New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-10-30

,hot the services that were rendered
10 the firm Of Mitchell & Mullen, insteao
~ being. as one would infer from tne
statement issued by you. the dra"ihe
~ an original indenture, involving great
labor and service, were the mere
canning and changing Of phraseoiosy
and terms OF an instrument areauS
drawn? -
Mr. Mitchell claims that Mr. Marvin
scudder. who had just been emploSou
nv the Greensboro Corporation reeoli'-
mended his firm to that company luz
employment.
u would like to ask Mr.. Mitchell II ne
10 NOT mistaken in this, too. AND VIII
he be kind enough to state what "orA
Ar scudder ever did for the Queens
boro Corporation?
Asks a Few Questions.
"Nir Mitchell goes on to say that ne
went 10 Europe in July. l9ll' 10 try u
Mace the bond issue Of this corpora
ton abroad. and he states that in aool-
ton 70 the 5000 he had been paid ne
rocoived some $1,000 for his expenses
was If agreed with Mr.. Mitchell that ne
was 70 receive any further compensa-
ton for those services in the fotation OF
this bond issue?
And if so. why has he omitted 10
state what that compensation was
TO be?
81 now ask Mr.. Mitchell If ne was
not TO receive for his services that ne
was rendering in the flotation OF these
bonds 3 per cent on the amount OF the
issue. some $3.0O0.OOO?
MIR. Mitchell says in his statement
From the beginning of the present
CITY administration, in January l9lo'
consistently urged the construction
Of a new and separate system OF SUD-
WAYS with city money exclusively WIN
negotiations for an operator While con-
struction was under way think IN
that statement Mr.. Mitchell Is quite
correct. but never was there any sus-
sestion coming from him or opposi'ioh
on his part to that particular system
If rand transit that entered into the
Greensboro Corporation area, although
he opposed the connection with the
Steinway tunnel.
Mr.. Mitchell in his statement CLAIMS
credit for having opposed the inter
borough's 8 and per cent offer, Whlch
offer provided thoroughly for queens,
He saws that every Queens interest
uas strongly in favor Of its accept
snce and the Greensboro Corporation
.employed special counsel to represent
it, But in his very next utterance ne
tells YOU that within ten days there
after on July p. 1911. just shortly
before he left for Europe, he voted Tor
an award of precisely the same route
10 the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Com
nanv as far as it affected the interests
of the Greensboro Corporation.
Say Land Was Vacant.
This tract of land, which was owned
by the Greensboro Corporation con-
sisted Of about two hundred and h1ty
acres. upon which there were but h1ty
houses erected, so that practically we
NAV treat it as an open area, with no
transit facilities whatever except in
frequent trolley service, and this was
so when Mr. Mitchell went to Europe
according to his own statement, to float
the bonds of this corporation.
Now, upon Mr. Mitchers own state
ment and upon these facts which !
have given in conjunction herewith
would like to ask Mr.. Mitchell these
questions:
What representations did you make
10 the banking houses in Europe IS to
the value of this land upon which these
bonds were to be issued?
Did you make a statement Of its
present velue?
Did you offer a future valuation?
"If you did, what did YOU base the
increased valuation upon?
WAS it not upon the projected rapid
transit award which you voted for on
July u, FIVE days before you left for
Europe?
And do you feel that, in the light of
the fact that you were an official
clothed with authority to vote on the
question Of giving rapid transit to this
section, your action or the action
of your firm is a defensible one in the
role that you have played as an attpr-
ney to this corporation while an en-
ploye and an official Of the city?
Discusses Mr.. McDoueali.