The New York herald. [volume] (New York, N.Y.) 1920-1924, 1920-10-21
TWO BOND CONCERNS
FAVORED BY TRAVIS
Comptroller Admits Fanshawe
& Co. and Gibbons & Co.
Got Big Orders.

The correspondence between Eugene
NJ. Travis State Comptroller. and varl-
Gus brokerage houses during 1915 and
1916. the first two years of Mr.. Travis
incumbency, was examined in detail yes
terday by Eel dinand Pecora, Assistant
District Attorney, on the tenth day OF
the John Doe inquiry before Justice
Frederic Kernochan into the way bonds
were bought for the state sinking funds.
From the letters, which the Comptro-
Ter admitted sending or receiving. the
prosecuting attorney adduced instance
after instance where blocks of bonds
offered for sale by william S. Fanshawe
e Co. and by George b. Gibbons & Co.
were accepted by the Comptroller. while
other dealers who offered blocks of al
most as large size, approximately the
same maturity and even higher rate of
return to the State had their offers re-
jectcd without even the courtesy of a
written reply.
or the eighty blocks of bonds pur-
chased from January to October 1, 1915,
Mr.. Pecora brought out. seventy-four
were purchased from Fanshawe or Glib
bcns and only six lots from other bond
dealers. Some OF the houses whose
offers were rejected In the two years
were Hornblower & Weeks. Douglas
Fenwick & Co., Farson, Son & Co. !,
Crandall, Shepard G. Co.. Isaac w. Sher-
rill & Co. and A. Il. Leach & Co.
Concern Didn't stand Well
With the usual excuse offered by Comp
troller Travis for these rejections-that
the maturities of the bonds offered Were
toe short-the prosecutor was tnclinel
to agree in some instances. one con-
Germ didn't stand we'll with him. the
Comptroller said, though he admitted
he bought bonds from II before and
after the offer in question. He could
not recall just why most of the others
lad been rejected.
The District Attorney persisted, how
ever, in trying to find out why the
offers equally or more advantageous
than those of the favored concerns had
not been accepted. The Comptroller
apparently never had realized the de-
STABILITY of the offers pointed out by
Mr.. Pecora. One offer Mr.. Travis SAID.
was undoubtedly overlooked ke-
garding second he said: 1--WE pre-
ferred other bonds. that's all.
The District Attorney pointed out Of
fers OF nearly equal lots of the same
issue of New York city bonds by GID
bons & Co. end by Farson. Son x Co.
at the same time. III WnlCH lHc pioppi9
one was accepted, though the Farson
one would have brought slightly
higher return. and the Comptroller muir
INJURED. Pm surprised. I'm surprised.
when Gibbons & Co. made offers al
prices that did not compare favorably
with others, why was Gibbons always
accepted and the others not even re-
piled to-" Mr.. Pecora asked
why Gibbons Was Preferred.
Gibbons got the preference for two
reasons--the concern was always on
the lob and / believed I'D make good
It's offer" the Comptroller replied.
did Farson, Son & Co. ever fall
down? Didn't you just testify that II
was so much on the Job that its sales
man used to call every day. Mr.. Pe-
cora demanded.
Yes" came the response.
Mr. Travis then sought TO explain that
the Gibbons offers were almost invaria-
bly, made in person and that presumably
scores. possibly hundreds" of Gibbons
offers so made were rejected
District Attorney Pecora reminded him
that he was testlfylng under oath.
There were no written reflections BY
scores or hundreds?" he continued
IT think there are some" the Comp
troller remembered.
The inquiry will be resumed this
morning