New-York tribune., 1903-06-27
MURPHY NOW AT BAY.
HIS FAVORS, S2,OOO,OO
Gafney Signed His Name to Pier
Lease When He Vas alderman.


District Attorney Jerome and Marshall B.
Clarke. his assistant. cunning for Charles F.
Murphy. leader of Tammany Hall. in connection
with the Dock Board scandal The develop
ments of the next ten days will determine
whether or not they will land the man at the
top.
Mr.. Murphy yesterday made long statement
in which he defended himself and the old Dock
Board. his brother, John j.. and his alderman.
Mr.. Gaffney. Some of his statements Indicate
that he is troubled with a lapse of memory. as
they not corroborated by the records of the
Dock Board.
The next witnesses &c be examined are Will
fam H. Burke former secretary Of the Dock
Board; John Fleming, of Brown & Fleming. and
James MilIigan. District Attorney Jerome will
return to town soon, and the propriety of pro-
ceeding at against Gahney and John J.
Murphy will be discussed.
Alderman James E. Gaffney and ex-CounciI-
man John j. Murphy in an awkward posi-
ton account OF soliciting and obtaining a
lease for pier at West Seventy-nnth-st. while
they were city officials The Tribune yesterday
printed the section of the law bearing the
case of Messrs. Gaffney and Murphy. The sec
tion says, in part:
PUNISHMENT FOR THE OFFENCE.
No member of the Board of Aldermen. head Of de-
partment. chief of bureau. deputy thereof or clerk
therein other officer OF the corporation. shall oe
in the purchase or lease Of any real estate or other
property beonging to or taken by the corporation.
ing the time for which he elected appointed
in any eontraet or work wifi the city or any de-
partnlent or officer thereof. unless the same shall
viction thereof forfeit his office and be punished
for misdemeanor. All such contracts in which
described shall. at the option of the controller.
Assistant District Attorney Clarke yesterday
inspected the lease of the Seventy -ninth-st. pier
made TO the New-York Contracting and Truck
ing Company. on July 49, 1901, and found that
James E. Gaffney had signed the lease. which
went into effect August 1 of that year. Be
cause of this fact. Mr.. Clarke thinks that Alder
man Gaffney must have been misquOted in an
interview in evening paper which reported
him saying that he had withdrawn from tho
company before he signed the lease. The sig
nature on the lease reads: ''New-York Con-
tracing and Trucking Company. per James E.
Gaffney, president" Later the name of E. L
Gaffney appeared as treasurer of the company.
and John J. Murphy became its president.
Charles F. Murphy yesterday declared that no
act of favoritism fraud could be shown in the
record Of the Dock Board under the Van Wyck
administration.
Assistant District Attorney Clarke cites the
lease of the Old Slip pier to Brown & Fleming
as proof that the board acted with wilful negli-
gence. The board. with Mr.. Murphy absent.
met on December 81 1901. at p. m. and leased
the Old Slip pier to Brown & Fleming for thirty
years at $1,000 year. The charter distinctly
provided that the pier should not be leased for
dumping board purposes. Brown & Fleming's
carpenters worked nights and all day Sunday in
order to build a dumping board before the new
Dock Commissioner, Mr.. Hawkes., could inter-
pose an objection. After seven and a half
months the firm was ousted. and the city has
lust recovered a 5000 verdict for Illegal oc-
cupancy of the pier for the time stated This
makes the pier worth about 5000 a year. in
the Judgment of jury 1t is believed that this
lease alone will be sufficient to prove wilful
negligence on the part of the old board
NO FRAUDULENT ERAsUREs. HE SAYS.
Charles F. Murohy yesterday denied emphati-
cally that any fraudulent erasures or changes
Of records were made in any lease so as TO favor
any friend Of the old Dock Board He said:
The statement tnat has been made BY Corporation
Department inquiry. that erasures or alterations OF
Eyery Lease granted by the Dock Board Of which
was member had first 20 De approved ny tns
his report on the leases the board acted either for
or against The records, IN u the 9fTe 0I Z Jae Pi
be no discrepancies So far as AIdsrnan
vestgation is concerned. there is no question bur
he will De able explain TO tne SttlSIacuOn OF
either Mr. Jerome or Mr.. Clarke and the public his
connection with the whole matter.
The system OF granting leases IN vogue to-day
administration AID others Tor years past
mas never varied There has been no change and
Vhy should the method Of granting leases be
criticised at this time and by the present ad-
ninlstratione The system is a sound ana capable
one IL a change desired why didn't the pres
ent Dock Department put up the lease OF Pier No.
"a at public auction?
n dock leases go the highest bidder
the same contracts for public works. dock
fronts could be grabbed up by big corporations.
This would result in the driving out of the smaller
Ieaseholder who has already spent time and money
IN establishing a business.
For instance. take the case OF the New-York Cen
traI Railroad corporation II already has a cOusid-
cradle number OF leases ON dock property. and ir
wants more. and viii want more. Suppose the New
York Central wanted To acquire leases certain
docks held by certain business men who have all
their capital. small large invested in dock prop
erty and have built up a business on that dock
property
Even under the system IN vogue to-day dock
certain steamship lines must locate their dock
landings the other side Of the river while their
business Is in and comes from Nevv-York Trade
and commerce should be encouraged, not driven
away.
All the present talk OF favoritism and fraud ~
but rehasn of the charges made before the Mazet
Committee. I was called to the stand then aud
questioned What did IL amount to2 What coul
IL have amounted to-
By means OF treasurer's orders. which appear TO
IN for considerable comment In the present