New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-04-23
RESULTS OF MOSES WORh.
SEVEN DAYS WITH THE MAZEI IN
yEsTIGATING COMMITTEE


IN SPITE OF RECALCITRANT WITNESSES
AND BAD MEMORIES cRoKER's CITY
GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN SHOWN
TO BE PERMEATED WITH
CORRUPTION.
Tho Mozef Investigating Committee has now
| held sessions upon seven days, and The Tribune
IN addition to printing full report OF the tesu-
mony on the morning following each session,
presents herewith 6 review OF the principal
points OF the evidence so far adduced. 10 many
| minds II has appeared that the most Striking
result produced I'D TO date by Frank MOSS the
.cpmmifteess counsel are contained in the an-
missions wrung from Richard Croker the DoSs
| of Tammany Hail. that no man, from the Juose
upon the bench TO the day iaborer on the street.
can hope to draw salary or wages from 'he
municipality unless he is willing to 90 Whatever
he can to throw business into the lap OF hicharu
CROKER himself. Another point forcbly brought
| out is that Mr. Croker, either by means oi MS
sons or his trusted henchmen, Is engaged In so
many enterprises that there are Few muh'c'p"'
employees In positions where they cannot ma
,or,ouv ,rcrcase his revenues If they want to-
and If they don't they need never look Tor re-
nomination or unemployment.
! II has been made clear also that blackman OF
the most ferocioua kind is ever threatening the
| New-York business man in almost every line
Of commerce and will continue to threaten MIN
50 long as the city government Is under luz
present control
The police it has been made clear through
the testimony OF the Chief. allowing all sorts
Of Illegal resorts to flourish unmoested
Another feature Of the investigation so far
! has been the frequent refusal OF witnesses 10
! answer such questions they chose. on the
! ground that the inquiries related wholly TO their
personal affairs" and hence did not come WIN
in the scope OF the committees power. Here
follows summary Of the testimony in regular
FIRST DAY-APRIL g.
Mr. Moss opened the ball with the testimony
OF William Archer, OF the building firm OF Daw-
son & Archer. who put up the immense ONCE
building at No 10 TO 81 Park Row. His testi-
mony showed that the cost Of the building was
TO be S25, 900 less than the contract price agreed
upon If the Roebling system Of ireprooflns could
be used The Buildings Department would not
sanction its use. however A. L. Himmelwright
was the next witness. He is the manager OF
the Roebng Construction Company and 1t was
ELECTED from him that soon after Frank II. Gro
ker. son OF Richard Croker. took large block OF
stock in that company it's fireproofng material
was discovered by the Buildings Department to
be rather better than any other known sub
stance SO far had this preference for the
Roebling freproohng material gone that in the
specifications for the construction Of two public
schools the ireprooflng clauses were almost word
for word identical with the Roebling company S
! advertisement of its product and practically
shut out any other competitor.
MCANN's BIG RETAINER.
Mr. Moss then questioned Himmewright about
the Building Codes Commission. which is franz
ing regulations to govern the operations Of build
ers in the future and discovered the fact that
| Charles E. F. Mccain, a nephew Of Richard
| Croker and a Deputy Assistant District-Attor-
ney, had accepted a retainer Of 81. 600 as coun-
sci to the Roebng company and was endeavor-
ing to get fees Of from $1,000 to $4,000 from
ether building companies for presenting their
claims in proper manner before the Building
Codes Commission.
Mccain himself was put on the stand next
He admitted freely that ne had no expert expe-
rienoc in building laws or anything Of the kind
to make his services worth $1,000 or $4,000
but on the other hand. absolutely refused at
first to admit that he was a relative OF Richard
Croker. When asked IL he based his refusal on
the ground that truthful answer might tend
to ncriminate or degrade him he decided to own
| up 10 the relationship Of nephew
BARRED OUT OF BUSINESS.
George s. Hayes. another builder declared
that because he would not pay money to the
officials Of the Buildings Department he had been
| practically debarred from doing business In this
city.
fed WI frvip In
vain to get his fireproof material passed upon
| by the Buildings Department. he had been ad-
vised by Superintendent Dooner TO 90 and see
| Con" DAILY, a liquor dealer, about II. Cons
terms for exerting his influence with the Build
ings Department were a free gift Of $1,000 In
| paid up stock and a drectorship In the COM
pany.
william s. Devery. Chief Of Police was also
| called He made to admit that he had been
| promoted In few months from captain through
the grades OF inspector and deputy chief to the
i head OF the force. Mr.. Moss took up the mat
| ter OF the untried charge against him; showed
| that II had never been tried because OF the sta ~
secured by Devery himself and that he had
been promoted, although he had never been &C
Quilted OF the accusation brought against him.
| As Mr. Moss went deeper into the official q
record the Chief became visibly III at ease and
hesitating In his answers, and more particularly
| when the counsel wanted TO know ~ Frank
Farrell a notorious poolroom-keeper. who ran
his places apparently under police protection.
was not a witness ct the trial OF Devery
DEvERY's DIsGRACEFUL SHOWING.
Name after name Mr. Moss brought up OF dive
and poolroom keepers. with whom. the line OF
examination went to demonstrate. Devery was
on friendly relations and once the questioning