New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-04-22
THREE WITNESSES.

The lighting investigation committee anu
through its agency. the public nave listened 'uiS
week 10 three interesting Witnesses CoIhIuIS
sioner Oakley he of the peculiar contracts mas
told at length and in rather plalnuVe accents
all that he found II necessary or convenient u
tell about his transactions in behalf OF the city
with The puryeyors of gas and electricity Mr.
Oakley appeared extremely anxious TO have II
understood that he is thinking about the munich
nal welfare first last and all the time; but some
how his testimony failed to carry conviction on
that Doint Benevolent citizens would have
been glad to take his word for il, but they coud
not help wondering why he thought 1t deslraDie
10 say so much to the lighting companies ana
so little TO his associates in the city govern
ment Grave questions of law were involved
but he did not solicit the opinion of the counsel
to the corporation. Financial Considerations
were Of prime Importance, but he MADE up MS
mind early in the negotiations That lie had no
further need of the Controllers advice. He GER
tainly owed a debt of gratitude to the Mayor
a heavier debt in the judgment of the public
than the Mayor should have enabled him to in
cur-but the Mayor was astonished TO learn that
the contracts had been signed having heard
nothing about them subsequent to a deSultory
conversation with his commissioner IN the
spring. Mr.. Oakley in the course of his test-
mony pathetically remarked that he had con-
fidentIv expected TO receive the congratulations
of the public. Never mind about that now,
responded Mr. Hughes. we have not yet got
10 the cOngratulatoTy stage" The general I'M
preston is that the investigation Will be closed
before that stage is reached
Mayor Mcclellan was good witness for hlm-
self. and left the stand without any loss of
credit. excepting in one respect. He showed
that Mr. Oakley's dealings with the monopoly
had never received his approval; that he con-
sidered them unwse; that he believed the city
had been in a legally advantageous position
which IT was foolish To surrender, and that he
was in earnest in his efforts to put the city where
it could dictate instead of being dictated to.
Such at least was the strong impression which
his testimony and his demeanor created. But
the Mayor failed TO show how Mr.. Oakley OD-
tanned his confidence and why he retains IT.
When the Commissioner faded out of the inves-
tgation he did not leave an agreeable impression
behind him Since the Mayor expressly disap-
proves of Mr. Oakley's policy it is difficult to
guess his reason for approving of Mr.. Oakley.
In the general estimation that gentlemans per
formances exactly correspond to his antecedents
and reputation Moreover, the verdict of the
Mayor himself seems 10 be. Not guilty, but
don't do it again" The trouble is that Mr.,
Oakley is likely TO do it again, or something
worse As we have said. the Mayor was
capable witness. but his attachment to MI oak
ley is mysterious.
Mr.. Charles F. Murphy exhibited to the public
gaze on Thursday placid temper and loyal
memory. From first 10 last he did not recollect
single inconvenient circumstance while he
displayed throughout a positively touching con-
fidence in the qualifications for municipal office
of the men recommended by Tammany Hall.
Profoundly interested as he was in the admin
istratiOn Of the city government he had never
felt the slightest inclination to inquire into de-
tails. 1t enough for him to know that Mr..
Oakley and the rest were at their posts. That
knowledge enabled him to reserve his energies
for the large affairs of craftsmanship. and, by
way of relaxation. 10 take an occasional flyer
in Wall Street when the omens relating to gas
and electric light securities appeared favorable
There has been an Interesting evolution in Tam
many leadership. Mir, Murphy is a considerably
smoother article than his iilustriouS predecessor