New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1921-09-22

him because he had arrested several OF
their number for stealing.
Soon after this, he continued, Mr.
Gilbert told him, che would like to
stand behind him, but advised getting
around it some other way" A day or
two later he received the letter of dis
1nassal from the company and Adam
said he worked under Cross when the
latter was borough inspector in Brook
lyn.
At the time the company released
him vachris said his men were getting
$A.50 to S. day for guard duty on the
piers Vachris got percentage on the
number of men employed. 1t developed
later that Cross got $50 week and
the men were paid Sc day, an official
of the line testifying that while it cost
the line about 81, 200 week to watch
inent, it cost them about $4,000, or
twice as much, for the Cross scheme.
Vachris complained that he couldn't
Sget his men made special policem< n,
but that he saw his men wearing spe.
cial badges as soon as Cross was put
in charge.
Police Cooperation Failed
did you get any cooperation from
the police while you were operating
there p asked Mr.. Brown.
"No, SIR" replied Vachris.
Nov, in relation to the other com
panies where you are doing such work,
they are American lines, aren't they? 7"
went on Mr.. Brown.
Yes replied Vachris, sand we
don't suffer on these lines as we did
with the Italian line, because the heads
ne cfs< Ava rvs~
they won't stand forsthe stuff, and they
back me up"
Jules v. Behar, assistant manager
Of the line, corroborated much of the
testimony of Vachris. He added that
while he paid for the number Of men
employed. he paid Cross salary of
$50 week and Sc day for the
men employed by the company on
recommendation of Cross. He testified
that Gilbert and Captain Rospini, gen.
eral manager Of the line, had several
conferences with Inspector Henry
after having visited Commissioner En-
right.
eve went one day with our attor-
ney to Police Headquarters to find q
way to remedy the situation" said
Behar, "and we then had a few min
utes together, our attorney, that is,
and it was suggested that we employ
Inspector Cross"
who suggested that?" questioned
Mr.. Brown.
Meetings With Inspector
II think that was suggested by In
spector Henry" replied Behar. "There
were number of meetings between
Inspector Henry, our general manager
and our attorney, and they recommended
the employment of Cross" went on
Behar. 81 understood and believed l
could not get much cooperation from
the police captain of that district be-
fore we employed Cross"
The record of Cross, as submitted in
evidence yesterday, showed that he had
been no before the Lexow investigating
committee in 1884 in connection with
the charge of having levied on houses
Of prostitution. He was at that time
captain at the Eldridge Street police
station. He was then tried before the
PONCE Board and dismissed from the
service, but fought his discharge in
the courts and was reinstated.
He was inspector in charge Of the
LIST Inspection District when Dis
trict Attorney Jerome flied a complaint
against him on February 2S, 1903. He
was then involved with Captain Dia-
mond and George Bisert, the latter
said to have distributed $1S0,0O0 gath
cred as tribute in the "red light" dis
trict. He was again tried and dis
missed, but again fought the case in
the courts and was reinstated. Upon
the accession of Commissioner Bling
ham ne was retired.
Commissioner Enright's explanation
of the $4,000 alleged Fictitious stock
transaction" reads as follows:
"Just before we adjourned, Senator,
last night, you referred to financial
transaction in which | was interested
with Commissioner Ryan, and YOU adj
journed so abruptly that there was no
chance to say anything about it. You
just asked the amount, and that is the
last thing that appears on the record
and the Inference that was taken by the
papers, and they said that this was a
take stock transaction. ] want to state
for the record that it was not fake
stock transaction in any sense of the
word. Commissioner Ryan, in the fall
OF 1918, asked me whether was doing
anything in the market | told him I
was not. WE'LL he said, some time I
would like to bring you in on some
thing. worth while 'Well,' I said. Il
Will be very glad to, Mr.. Ryan, and
won't you let me know, and if you want
some funds come and tell me about
TT He didn't ask me for any funds.
he handled it himself and put nue. in.
NOW, had | not won in the matter I
would have been obliged to make up the
losses and / also have the right to
take the gains. Why a point is made
OF that do not know. All want is
a full explanation on the record"
u asked you last night distinctly
II 1t was a fictitious stock deal, and
You said yes" said Mr.. Brown.
didn't say anything of the kind.
j refer to the record - raturroJ r.
right. 9
Record Given as Evidence
Q.-Well, then, we must have mis-
understood one another. Al will
refer to the record, and bringing out
the fact that it was fictitious stock
deal is unjust to Commissioner RYAN
and unjust to me, and I think that
You should make correction.
Q.-(Reading from the record: at
mas been reported to me, for instance,
that Mr.. Ryan had arranged for the
payment to you of profits on stock
transactions, which are really fictitious
As Tar as YOU are concerned. A.-Mr.
ryan did, in one instance, do some
thing like that. Q.-How much did
ne give you? A.-Twelve thousand
dollars" A.-As to YOUR nuest;nu
about it being fictitious. INV answer
was not to that point at ali.
didn't so understand 1t. NV answer
was tnat there was transaction be-
tween Commissioner Ryan and mvse,f
Tie said he would like to do