New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-06-16

inferential questions. He explained TO
the witness that differences had heen
drawn from previous testimony, and 1t
was the desire and duty of the COM
mittee to learn all it could from him
Mr.. Morgan in the hope of clearing
up a nebulous situation.
/" Often the examiner put questions to
Mr.. Morgan that the latter did not
like. but he did not again lose his
temper.
When the committee adjourned. the
inancier leaned across the table where
Mr. Moss had his hands clasped over
some documents, and taking hold of the
examiners forearms with both hands
shook them good naturedly. Mr.. Nor
gan spoke in low tones. about the re-
cent alteration and the two men re-
newed their desire TO be friendly.
Mr. Moss early in the examination
tried 20 establish through the testi-
mony Of the banker that the Inter
borough Rapid Transit Company plus
the financial backing Of j. ?. Morgan
d Co. was an unbeatable proposition
and made competition for subway con-
tracts on the part Of the city or any in
dividual bidder practically an impos-
sibility. He sought TO show that with
the security of the Morgan backing
the lnterboroughh was able, 70 lie back
and get a beautiful wlndfall through
protracted delay.
/ Mr. Morgan could not see il that
way. He expressed personal pride in
+ the big accomplishment OF his firm but
he did not think it was so great that
il could stife competition
He asked Mr.. Moss TO define a wind
fall. and when the definition was. given
/ in the sense that il applied to the In
/ terborough, the financier was unable
/ 10 recognize that there was or had
been a windfall.
Financier Proud of Deal.
The city needed a subway. Mr.. Nor
gan said, and it could be built only by
/ those persons IN position to put IT
through financially. He said 1t was no
/ antee a sum Of S160,OO0,000. The deal
he said, was the biggest ever put
/ through in the country.
81 can tell YOU" he said, that we
needed every drive that was in US to
get that money at that time"
The witness denied having had any
knowledge of the details of the meet
ings between Mr.. Shonts and Mayor
Gaynor at the latter's home in St
James. after which the Mayor changed
/ his mind relative 10 the granting of the
contracts to the Interborough. He ex-
planned that he conferred often, almost
daily. with Mr.. Shonts, but that he did
not, and never tried TO, carry details
in his memory.
/ Mr. Morgan declared repeatedly from
I first to last that there never had been
anything irregular in the procuring OF
. the contracts for the marlborough. II
/ there had been anything questionable
/ in any Of the deals he said he was
most DESTROYS of knowing It.
/ Senator Thompson informed the
committee that both Mr.. Morgan and
his firm had been exceedingly gener-
Gus in supplying information and doc
uments the committee wanted. They
have even gone so far Voluntarily
said the Senator, "as TO supply US
with Photographic copies Of many pri-
waite letters between Mr.. Morgan anc
Mr. Shonts, and others
Mr.. Morgan said he considered il a
big thing to hold a vast sum in readi-
ness and guarantee il would be forth
coming whenever the lnterborough
wanted il. and that the sum Of $3.50.
600 paid to the firm for this guaran'
] Tee WAS Hol ldIE ~
Silent on b. X. T. Bonds.
Senator Thompson then read from
the circular offered by a syndicate
. offering bonds Of the b. r. r.. which
was financed by Kuhn. Loeb & Co.
/ The chairman then asked Mr.. Nor.
gan for his opinion on the way Kuhn
Loeb & Co. did business. but "
/ asked TO be excused from answering
Richard Y. Lindabury. of counsel for
Mr.. Morgan. said he thought it un-
ethical to ask banker to criticise an
/ other banker
/ Senator Thompson was "A few min
| utes late at the afternoon session. Mr.
| Morgan came IN on the minute, and
spent the time asking questions OF the
! operator Of the stereotype machine that
recorded the entire testimony.
THAT is a fine machine" he said
81 never saw one before. IL does not
81 IL. n.