The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1915-12-07
HAYWARD IS SLATED
FOR INGALLS, JOB
Acting Head otNeW YOrk's Pub
lie Utilities Likely to Get
Permanent Designation.

II
charge OF the commission, following
the removal by Governor Whitman
lof Chairman Edward T.. Mccall. The
/ governor planned to name at once
McCalls successor for his unexpired
term, and it was understood that
Hayward's designation Nwould be
made permanent.
Judge Mccall was removed chiefly
because he held SS7 shares OF stock
of the Kings County Electric Light
and Power Company Many other.
charges were filed against him, but
they were considered trivial by Gov
ernor Whitman.
| II was contended by Judge Mccall
that he transferred the stock in
question to his wife prior 70 hts APP
pointment as commissioner. Govern
or Whitman decided the evidence did
not substantiate this.
Judge Mccall would not discuss his
removal
II have nothing to gay," was his
only answer to every question.
Governors Views.
Governor Whitman In his removal
order summed up the case a. follows:
att Is conceded by the commission
err that prior to his appointment as
public service commissioned. he was
the owner OF Ss7 shares OF the stoc'S.
OF the Kings County Electric Light
and Power Company; that the stock
stood snd that II still stands in the
name of John j. Mackin; that the
certificates were Endorsed by Mackin
IN blank within week after they
were issued; that the checks for div
idends we're made payable to the or
der of John J. Mackin and addressed
20 and -Gceived by him regularly at
the county court house, New York
county; that Mackln did not know
any lrore about it than a child in tbs
cradle; that Immediately prior to
his appo.ntmeut as commissioner, ne,
Mccall. transferred the said stock to
Ella Gaynor Mccall: that such trans
fer was occasioned by the statute
aal done for that purpose; that he
! could not fix the exact time of the
rilca ed transfer of the stock 10 Mrs.
Mccall; that the certificates continued
IN The name of Mackin; that no con-
secretion was paid in cash by Mrs.
Mccall; that the dividend checks coz
tinued to be Endorsed by MacEin and
were indorsed for deposit by Ella
! tiaynor Mccall: that the payment o.
the stock transfer tax upon the trans
fer TO Mrs. Mccall was entirely over
looked; that no stock transfer tax
stamps were affixed to the assign
ment of said certificate; that the
Franklin Trust Company, the trans
Ser agent had no notice of any such
transfer; that no written memoran-
dunn OF the transfer of the stock to
Mrs, Mccall can be found: that he.
Mccall, had the impression that he
had made q pencil memorandum mot
in connection with any legal obliga-
l N N Nf hA
McCall's Word Alone.
There Is nothing before me which in
any way evidences the transfer Of the
stock from the ownership OF the COM
missioner to that of his wife. except
the commissioners unsupported state
ment, and while / have no desire to
question the truth of his statement that
he intended to transfer the stock to his
wife, there Is no competent evidence
before me to show that such transfer
was ever made.
1T would have been an easy matter
for the commissioner to have filled in
the name of his wife in the blank on
the certificate. which was already
Endorsed by Mackin. The provisions OF
law relative to the transfer are sim
pie and clear. and there Is no evidence
anywhere of the slightest desire to COM
ply with the elementary legal require
ments. I do not believe that a transfer
within the'meaning OF the law was ever
made.
n Another Law Violated.
'Ir we assume that there was such a
ptransfer we have this situation-a for
mer justice of the supreme court. when
one oftense Is charged against him, Of
fers as a defense that he has committed
another. II 1t be true that he trans
ferred this stock to his wife and that
he wrote a memorandum at that time
setting forth his purpose to transfer,
his failure to pay the tax required by
law was crime for which he could be
imprisoned for six months. OF course.
the fact that the statute OF Limitation
protectsl him now from prosecution has
no bearing upon the question involved
am entirely willing to accept the
statement that his carelessness, which
covered q period of two years. Is alone
responsible for the compromising sit
uation in which he is placed