New-York tribune., 1909-10-19
AMORY MAKES CHARGES
ITINS REPELS ATTACK.
focused of Suppressing Facts an
Street RdiIscay Case.

colonel William y. Amory made public yester-
6sv an AFFIDAVIT in which he charged William NJ
Iyins with failing TO disclose facts which would
have convicted tho managers OF the METROPOLITAN
Street Railway Company in the investigation be-
fore the Public Service Commission. He called Mr
wins the hireling OF Thomas T. Ryan
lie also said that Ivins became financially en-
bsrrassed after retainer OF $4,000 a wear from
the Ryan rubber corporation had been cut off and
that short while after that he had plenty OF
money although he had not yet obtained any fee
from the Public Service Commisson, which had
not appointed him counsel He also added that
the commission paid ar. WINS $4,000 to shield Mr.
Ryan.
Mr. Twins said that the AFFIDAVIT was fun OF mis-
statements and unworthy OF attention He mem
toned that he could refute most OF Il by produc-
ng Colonel Amory's own letters. and said that he
had been lighting Mr. Ryan and all his rubber
interests as hard he knew how
In the affidavit Colonel Amory said:
Mr Iyins, who had in his possession all the facts
sgers Of the Metropolitan Street Railway Company
q irsnsSSon ,a Which was more uniaEful and
street ferries lyinss dismissal OF Mr.. Brady
With The words, That is all, Mr.. Brady has be-
! convinced Mr.. Twins at that time had an
for the deliberate suppression OF the facts and he
promptly passed from the investigation OF the
fraction deal. and diverted the sttention Of the
public from Ryan's case by taking up the investi-
cation OF Anthony N Brady's Brooklyn Rapid
Transit properties
ny WINS IN reIlE 10 1ne cnarge MADE against
him in this campaign that re was hireling has
asked the question. Whose hireling am I?F Can
there be any doubt in the public mind? I believe
him 10 he the hireling OF Thomas F. Ryan.
Mr.. Twins. in a statement answering Colonel
Amorys charges. said:
have seen Mr Amory's affidavit II is un-
worthy or attention. Mr.. Amory is suing
me for services claimed TO have been rendered by
MN TO me Tor two years prior To the inVestiga-
ton rendered by the Public Service Commission.
lie brought this action after I declined TO take
any part IN securing his retainer accountant
The afidavit is so full Of misstatements that il
Is impossible for me 10 take them up in detail.
even though they were OF interest to any one.
f II were OF interest could refute the major
part Of II by AmOry's own letters. sorry for
hlm, for ne could not take such oath he has
II ae were really responsible.
The one thing which notice IN il that is really
NJ Importance is this: He says, under oath be ft
remembered: Il am convinced Mr.. WINS at that
time had an understanding with Ryan or his rep
resentstives for the deliberate suppression OF
these facts" Note. first. that Mr.. Amory is
swearing, not 10 fact. but 20 a conviction Read
the rest Of his affidavit and decide for yourself
what YOU think his conviction is worth.
As matter OF fact, / had not seen Mr.. Ryan
OF any Of his associates for months except as I
hag met ms counsel In court as my adversaries.
The chief difficulty with Mr. Amory seems 10 be
that the investigation was conducted the COM
mission and its counsel thought II ought to be
conducted instead OF as he, MI Amory, desired
70 have II conducted.
one OF the reporters states that il is understood
that counselship for the United States Rubber
true that 7 have been in the past counsel for the
United States Rubber Company but that was
many years ago. When became a candidate for
Mayor in 1905 ] Was officer of the General
Rubber Company. Mr. Ryan was in no u-av a.
Tectly indirectly, interested in the company.
but, on the other hand. was deeply interested in
Ryan and all Of his rubber interests as hard as
knew how