The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1916-06-02
THOMPSON AT SEA
IN DOCK DEAL TALE
Aucrbach. Company's Counsel,
Refuses Any Details Of
"Outside Counsel"
r. DE c. SULLIVAN G

The Thompson legislative COMMITTEES
rslied yesterday to learn anything more
definite about an alleged $4,000 fee
In connection with the Sinking Fund
COMMISSIONS attitude toward the city's
purchase Of land for subway purposes
from the New York Dock Company.
Joseph S. Auerbach, Of the law Arm Of
Davies. Auerbach & Cornell. who was
called by the committee for enlighten-
ment, as one Of counsel TO the Dock
company. simply said that a suggestion
was made for additional counsel dur.
Ing the negotiations and was rejected.
He would not answer further questions
upon the subject.
Meanwhile former senator William II.
Reynolds. whose name was mentioned
BY Fairfax s. Landstreet, chairman Of
me Dock company directors, In connec
ton with the matter. issued Il denial that
he had anything to do with the Dock
Company's negotiations.
Reynolds Promises Action.
'rhe mention Of my name In connec-
Ton with this matter" said Mr.. Reyn-
olds. "fs an outrage n an infamous
libel. There is not a word Of truth in
the statement that I had any connection
with the Dock company matter or that
I had anything whatever to do with 1t,
and I am going to hold every man In
volvcd 90 the strictest liability"
Mayor Mitchell did not visit City Hall
at all yesterday. but last night he gave
out q copy Of a letter which had been
sent to him yesterday by Dock Com
missioner r. A. c. Smith. reciting in de-
iail all negotiations between the city
and the New York Dock Company rela
live TO the subway easements In Clark
and Montague streets. Brooklyn. 1t
vas In connection with these transac.
tons that menuon vas made before thu
Thompson committee on Wednesday OF
the $4,000 fee to Smooth out" things
The letter stated that the Dock Com.
missioner wished to review the essen.
'ial facts, whatever impression hal
been gathered from the testimony be.
fore the Thompson committee in order
TO clarity what has been made to ap.
pear a very mysterious and discredit.
able transaction. rejecting Upon your.
self and upon the officials to whom YOU
entrusted the care and protection Of thu
city's interests"
II committee had no better luci
with Francis Dec. Sullivan. In,erborougt
director. than with Mr.. Auerbach. Mr.
sullivan occupied the witness stant
nearly all day. Mr.. Moso carried hin
all the way through the committee,
theories on commitments and obliga'
Ions the dual subway negotiations
the change OF vote of the late Mayor
Gaynor and Comptroller Prendergas;. thu
proposed elevate contract TO John +
stevens. the Gillespie third tracking ant
many other side issues. but Mr.. sullivan
ISsoynl v.fiArylVs ~ chan raf,aal ,nr,
lively TO acquiesce In the committee
viewpoint.
Nr. Auerbach's Defiance.
u would like TO say" said Mr.. Auer
bach. when he took the stand, tina
aside from any question Of fact abou
our Arm being profe ss!onally employee
IN this matter (the Dock company's pro
position to the city for the sale Of Ian,
in Brooklyn, and aside from the Ques
ton that the subject matter is not ger
name to sour inquiry. and aside from IN
view that this committee cannot prose
cute any phase OF this matter further,
am willing TO volunteer, but that is III
II suggestion was made for additiona
counsel. II was u%nfavorably receive
and the matter ended there"
Then MIR. Auerbach refused TO answe
any other question. Mr.. Moss then aske
him IL he had EVER seen the Mayo
about the subject. explaining that he di
not "a TO drag in names unless neces
sary, but wanted to know the "individ
ual who INTERVIEWED Mr.. Auerbach a
arst refused to answer that questio
and left the stand, but as he was leavin
the room he said II would like 20 ga
no in answer to that last question.
did not see the Mayor"
Mr.. Moss in his examination Of NJ
sullivan laid stress on the attitude {
Mayor Gaynor and Comptroller PrendeI
CAST in the early stages OF h suowa
negotiations. when tho Interborough wa
proposing TO build new lines with 1,
own money. Then turning to their vot
IN favor Of the dual subway contract. NJ
Moss asked how the marlborough d
ree,ors dared cali on the city to pa
out n, own money" and what had o.
CURED to give them confidence.
Purely on business grounds" n
sponded Mr.. Sullivan.
Resented gfoss's InferencsA
The witness said in answer 70 anoths
question that he supposed the Mayo
changed his mind because he believe
the city would b benefited. Mr.. Sull
van resented what he regarded as Nj
MOSES references to something elnlst'
IN connection with the discussions amor
the directors about the attitude OF II
city officials. Regarding the Stever
contract for third tracking. Mr.. Sull
van said he had opposed 1t because NJ
Stevens lacked a plant and organizatio'
He denied emphat!cally that there "a
q lot OF Easy money in the contra
let to the II. A.. Gillespie Company. {
that the directors were careless VII
the city's money"
The committees counsel introduced
evidence a check for $4,000, signed
the late Andrew Freedman, and made OF
70 the order of Frank Hedley, vice-pres
dent and general manage OF h Int
borough, for twenty acres participate
In the Gunhill Realty Company. IN
company owned property near a pr
posed subway station on Gunhill roa
and White Plains avenue. The chet
was drawn on the Manhattan Iru
Company and dated November I. l9l
Mr. Moss pointed out that Andrew III
z'ni is president Of the realty compal
and also president of Mr., Hedley's RAJ
way Improvement Company. 7. a. Gil
lespie. he said, also was interested.
This mornings session will be devote
\ 10 the examination Of T. A. Giilesp'
Cornelius Vanderbilt was sworn la
Yesterday. but will not be called uni
This afternoon.
GEN. COCKTAILS RETURNS.