New-York tribune., 1907-10-04

ei s'5;i S tn. ;asTG s sFG I'D asd
9TGas was one Of The ,Sa why yog TcT wSTe
The fact that was acquainted with everybody in
the state vss reason of my employment. no
doubt. Doesn't IL seem reasonable?
THE ELsBERG BILL
Q.-Do you remember that during this particulaI
period the Esberg bill was before the LAsisiatuFe'
o.7That is the Elsberg bill which was defeated'
oLwers YOU opposed to the Elsberg bill? Al
was yes My company was not. ,,,,,
>Q-Your company was In favor OF that pill A., A..
proposition. l thought the bill bad one; he
Rut ~e at naa the neSt ses, Of the legislature
call your attention sa Eat6 to hs S feet that your % aRs
the Legislature by counsel namely Mr.. Beardman.
Member m Theher Nh %s there
am inclined TO think notoand opposed the SiIi
o-The bill was defeated, then; without any ef-
that. spoke against the bill every chance got.
Mr.. Quigg did not remember that the Elsberg
bill introduced in 1906 contained clause speci-
flying that subways should bs laid out with a
view TO their operation independent OF existing
subways. but with view also Of connection, by
transfers or otherwise. and such coordination
OF lines as should serve the public interest He
did remember that in some such situation Sem
ator Grady made notion which was carried
but could not recall If that motion was 20 strike
out this clause.
He aid not know either that a clause
written into the bill permitting the Rapid
Transit Commission to continue to make a con-
tract with the same person for construction
equipment and operation of future subways
''In 1906" he said, II had nothing to do with
the Legislature or with the Elsherg bill. was
disgusted with the position our corporation took
with regard to the Elsberg bill"
He had much trouble, ne explained. to get the
company TO be represented at all in opposition 10
the measure He did not recall anything about
the Shanahan BILL designed TO prevent mergers
of railroad corporations Then in general ex-
PLANTATION of his legislative activities Mr.. Quisg
said that uD to the time of the Amory affair,
when first he became intimately associated with
the company's affairs. almost all his business at
Albany concerned consultations between him
and Tracy Rogers. president of the Street Rail
way Association which cared for the legislative
affairs of its members
CHECKS NOT FOUND.
Before Mr. Quigg went the stand Mr..
WINS read a letter from Masten & Nichols.
counsel 10 the receivers for the street railway
system saying that they had instructed the
employees 10 produce all books and papers de-
sired by the commission. But there was nobody
who could furnish more information regarding
the checks desired by Mr.. Wins than could Mr..
| again said ne had failed TO find the checks.
He had not searched much since the last time
he testified because before that time he had
searched so thoroughly he was convinced he
| could never find the checks. He got himself
| sadly tangled when Mr.. WINS again asked him
why the name of the payee not written
the stubs OF the checks. First he said II was
so the clerks might not crafty idle curiosity
but when Mr.. WINS said he had testified that
anybody in the office had access to the checks
themselves, he had to admit that the clerks
could have gone to the boxes where the checks
were stored and found TO whom the money
went
MIR. Ivins read letter from ex-Judge William
n. Cohen, in which he said that Mr. Ouigg
never had retained him in connection with the
East Side Rapid Transit Association He went
into this enterprise he said. because among the
members of the association were men whom he
knew. and its aims coincided with his own
views David Steckler asked him TO serve as
counsel and when he finished his services the
bill was addressed care OF Mr. SteckIer Fred
er'ck Uhlman paid him his $1,000 retainer
Guthrie. Cravath & Henderson his fee of s5 ooo