New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-10-29
Votes in Board of Estimate
Were Opposed to Interests
of His Clients, He Says.
JUDGMENT NOT SWAYED
Extensions to Queens and The
Bronx Would Have Aided
Him, Yet He Opposed
Them, He Declares.

* Mulldn, or winch ne is tne SeHiol pm
ner. had taken fee of 5000 from cor
poration that would be benefited by the
extension OF the subway system to
Corona, Long Island.
Mr.. Mitchell said that his partner. Mr.
Mullan, had drawn trust indenture 10
secure an Issue of bonds for the queens
corporation and that he had gone to Eu-
rope in an effort TO float the bond issue.
He brought out the fact that while his
firm had been engaged In this work ne
had voted consistently against the va
rious subway offers that included the ex-
| tension Of the rapid transit system IN
Queens. He did vote TO approve the con-
tract for the construction OF the queens
route but only in accordance with MS
policy OF voting for all the construction
contracts, that the work might not be de-
layed II was not the construction 10
which he was opposed, but the proposed
operating contracts.
Mr. Mitchell declared also that he had
voted against the Interborough's proposal
which would have increased in value some
property he owns in The Bronx
Tammany Gun" Spiked.
Reports have been I'm circulation that
| Tammany was about to spring a DIG
story" that would show the unhtness OF
Mr.. Mitchell to be Mayor. They became
so definite yesterday as TO say that Eh'
ward T. Mccall would tell the story at
the ratification meeting in Tammany Hail
last night. He evidently thought better
of Il.
| However. as the story was in circula-
| ton, Mr.. Mitchell decided To make tuIi
| statement The entire connection OF MT.
| Mitchell with the matter was investigated
in July by Norman Hapgood. william
Law Schieffelin and Henry MoskowitZ, or
| the fusion committee. They saw MT
| Mitchell. and his explanation was so saus-
| factory that the story did not come UP at
| the meeting when Mr.. Mitchell Wis n''ni-
mated for Mayor. Mr.. MltcheIs state
ment follows:
THE charge that in any way Whatever
| was Influenced, directly or indirectly
/ in favor Of the greensboro Corporation
| Is wholly untrue. The suggestion that
my legal work for. or relations with, that
| company, or with any corporation or per-
son. ever intertered with or in any way
| affected my official actions or any duty
TO the city, is equally false. The facts
are these:
.First-As to employment by the
| greensboro Corporation:
I'm the closing days Of December. 1910
the greensboro Cooperation. which was a
/ realty company, came TO my firms law
/ "A. 81 81 NO
! countant. Maryyn Scudder, who had just
/ been employed BY that company. The
company wished professional services in
/ the preparation OF a trust indenture 10
secure a proposed issue Of bonds. This
| employment was accepted by my office.
| NV law partner. Mr.. Mulan. devised and
| drew this instrument. The work. occu-
| pied many months involving constant
conferences with the representatives OF
| the company. counsel for banking houses
in this country, and the representatives
Of the trust company which ultimately
| acted as trustee. The work was practi-
caly finished I'm the late summer Of 1911.
Went Abroad to Sell Bonds.
After testing the American market for
securities the company determined, be-
cause Of bad conditions here TO attemp,
to place its bond issue abroad II desired
my partner. Mr. Mullan. TO go abroad,
but ultimately it was decided that
should go instead ! went abroad on
July ~. 1911. and returned in the last
days OF September.
| The bond Issue was presented to vari-
Gus European bankers I'm London, Paris.
Berlin and Amsterdam, and was finally
tentatively accepted by a London house,
which sent it's representative 10 New
York in October, 1871, TO close the ar
! ranCements Due 10 the disturbance of
the London market following the Italian
Turkish war. the London house cabled
IFS representative here at the last mo-
ment. November. 1911. abandoning the UNI
! der,aking and the issue fell through.
THAT brought TO an end the legal SER
vices Of my firm for the company in the
matter of this bond issue. The com
| many has remained a client of the office
down to the present time. The corpora
ton was charged for all of this work
covering almost IA year. the sum of So
600 az fee. plus my actual expenses In
| Europe in connection with the business
of IN. company. which amounted to 81
lI5b The services rendered were worth
on the basis OF the usual and ordinary
fees charged in such cases. considerably
more than the sum charged. The cor
| poration was at that time. however. In
serious financial straits, and the charge
was made moderate in view OF Its condi.
ton.
'Second-As To the bearing OF all this
on the rapid transit situation:
81 As to contracts generally.
From the beginning Of the present city
administration In January. 1910, l con
sIstently urged the construction OF new
and separate system OF subways with
city money, exclusively | urged con
struction Immediately Of all sections oil
branches OF such a subway system, and
negotiations for an operator while con
struction was under way.
Opposed marlborough Offer.
I'm accordance with that policy | op'
| posed the Interborough's exclusive Offer
OF December S. 1910. When Mr.. McAneny
as chairman OF a committee, OF which
was not n member, presented a report ir
favor OF a dual subway system on June
r. 1911. offering specific terms, both &c
the Interborough company and to the
Rrooklyn Rapid Transit Company. which
7 considered to be fair voted 10 adop
the report.
A. rafn tnI tk.t off or