New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-06-24
SUBWAY A GOOD THING" "
CONTRACTORS HELD Up.
admitting Knoring Meyer Might
Incr1minate HIM, Sad Egan.

! yesterday in the investigation of the Cd Dock
Board. now being conducted by District Attor-
| ney Jerome and his assistant. Marshall 3
! Clarke, were:
| That no Tammany whose testimony
would make trouble for the old board will be
allowed to testify if Tammany Hall can pre-
! vent il.
That. on the other hand Charles F. Murphy
| on account of absence from the meetings of the
| board because of sickness will openly and re-
! peatedly offer to submit TO questioning.
! That ]. Sergeant Cram and Charles f. Muir
/ ply will say that Peter F. Meyer had the prac-
/ tical management of the business of the board
That the Degnon-McLean Contracting Com
pany, building the subway between Ann-st. and
| Great Jones-st was held up by the old Dock
Board and compelled to patronize the Brown &
Fleming dumping boards at Canal-st and
| Wall-st.
That this business was worth in the neighbor-
| hood of $4,000
That the name Of Joseph Egan signed TO the
Twenty-ninth-st. buikhead lease and the same
name signed 70 a Dock Board contract wit
| messed by William H. Burke for filling In De-
| hind bulkheads in Harlem. at cost OF s4'ooo'
are not signed in the same Handwriting
| The friends of Brown & Fleming said yester-
| day that it mistake to assume tnat the
firm had made 100000 in three years. as ap-
parently set forth IN the papers in the suit 1or
| dissolution brought by John Fleming Inc
| firms friends assert that, while MT Flenills
has not been member Of the firm long, the
| firms assets have been accumulatlng for ten
| or q dozen years. Charles A Browns answer
| to his partners complaint in the dissolution
! action excited a good deal Of interest at the
Office Of the County Clerk yesterday Mr.. Brown
| says in effect that when Fleming went 10 "olh
| for him twenty years ago ne was coiiiliio1
| laborer and absolutely without education; that
| when Fleming alleges that he had read the an
| swer of Brown in the pending dissolution actioh
| he states what is manifestly an untruth' as he
| CF1eming) cannot read that in the last t"eh'S
years FIeming's development as a business man
has been rapid until at the time OF the bringing
! of the action he owned one-naf interest III
| the business; that his habits are primitive anu
| sjuple and his expenses small and that thlS
| fact enabled him 20 live without drawing much
| of his money from the firms recelpts' llia' ''i
| deponent (Brown) lives or a liberal scale a'H
! supports a large family and establishments anu
| that the spectacle of Brown living on Hloie
| liberal scale apparently has influenced the -
norant mind of the plaintiff. who is una Die -
add up column of figures MI Brown AUS
| that the firm is abundantly solvent its gross
| assets being about Sl,lo0E"' "hlie i's l"Oli-
| ties do not exceed S25o,0on.
useful IN SECURING kCSl->H-1N'
| Mr. Fleming was the man trusted by Rlcharo
| Croker, Charles F. Murphy and Daniel + NC
| Mahon. The firms leases were maze IN NE
| name Mr.. Brown, in his affidavit says OF MIN
He is practical politician in the city bsran and faS as
Tpe Spen arm rTs But the plaintiff has absolutely no
s4et he n write his own name. al accomplish
Tnent which has comparatively recenOS oee'
quired
Mr. Fleming was the man who sued for d ans
solution of his firm and the appointment OF d
-ooot,.a~ The receiver was James ]. Coogan.
picbar6 Croker.s personal friend. Mr.. Brown
annaren.Iv saw that the ascendancy OF FIemHls
in the firm would be complete, and brought III
pc,ion through his counsel David Mcclure 10
have MI Coogan removed. Transcripts OF uh-
settled judgments against Mr. Coogan amount
ing 70 many thousands of dollars were mace d
mart of Mr. Browns complaint, and the ApPeI-
late Division last month ordered that MI too
gan should not continue receiver The case
is appeal
Considara HE Iicht is shed the business
rnethods of Brown & Fleming by the papers now
in the nossesson Of the District Attorney tarH
in the spriDg of 1901 the Degnon Mclean CON
tracting Company complained to John Il. NC
Donald and William Barclay Parsons that II was
hindered in its work on account OF the coieeS'-
ed condition of affairs on the Canal-st dumping
board, held by Brown q flernliiS ph d vase O.
50 500 q wear. The Canal-st dumping board was
almost overwhelmed with business as the sub
wsv earth va only part OF what was car'so
TO it to he shipped away in sco"s
NO DUMPING BOARD FOR MDoNALh
The condition Of things at Canal-st became so
bad that John & Mcdonald. the subway con
tractor apnIied TO the Dock Board for dump
ing board privilege on Pier (old) No. ~, East
River. near the pier of the Long Island Railroad
COMPANY The official minutes contain these two
significant entries
tractor for the Ra pid Transit subway CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY renewing his application TOR PERMISSION
teriaI on Pier oldl No 2s, East River Application
denied. ,, ,,.r,,,,.Ia md the
Degnon- Mel can Contracting Company. requesting
permission erect dumping hoard OF F''F 'ol'p
This did not end the matter, After the hnai-
denial Mr. Mcdonald, Chief Engineer Parsons
and Chief Engineer Fisher of the Degnon-M Nc
Lean company united in Application to the
Supreme Court for writ Of certiorari TO com
pei the Dock Board to grant them PERMISSION TO
hui- a dumping board. Mr. Parsons s affidavit
said that the Degnon-McLeaH company be
+,.ar the Postoff1ce and Great Jones-st..
r,,,,st exeavate 345.O0O cubic yards of earth
and rock. that the earth Of an objection
abie kind and that on account of Instructions
=. the Canal-st pier. they should be allowed 10
hs1.e q durnpinC board elsewhere. The court re-
fused their application. holding that Jurisdiction
vas with the Dock Board. AT 81 cents cubic
ward to get rid OF the :;450eo yards. must have
cost the company about S120,000. and nearly all
NJ this material went 10 the Canal-st.. pier.
rIt that was not the eTd O. the profit from