Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1914-01-30
STEWART SAYS
1T WAS GAFFNEYn
Memory Refreshed, Admits It
Was Murphy's Friend Who
Asked Graft Money.

NEW YORK, Jan. 80.-James c.
Stewart told District Attorney Whit
man yesterday that it was James 2.
| Gaffney who asked him for s15o.ee0
while the Canal Board was consider
ing Stewards bids on barge canal con-
1 tracts
! Mr.. Stewart also told Mr. Whitman
that he went twice to Charles F. Muir
/ ply. the Tammany leader. to protest
! against the request of Gafney. On
/ his first visit he told Murphy about
| the visit Of Gaffney and that he would
expose the whole business, unless
1 Gaffney was called on. On his second.
visit Murphy refused to see him.
Mr.. Stewart spent two hours with
| the district attorney. He was accom-
panied by his brother, Alexander
! Stewart. and by Almuth c. vandiver,
the law partner of George Gordon
Battle and United States Senator
James A. o'Gorman.
Stewart Admits Error.
The district attorney was told that
Mr. Stewart had been in error when
he said he did not know James r
Carney and that he would 20 before
the grand jury today and correct the
error Mr.. Stewart was told with
equal frankness that in case he did
not correct the error witnesses would
! be called Immediately to testify that
Stewart and Gaffney are well ac-
! quainted.
Mr.. Whitman will adopt similar tao
\ tics with James G. Shaw in the matter
1 of a Of -
an equeduct contract. Mr. Shaw was
positive On his first appearance that
ne did not pay the money to James E
/ Ganney. On his second appearances
he was not so sure that it was not
| Gaffney. mir. Whitman is hopeful
that his third session with the grand
jury will effect complete recovery OF
memory.
II was the intention of Mr. Whit
man to call Stewart yesterday, but
i've members of the Canal Board
which considered the Stewart bids re-
/ sponded 10 the request of Distr ct Al
/ torney Whitman to appear before the
! grand jury, and Mr. Stewart said he
would wait until today II is believed
that the delay will assist Mr. Whit
man, for the reason that what APP
| pears to have been an inconsistency in
| the award of barge canal contracts
has been discovered.
| Stewards first bid of s1,5s9. 312 rs on
contract 72a was rejected because it
was greatly in excess of the State en-
gfneer's estimate on the cost OF the
work. The P. McGovern Company
made bid of s1,217, 01606 on contract
ia, similar piece of work Stewart
&. Co. then made a bid Of s., 534, 7322s
on contract 72a.
Show Canal Board Records.
/ The records of the Canal Board.
which were before the grand Jury
yesterday, show that Notwithstanding
/ the fact that the McGovern bid ex-
ceeded by more than 20 per cent. the
estimate Of the State engineer the
contract was nevertheless awarded to
the McGovern Company while that
of the Stewart Company was rejected
because it was so much higher than
the estimate of the State engineer
But what interested Mr.. Whitman
and members of the grand jury was
the fact that the bid of Stewart for
this work. which was finally accept
ed, was 1884 ,603.25, or s129 less than
the previous bid, which had been re.
jected as excessive.
It was brought out through the
questioning of Superintendent Of
Public Works Duncan ". Peck that,
Will luS dpPiOfdi Oh the OaIidl bOdIus
State Engineer John A. Bensel had
revised his estimates to such an e1-
tent that the excess of Stewards bid
not only fell far below the excess OF
the McGovern bid on Tia, but also fell
below 10 per cent OF the State engi-
neer's estimate. so that the superins
/ tendent of public works could award
the contract to Stewart without the
/ approval of the Canal Board.
4 The original estimate of the State
engineer was s1,125,036. His revised
estimate was 81, 1896. $3.50. Mr.. Whit
man thereupon drove home &c the
minds of the grand jurors the fact
that $271 $3.50 had been added to the
estimate TO Offset an excess of s40s,-
$685. on Stewards second hid. and TO
make it possible for him 70 get the
work without the approval of the en-
| tire Canal Board.