New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-05-10
FIRMS FAILURE MADE
HIM SICK, HE SAYS
Took No Interest in Contract
Shonts Offered After That,
Engineer TestifieS.

cent above cost basis, was on the wit
ness stand, and the subject which had
figured in the negotiations between Mr..
Stevens and T. P. Shonts, president OF
the Interborough, was brought up
again by Frank Moss, the committees
counsel.
"What commitments and obligations
did Mr.. Shonts have 20 you p Mr.. Moss
asked the witness.
1.-THE only commitments I knew about
were that he told me no would like me
TO have the work. and that he would do
his best 70 let me have it," Mr.. Stevens
replied.
Didn't you have any conversation
with Mr.. Shonts about commitments
and obligations ?7 asked Mr.. Moss.
'T don't recall any such converse
ton replied the witness.
Seeks to Refresh Memory.
Didn't you tell him you would SUB
let your eLtire private contract 70
other parties ?" asked counsel
ct did not" was the reply.
With the remark that he did Lot
wish 10 involve the witness and Mr..
Shonts in contradictory statements Mr..
Moss read from the record of the tes-
timony of the marlborough president,
in which he said he had had CONVEX
sstiou TO that effect with Stevens. j.
I. Onaekenbush, counsel for the Inter
horough. suggested that Mr.. Moss
MIGHT he confused in the points made
bv Mr.. Shonts in his testimony, but Mr..
Moss and Senator Thompson, chairman
of the committee, insisted that the
Sbonts testimony was read from inc
ofscial record. Mr. Stevens insisted
that he could not recall any such con-
VIBRATIONS with Mr.. Shonts, and the
committee adjourned until to-day, when
Mr.. Stevens and Mr.. Shonts both Will
be recalled and questioned ABOUT the
matter.
Contract Goes to Another Firm
,s-be nroposed Stevens contract raised
20 much objection in the Board OF Es-
.iroata and from other sources that the
marlborough did not award the WORK
10 Stevens. The T. A Gillespie Com
many got il on the same basis bld py
Stevens-15 per cent above cost IheIe
was some talk among the lnteroorough
directors of letting the contract 10
Stevens on a 10 per cent basis, ana ne
testified Yesterday that he would have
taken il on even ~ per cent basis
"Details of the so-called Stevens con-
tract were left pretty much IN Mr.,
Shonts's hands, were they not! sskeu
Mr.. Moss. LTD
"You trusted Mr. Shonts TO FIX the
nercentage basis with his board OF d.
rectors, did you mott" Mr.. Moss asked
"Well, I would have had 70 be satis-
fed myself" said the witness,
you say you would have taken II on
tn per cent basis, continued NM, ml.
Moss. "Wouldn't you have been willing
10 let Mr.. Shonts do what he wanted
with the difference between the IN
and 10 per cent?"
"Whatever the contract called Tor
would have got"
@Suppose there had been necessary
disbursements TO be made, you would
have trusted Mr.. Shonts TO make them'
wouldn't YOU ?" asked Mr.. Moss.
Bid without Plant.
The witness demurred and said he
would have expected to get whatever
the contract called for.
In showing that Mr.. Stevens had no
plant with which 10 do the work, coun-
sci for the committee wanted to know
if Mr.. Shonts had offered him the
use of the Interboro plant. The wit
mes said Mr.. Shonts had made no such
offer, but would have got his own
plant. -,
4alx nd
name Of YOUR company" said Mr.. Moss.
"Now didn't you make the bid with the
idea of turning the contract over 10
others ?"
Mr.. Stevens replied in the negative.
Mr.. Moss tried 20 show that the d.
rectors in the Stevens Company In
Guiding Morgan J. O'Brien, jr., Mich
olas f. Brady, William Joyce, and
Philip +. Hayes represented stevens 3
bidding privately on the third-tracklng
contract, and later let this company
fail while constructing part OF the
subway in the Bronx.
Stevens admitted that he only need
ed $4,000 on the s2.250,000 Bronx
contract to carry IL through with 10
per cent. profit for the company. he
said some of the directors questioned
whether there would be any profit. but
that that they had never given him
any other reason for letting him fail
when the work was so near compile
ton.
Failure Broke Spirit.
"Just how did you lose the third
tracking contract" asked Mr.. Moss.
"My spirit'was broken by my failure
20 finance my own company" replied
the witness, "and l decided i didn't
want any more contracting and thought
] would stick TO my legitimate business
Of engineering
Mr.. Stevens said he went away after
his. failure, and when he returned in
the fall saw Mr.. Shonts. Stevens told
Mr.. Shonts he understood the con-
tract had been let 70 Gillespie, but Mr..
Shonts denied this, and asked if he
would still consider the 10 per cent bid
he had made. Stevens said he didn't
take much interest in Il after that
T. II. Gillespie, son of the head Of
the Gillespie company, appeared in an
swer 10 a subpoena yesterday, but was
excused until tomorrow morning. Mr..
Moss will question Mr.. Gillespie about
certain sums Of money which were said
10 have been transferred from the New
York Office Of the Gillespie company
10 their Pittsburgh Office. IL has been
limited that this money was related in
some way to the 100000 yellow
dog" fund.
Nicoll Shocks Moss.
Delaney Nicoll shocked and amused
the chairman and counsel Of the com
nittee during his testimony. He in
formed them that the committee had