New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1921-09-28
Hylan Replies
To Charges i'm
Pier Leasing 6,
Mayor in Open Letter Says
Shipping Board Paid a
Large Share of Profits
Derived by the Lessees
City's Action Defended
Staten Island Deals Are
Taken Up and Cause of
Low Return Explained

Mayor Hylan, in letter sent yes
terday to Frank A. Munsey, publisher
of "Thc New York Herald" replied to
charges made in editorials in that
paper regarding the revelations of graft
in connection with the leasing of the
city piers.
The Mayor declared that most Of the
$4,000 900 paid to lessecs of the city
piers above what they paid to the city
Shipping Board The city. he said, had
no power to prevent persons leasing
city piers from charging exorbitant
wharfage rates.
Staten Island Leasing
The leasing of the Staten Island
piers for T Il per cent of their cost was
defended by the Mayor He said that
the international Mercantile Marine
Company paid only 2.67 per cent of
the cost U the piers it rented from the
city in the Chelsea district. This rent
lie said, caused loss to the city Of
S265 900 a year.
The Mayors letter in part follows:
"Your editorial page to-day, and for
several days, has chargeds the city adj
nlinistration. of which | am the head,
with responsibility for the loss of four
million dollars of cream which the
lessces of twenty-four piers skinned
in subleases' and failing to prevent
the grafters from getting four million
dollars moro from those twenty -four
pier leases
you know that most of this sum Of
money was procured from the United
States government through the United
States Shipping Board during the
period of the war. The Shipping BOARD
knew that the rates it paid for the
use of city piers to lessees were ex-
orbitant, and the board could have com.
Wandered the piers and paid norma
price for their use, had it desired tC
90 so. The Shipping Board evidently
had no such intention, for it paid tho
eXorbtant rates to the lessces, knowing
exactly what the lessees paid the City
Of New York and knowing that as tho
result of Federal Court decisions the
City of New York had no control what
ever over the rates charged by lessccs
Dock Commissioner Hubert himself
went to the Shipping Board office anc
Informed them of the gross overcharge'
which the Shipping Board was paying
apparently Of his own volition.
Further Details Given
our news cOlumnS ana cultOflals
condemn the 7 ls per cent rental which
Dock Commissioner Hubert obtains
from the new piers on Staten lslant
as inadequate. You base your condem
nation on a report Of the Commissions
of Accounts, which was produced bcfor,
the Meyer Investigating Committee Dc
you know the rate of rental which the
city received from the Chelsea piers
used by the international Mercantile
Marine Company, which are the bes
equipped and largest piers owned by
the city of New York, with the excep
ton of the new Staten Island piers
The Commissioner of Accounts report.
that the city of New York obtains al
annual rental of $319.500 for these
Chelsea piers, which is 2.67 per cent o.
their cost, which totals $12 600, 600. TIL,
report shows that the city pays 4.S9 ne,
cent interest and amortization on the
/ bonds issued to cover the cost o.
these piers and that the net return tt
the city on this investment, made eieh
years before | took Office, is an annua
loss of 2.22 per cent, besides the los.
in taxes which the city would have
obtained if the property were privately
owned. A direct loss of 2.22 per cent
is approximately 1855, 200 year on the
cost of the piers"