law was not vio-
lated. Mr.. Moss however, introduced in evil
dence photographs OF the theatre in course Of
erection. showing that wooden beams and wood
en- supports had been used.
BIG PRICE FOR ADVICE.
Mr. Moss Induced the witness to admit that
ne had received $3.50 from Peter Brennan in con-
nection with plans for building on the south
east corner OF Church and Cortlandt SITS. The
plans were first rejected by the Board OF Ex
an,iners but Brennan consulted Fryer got his
advice and then the plans were accepted. He
ex planned that he got the money for services
as a consulting architect and II developed that
he was In the habit OF receiving money for CIV
ing advice upon plans which were first rejected
by the Board, but which were subsequently ac-
cepted after his advice had been acted upon
Assemblyman Falows was astonshed that the
system should prevail of a member Of the Board
Of Examiners which passed upon plans re-
ceiving money for giving advice upon plans
been rejected, IL was
shown were in every case subsequently, &C
cepted after the witness had been employed In
answer TO Mr.. Fallows's surprised inquiries, the