New-York tribune., 1921-09-17
Criminal Negligence Alleged

criminal Negligence Alleged
General Edward G. O'Brien, for
ner Dock Commissioner, who had
been authorized by Chairman Albert
D. Lasker of the United States Ship
ping Board to make an Investigation
of the dock profteering charges, re-
ferred to the condition from the wit
ness stand as can official perversion
of the peoples interests of the Port
Of New York." and insisted that it
was due to criminal negligence"
"The committee" he concluded,
fought never to adjourn until it has
taken every pier that General Black
has named and searched it out and
convict the guilty men. That is what
the people are going to demand Of
officialdom from now ony'
Senator Schuyler NJ Meyer. chair
man of the committee, said the com
mittee was far from being through with !
the dock investigation and that it woulG
be gone into more in detail the coming
week.
It was intimated, however, that thcr
subject would not be taken I'D on Mon
day, when the committee resumes its
hearings, at 2:30 z. m. 1t is under-
stood that arrangements for d prelim4
inary probe of the Police DepartmentA
have been made to begin at that time.
and that Commissioner of Police\En-
right and numerous other otficialsA of
the department have been subpoenaed.
Hubert Make Comments
Murray Hubert, Dock Commissioner,
was present during the taking of yes
terdays testimonysand engaged in run 1
ming comments with counsel on facts
and figures given by witnesses, object
ang particularly to statements of Frank
C., Rippon, a British dock expert. who
acted as examiner for the legislative
committee
I MIR. Rippon said he found that the
Increase in gross revenues from tho
Dock Department from 1909 to 1913
was 81 ,059,816, or about 29 per cent.
From 1913 to 1917 he said it was
sI,071,393, or about 23 per cent, and
from 1917 to 1920, $1,364057. or abost
- per cent In connection with thesa
rs NAS 60 ifS Do ~ <h4tssS~ tilt GIOSS lNcCUM
rom docss~ffas shown q steady increased
for many years.
Asked to comment on report of
Commissioner of Accounts Hirshfiela
on the dock situation, he said that the
commissioners allowance for tax rata
was too low, and the carrying charge
was therefore higher than 10 per cert.
commissioner Hirshfield had ques
TONED the ssuificiency of rental of ~
ha
proposed Pier No. 9 North River. when
constructed. The Commissioned held
that the carrying charges would be 511
per cent interest on the Investment. /
per cent amortization (for a 5o-vear
perlod) and 21a per cent losses Of
taxes, or a total Of per cent.
Huge Profits Collected
Mr.. Rippon was then asked to take
up the report Of General William M
Black for the Shipping Board on he
proflteering question. He quoted the
hgures referred to at the beginning of
.hls article, pointing out that from
city the lessees by their operations
were able to collect a profit of 2aD
per cent. These figures, he said. verb
based on 300-day year and intimateA
that at least these were what tha
charges were, though he was not sura
they were received
TIL lease of part of Pier Nc. IL
North River, was taken up. This pierI
was leased 10 Edward If. Raphael &.
GO; on May 1. 1919, at $4,000 year.
although the superintendent of docks
and the doe6 department auditor had /
advised the auctioning of the lease be- I
cause of the fact that the Atlantic
Fruit Company had offered $4,000, the 4
I. Carroll concern $4,000 and the
Montanigno & Delphine company s25,- +
200. The Raphael company held lhe
lease until June. 1920, when for seer
tain reasons" the lessee relinquished
the pier.
Mr.. Rippon whispered the reason
around amoisg members Of the commit
tee and to the committee counsel. but
it was not made public.
Commissioner Hubert brought out In
this connection that he got $4,000 for
The city from this arrangement instead
Of $4,000, by having another steamship
company double up with the Raphael
firm in the use of the pier.
The question of the Staten Island
pier improvements came up. Mr.