New-York tribune., 1921-11-04
SAYS Tannany
Firm Got Rich
On Pier Leases
Nj. ]. Mccarthy, Deputy Reg
isier, and j. A. O'ReiIly. /
Wis Aid, Called Backers in
Secret of Sun Company
Made 5000 With $500
No Trouble Getting Docks at
Moments Notice, Agen,
Asserts I'm Suit for Fees

scandal IN the pier leasing bust
ness involving several coanty en-
nlovees prominent IN the councils of
Tanmany Hai is about 60 be aired in
eonnectlon with a suit TO come before
The Supreme Court within few days,
It was learned yesterday.
Among the names mentioned as de-
sendan-s IN Connection with the case
are Michael J. Mccarthy, special deputy
register, aud James A. O'Reillv.
ais associate in the registers office.
oReily is brother. of Lawrence J.
o'Reilly, William Randolph Hearst 5
chief political representative and a
member OF the Water Commission.
The records IN the case show that
oTeilly ard Mccarthy. although en-
tirely ignorant Of the shipping bust
mesa. were Jointly engaged in plan
for obtaining piers and eockage for
shipping 6rms With d capital of less
than $500 these men were enabled
through what are characterized in the
records Of the Appellate Division
peculiar conditions and extraordinary
opportunities to roll up profits Of
from s50,000 to s75 200 within six
months.
Nc Room for Some Firms
Responsible heads OF big shipping
dyms have testified before the Meyer
legislative investig eating committee that
they haunted the Offices OF the Depart
ment o. Docks for months at a time IN
the latter part OF 1919 and all through
1920 II efforts to ootain docking space.
The Dock Department records are
said 10 show tnat the appica tions fer
berths by the company with which
0'ReiIly and AcCarcny were affiliated
we're generally hied the same day or
she day preceding that on which the
ship was scheduled to arrive at the
pier.
The case was given some attention
when It first came before the courts
aariy last year. Ii was the forerunner
Of the recent sensational disclosures
by the Meyer committee Of certain
practices n the dock situation wherein
x WAS shown some agents were able to
obtain pier space almost at a moments
notice ~ from So to SO d day. These
-es-e ees Il turn charged shippers as
high as S20U day,
The nAlne CT the firm N which Nc
CarLhy and O'Reilly were associated
was the Sun Navigation Company.
After operating six months under this
tide it became the Sun Shipping Com
pany. nc. The records OF the Dock
Department show that the Sun Ship
ping Company had a charge account
gitn the department, and that in the
early part OF 1920 II was getting dock
M space at from Sl4 TO So d day
The suit IN which the operations,
we're n some degree brought into the
light was begun on December II, 1919.
BY ll-rS Z. anderson, u shipping agent,
who mad been employed 20 solicit bugi-
ness for the Sun company, and who
charged the members OF the firm with
Withholding $4,000 in commissions due
aim, he said, for services.
Anderson asserted tnat while O'Reil-
u, Mccarthy and man named Thomas
v Maley were engaged in the busi-
ness together at z3 Cedar Street as
the Sun Navigation Company, Malley
fled q false certificate in the County
Clerks office on June 3, 1919, setting
forth that he alone was conducting
the business He charged further that
O'Reily and Mccarthy wanted to con-
eeal their connection with the concern
because, according 20 the records, they
we're employees IN the Registers office.
Charges Use of False Names
Tr addition, it was charged in the
record that nearly al the members
Of the firm were known at the office
under fictitious names. O'Reilly, says
the record, was known as u Arthur;
Michael j. Mccarthy was known as
Michael Donahue," and another en-
ployee, whose name was William
Prince. was known as ''Wi Lam Duke. -
MalIey. however, was intrusted with
the practical running OF the Office, and
IS said. according 70 the record, to
ave paid out money to O'Reilly, Nc
Carthy and Prince by checks payable
TO their respective aliases While
0rRsiIly and Mccarthy admitted being
partners in the concern, neither of
Ehair names appeared on the stationery
or on contracts of the Sun Navigation
Company, Anderson alleged.
Anderson said he was employed by
the firm on July i. 1919, TO seek bust
ness at & salary Of $50 week and q
10 per cent commission on ali the gross
business he obtained. He continued in
their employ until Decepber Is, 1919,
he says IN the record, but the firm re-
fused to pay him his commission. In
this period OF six months he obtained
for the company a gross business of
$4,000, of which sum he insisted he
vas entitled to $4,000 as commission.
O'Reilly and Mccarthy denied the
claim, and the matter was thrown into
the courts on December =, 1919. A
phase of the controversy reached the
Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court. where all the facts surrounding
the conduct of the business were given