New-York tribune., 1920-05-31
Craig Blamed
For Resignation
OF l.. I'll. Halllo
Comptroller's Unbending
Attitude as an Unques-
toned Authority Said 10
Hate Made Deputy Quit
Political Circles Stirred
CIlamberIain's Assistant
Tells of His Chiefs Re-
lations With Official

altogether unexpected at the City Hall,
has created considerable comment and
speculation in political circles. II is
understood to have been the outcome
of another controversial episode aris-
ing from Comptroller Craig's attitude
as "a committee OF one in most city
government affairs.
Mr. HahIo, who was generally re-
garded as one Of the most competent
officials in the Finance Department.
refused to reconsider his resignation.
although urged to do so by administra-
tion officials and leaders in the local
Democratic organization. The direct
cause of his retirement was said to
have been q personal disagreement
with the Comptroller as result OF
which Hahlo felt ne had been unneces-
sarlly humiliated The underlying
cause, however, is understood to have
been the Comptroller's uNbeudng at
tltnde as an unqUestioned authority
on all matters that came before him.
Ihls latest Craig controversy has re-
Vlvcd interest in the dispute between
the Comptroller and City Chamberlain
BerolZheimer. An assistant in the
Chamberain's office yesterday gave an
interesting version of the history OF
the relations between the Cham beilain
and the Comptroller. whicN brings to
Light many episodes not heretofore
generally known which have been the
leading causes Of the wide breach be
tween Mayor Hylan and M Craig.
City Cham berlain Berolzheimcr de-
c!lned to discuss any of the acts of
the Comptroller. The statement of the
Chamberlaln's assistant follows:
Did Not Comply with Request
Mr.. Berolzheimer first met the
comptroller Immediately after his ap-
polntment as Chamberlain in Febru-
ary, 1919, when the Chamberlain and
mis- deputy, now Ju@ ice Glennon, Of
me Supreme Court, called at the
Comptrollers Office 10 pay their re-
poets.
AT that time Mr.. Berolzhemcr sug-
gested that inasmuch as he was per
sonalIy responsible for the correct pay
ment OF many thousands Of checks for
registered interest on the corporate
stock OF the City of New York, he
should have schedule of the bond
holders, together with the amounts due
them or definite authorization from
the Comptroller to show that certain
Deputy Comptrollers were authorized
TO sign such checks.
The Comptroller agreed with the
Chamberla'n, but he declined to send
formal authorization of the Deputy
tomptrollers signatures for those
checks until months later, when on the
&dVice or the then ofporation Counsel
Hurr, the Chamber .n insisted on this
proper protection fCl MS own sigma
.uIe. + nc comptroller absolutely re
IQSed 70 Elvc any reason for not com
Pl! iAF with tins reasonable request,
ana on% &cccted 10 If when it was
PI|c1lcaii} forced.
The i,i,et Con4 n4,,,,.l
'''N
"In June, 1919, the first open contro-
gersy arose. At that time some OF the
sinking fund moneys were deposited i'm
The National City Bank and others in
t0e Chase National Bank. The Comp-
lroIer had personal as well -s official
knowledge of this. but hc persisted in
craving all sinking fund warrants on
lain had tbe choico nf d;tb. M C''r'llotI-
depositing money in the National City
Bank TO make these Warrants GOOD
or to sign these warrants and let them
come back unpaid on account of no
funds beng there. or to scratch out tie
words National City Bank and insert
the words Chase National Bank where
the warrants should have been drawn
in the FIRST instance, and where thc
Comptroller knew the funds were on
deposit
The Comptroller then claimed the
power of deposit;ne citv money in anv
bank he chose, although according to
an onloiOn rendered nv the Coynorafioo
Counsel of the CITY of New York on
February 3, 1917, there is no limitation
upon the powe- Of the Chamberlain to
deposit moneys in deposjtories desiq
mated pursuant to the provision Of Sec
tion 1893. oNcept that there must not bo
,