New-York tribune., 1903-07-13

extremely valuable leases to John J. Murphy
Charles F. Murphy's brother and James F.
Gaffney while Messrs. Murphy and GafIaey
were city officials, thus abetting a clear mis-
demeanor. II Is alleged They viii have TO
answer for that.
The OLD Dock Board granted TO Brown &
Fleming. Charles F. Murphy particular friends.
lease of the Old Slip pier for a dumping board
This was in direct violation OF the law. It was
done moreover. on the last day OF 1901. al
O'Clock IN the afternoon, Just before the Old
board went out OF Office. The city has since
secured verdict for 5000 against Brown &
Fleming for Illegal occupancy OF the pier. HIr.
Murphy and his associates may have 20 tel
about this before a jury.
The old Dock Board refused to a subway con-
tracing firm dumping board privilege ap-
parently in order to compel this subway firm 70
take it's dumping to Brown & Fleming. whose
Canal-st. pier. for which they pay S2SOO year,
earned in 1902 about 500 day net for three
hundred days. The old Dock Board may be
called upon to tell before a jury whether they
were performing their sworn duties when they
engineered a scheme OF this kind
MURPHY's STATEMENT.
Mr. Murphy's statement Is as follows;
I need not dwell at any length upon the no
tive that inspires the attack now being mads
upon the management of the affairs of the De-
partment OF Docks under the former municipal
administration 1t must be perfectly clear to
every fair minded citizen no matter what his
political Affiliations may be. The reckless ale
cations OF mismanagement made against ths
Dock Board. Of which was treasurer. and sent
close Of each days star chamber proceedings.
are, OF course absolutely grOundless- They
are given out without any hope or possibility
OF suostantiation and consist merely OF ma
licious insinuations. They ara obviously framed
for the purpose Of deceiving the public and oe
creating an atmosphere O. prejudice against
Tanmany Hall The charges are based upon
wilfuI misreDresentatI ton and viii. I have no
value.
I maintain without the slightest fear OF sue
cessfuI contradiction that the interests OF the
city Of New-YOrk were better protected and the
affairs Of the Department OF Docks were rnoTs
honestly, efficiently and economically admin
Istered from January l, 1898. 10 December 81.
1901, than under Mayor Stroug's Dock Roard
or under the present Commissioner. I challenges
the District Attorney 10 prove the contrary.
The District Attorney seeks to create the In
preston that 'treasurer's orders We're used
by the Dock Board Of which member as
a means Of evading the provisions OF the char
ter to award work. without competition.
| to favored contractors at an increased cost to
| the city Although possessed of information 70
| the contrary he would have the public believe
| thar 'treasureU's order was a TamUany
| creation. He cannot fail to be aware OF the
/ used in the Department OF Docks fe~ thirty
/ years They We're used under the Strong admin
| istration. and are in use to-day under the new
/ name of Commissioners ORDERS.
/ A 'treasur-r'S order" was an order ISSUED by
/ the treasurer ana COunterSICEed by the preS-
! dent Of the Dock Board upon requisitiou r-lda
4 by the engineer Of the department calling T0-
/ urgent and necessary work material It was
| designed for the purpose OF eXpedIJiuE the -Ne-
/ cution of urgent departmental work Zach
reGuis1tiou contained q memorandum 81 the
I assistant engineer in charge OF the particular
| work. showing the estimated cost Of the work
or materials required. Upon receiving the
/ requiSition the treasurer communicated With
contractors ana dealers engaged in the kind %
work or articles desired. and invited them 10
send in bids within five days. At the eXpira riOD
of this period replies We're opened and the lowest
bidder awarded the order In nearly every in
stance the price paid was lower even than the
/ estimated cost
IT was invariably fOund-at least during ths
four years in QuestiOn-that better results as to
price and quality were obtained under the sys-
tenn of -'treasurer's orders than by advertising
EULOGY OF TREAsURER'S ORDERS
II happened frequently that IN response to one
of these orders contractors figured on work or
supplies at lower rate than they would ac' ept
if they were bidders for duly advertised con-
tract calling for similar work or material
In order 10 show that 'treasurer's orders
promote competition instead OF sitting IL. that
they save money for the city. and that they
were invariably awarded TO the lowest bidder. 7
quote a few which were issued in my capacity
Continued on second page.