The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-07-04
GAFFNEYAND MURPHYTURN UP
MEN ACCUSED OF DOCK FRAUDS
SURRENDER THEMSELVES.
Their Lawyer. IT'S Said, Has Decided That
the Old Charter Didn't Bar AN ONCE
holder From Being a Stakeholder I'm
Concern That Dealt with the City.


| holder From Being a Stakeholder In
Concern That Dealt With the City
Assistant District Attorney Clarke, who
is Of generous physical build, sat down
in his small office in the Criminal Courts
Building early yesterday morning and
mopped his brow and carried on the pnr-
suit of the cases against the administra-
ton OF the Dock Board Of Mayor Van Wyck s
administration.
Two of the men accused in the course OF
his work were arrested during the day
Mr.. Clarke desired that II be understood
that these arrests were by no means the
climax Of the scandal, but were merely
incidental to the investigation rs far as
it has gone.
! The two men arrested were Alderman
James Z. Gaffney and ex-Councilman
John j. Murphy, brother to Charles +.
| Murphy, leader OF Tammany Hall and for
mer Dock Commissioner. They came into
the chambers Of Justice Mayer of Special
Sessions, who had issued the warrants for
them and gave themselves up.
They had with them their attorneys,
James A. Deering and Peter A. HendriclS
When the warrants had been served Mr..
Deering asked that the proceedings be
dismissed because on the face Of the de-
positions accompanying the warrants no
crime had been committed. He asked for
week In which to present arguments to
prove his point.
He went further and said that il Gaffney
and Murphy were guilty Of crime, then half
the members of the Low administration
were also criminals. BY request Of Mr..
Deering the court released both prisoners
in the custody Of their counsel
District Attorney Clarke went back and
mopped his brow some more. He said
that Mr.. Deering was relying on a COM
parative reading Of section 1888 OF the
Charter Of 1897 (under which his clients are
being prosecuted) and the revised Char
ter, The Charter of 1897, section 1888,
reads
No member of the Municipal Assembly.
head Of department. chief OF bureau. deputy
thereof or clerk therein or other officer OF the
corporation shall be or become, directly or
indirectly, interested in the purchase or
lease Of any real estate Of other property be-
longing to or taken by the corporation.
The revised Charter reads:
No member Of the Board of Aldermen,
thereof or clerk therein Or other officer OF the
corporation shall be or become interested.
directly or Indirectly. az contracting party.
partner, stockhOlder or otherwise In the
purchase or lease, &c.
Mr. Deering will hold that the word
directly or indirectly" cannot be con-
strued as applying to city officers prior to
the enactment OF the revised Charter who
are stockholders Of corporation: As
proof thereof Mr.. Deerng, Mr.. Clark ex-
poets, will cite the addition in the revised
Charter Of the words italcised above.
IF the first law meant that, he will say in
effect, then there was no need to add
those words to the revised Charter"
Mr.. Clarke contends that the added
words were not substituted for ANYTHING
taken out and must be read as explanatory
of the original intent of the trainers Of the
Charter OF 1897, Mr.. Clarke says that it is
entirely foreign to the spirit and purpose
of the law that stockholders in corpora
tion should be exempt from the restriction
of the Charter Of 1897.
He points out that any two city officers
under that construction of the law might
have formed a corporation have taken all
the stock and then as a corporation have
made all sorts OF corrupt bargains with
the city. He says that is just what Gaffney
and Murphy are accused OF doing.
Mr.. Clarke said further that he had not
gone into the case far enough to know
whether Dock Commissioner Charles F.
Murphy was officially informed that his
brother and Gaffney were the New York
Contracting and Trucking Company when
the contract for the pier was made. II he
was, Mr.. Clarke says, then he was guilty
Of ne elect of duty and is still open to prose-
cution for misdemeanor
The arrests of Gaffney and j. j. Murphy
were made rather earlier than had been
intended because one of the leases on which
their prosecution was based was made on
July g. 1901, and the prosecution of the
offence, il there was an offence, would have
been outlawed II action had not been begun
before yesterday.
There is another lease, dated July 20,
1901, under which they will also be charged
with misdemeanor and on which 1t Is pos
sible charges against Leader Murphy will
also be based.
To Mr.. Clarke, still hopping his brow,
came under subpoena George Kidney of
7 Walker street. on whose letterheads all
the letters in Mr.. Clarke hands regarding
the transactions of one William l. Kidney
with Gaffney and j. j. Murphy are written.
Mr.. Clarke has spent much time trying to
lay hands on William l. Kidney or to find
out something about him.
George Kidney dispelled some Of the
mystery He said that William I. was
his son, that he didn't know that William l.
was mixed up with any dock contracts,
that he never knew that William /. was
associated with or even acquainted with
any politicians, that he hadn't seen Will
liam l. in six months, but had heard that
he was Ill, and finally didn't know where
William l. was and couldn't find out.
George identified son William 3 signatures
on some of the letters In Mr.. Clarke's hands
When George was gone Mr.. Clarke said that
it was queer how some fathers lost track
of their sons, because he had heard that
William l. Kidney had been seen In the
company Of Gaifney and John j. Murphy
within two days.
Mr.. Clarke said It would be interesting
TO learn why George left home six months
ago, just when the Corporation Counsel's
Office first took up the dock scandals.