New-York tribune., 1921-09-16
Hubert Admits Certain
Companies Got 5000
Profit ON Dock Deals
Mayors Regime Upheld
Sub-Letting Under
Leases Hurt Port
Witness, at Meyer Probe,
Blames Sinking Fund
and CorporationC Counsel

EtlQeUCS VI SAOoS ~ VA SAAA6 iAA
r,sr leases, to the great injury Of the
,ort's business, and the utter neglect
and helplessness of the authorities to
,one with the situation, were revealed
Yesterday before the Meyer Legislative
committee investigating the Hylan ad-
ministration.
I. was shown that on the basis of
,onc term leases at low rates obtained
from the city, certain companies were
enabled to extort profits as high as
500 per cent year from other steam
shin lines to whom they would sublet
portions of these piers or grant wharf
age privileges.
Hubert Admits Conditions
Murray Hubert, Dock Commissioner,
admitted on the witness stand the cor
rectness of the conditions alleged. He
said that the system that permitted
the evils was bad and destructive, and
that while he had made every effort to
check the practice practically nothing
1SQ DcSu uOllt W eiIlllildtS IL.
He placed the blame for the situa-
the Corporation Counsel and the Sink
ing Fund Commissioners, who, be-
cause they differed with the Dock
Commission on the Interpretation of
the city charter covering the matter,
refused to permit him to regulate
wharfage and sub-letting charges. Mr..
Hubert. himself nominated by Tam
many Hall for President of the Board
Of Aldermen, thus places the RESPONSE
bility upon two Offices of the Hylan
regime.
Elon R. Brown, chief counsel to the
committee, submitted figures showing
how the Maritime Shipping Company
had paid the city $4,000 on lease.for
pier at the foot of East Twenty
fourth Street, and had sublet it at q
profit of 100000.
No Accounts Kept on Lessees
The Commissioner said that the city
made no effort to keep account of the
huge profits collected by lessees in this
manner and that no books were kept
on the subject, although he admitted
it would be a sensible thing to do"
He testified that he did insert re-
strictive clauses in some of the leases
respecting sub-letting, and that when
be ATTEMPTED to repeat the practice in
connection with group of Staten ISL
and piers the idea was rejected by the
Sinking Fund Commission on the
ground that it Disseminated against
ilarly restricted. In the case of the
first of the Staten Island piers the
Commissioner said the Sinking Func
Commission decided that the lessee
could sublet for a sum that would en-,
able him to obtain the pier for prac.
tically nothing.
Mr. Brown mated, however, that
the Dock Commissioner was in a meas
ure himself responsible, in view of the
fact that the latter had control over
charges where the lessee had a permit
with revocable rights, and that he thus
mad the power to correct the condi-
ton. To this the Commissioner re.
piled that it was true he had the power
over instances that he was. aware Of,
but that he had no means of keeping
track Of incoming ships and the wharf
age they were paying.
Corrective Suggestions Offered
At the conclusion of the session Mr.
Brown summed up the significance of
The evidence SO far submitted respect
ing the Dock Department, and offered
some suggestions for correction of the
evils revealed.
he referred to the desirability for
the elimination of long leases and the
substitution, according to the sugges-
tlon OF the Commissioner, of control
oi all wharfage by the city with GER
tam txed charges. He pointed out that
,here has been no standard in making
leases based upon a reasonable return
20 the city. He thought this fair profit
should be about 6 per cent.
Inc practice of granting ten-yea,
aeases with the proviso Of q renewal
WIN an increase of 10 per cent was
entirely inadequate, he insisted, and
yhe practice should be abated by the
legislature: He suggested that legis.
.a.on should be enacted to bring about
squaii1y of charges and some method
lound Tor eliminating the profiteer;ne
described 'N'
:, me matter OF exorbitant wharfage
s.aarges by lessees was brought ND TO,
discussion by the introduction of some
Matstlcs in a report of General William
~. Black, which the latter had pre
pared Tor the United States Shipping
BOARD some time ago 1t was In con
nnectlon with these statistics that Mr.
nrown pointed out that the city wa:
::eeceiving this year 1898, 600 less on it.
ssoo,o00 600 worth of pier propert,
man IL would have received in take:
''aa the property been privately owned
Blacks Inquiry Reviewed
Mr' hubert said he had thrown oper
nv, me books of the Dock Department te
general Black when he was making his
lNVestlgation into the profiteerins
Tnssrges for the United States Shipping
noard, and had requ, sted the Genera
;or copy Of his report when he turned
~ IN. lie said he never received a con,
u IT. He said that. from other experi
ences he has had with the General. thu
after was not entirely friendly to tn,
:, The Commissioner, in explaining how
me profiteering was made possible
'a'a there was clause in the cit,
.aarter giving the Dock COMMISSIONS
Sha right 10 fix wharfage charges--ths
-. aa'iy beirhsng Charges. There is 1
rnSVision in city .eases prohibiting
..sap-leasing, .s bn: giving the first Icsse,
700 right to Ak wharfage charges. i
wss On :his point ;bat the Dock Corn
nn.ssioner .S,d he disagreed aitn III,
nsVrPor.ticn Cocn:el. Win TO powc,
=. cnecking tho activities OF the lessee.
ssae DocS Commissioner saws they wer.
'e 70 rake whatever charges co,c
.sSrse ~ would tear. resulting. be a,!mi:
yea, IA prof.teerin,, and gsayt abmsg,
W the port.
no sddsd. however, tha. ha las stsst
lcosusssd - bsss sau