Year: 1873

The latest investigation Of the East River
Bridge Company is the only one which be-
trays the character of that ingenious misman-
agement, and sngularly enough this revela-
ton is the result less of what was developed
than of what was attempted to be concealed
1t is all very well for Directors to lay great
stress upon good management in minor mat
ters as these have done, but until they can
clearly show what has become of the missing
$2,OOO,OOO for which they do not account IN
the building of the towers and foundations OF
the bridge, they cannot hope to regain public
confidence.


The question which now presents itself Is
whether or not these gentlemen shall retire
and leave the conduct of the enterprise TO
others in whom the two cities have confidence
enough to subscribe the additional millions
necessary to complete the work. They pro-
fess willingness to resign, asking first, how
ever, that their paid-up stock be consolidated
and secured to them; but the bill which pro-
yides for the latter accommodation does not
provide for their resignation or removal.
That bill, now pending at Albany, permits
them to break faith with the people by
eyading subscriptions of $25O,O00 for which
they are already pledged, and to conduct
with a subscription of only quarter OF
million, an enterprise which is to cost nearly,
if not fully, ten million dollars of the peoples
money. Such is the import and the sole pur-
pose of the bill before the Senate.


Facts elected by long and patient inves-
tigation by both Reform Committees of
Brooklyn and a minority in the Directory OF
the Bridge establish beyond any sort OF doubt
that, in its original organization, the East
River Bridge Directory was conspiracy to
conduct popular work and, indirectly,
defraud the people of two cities. Tweed,
Sweeny, Connolly, were the parties to it on
tho New-YOrk side representing the then
all-pOwerful Ring of this city. 1t is not neces-
sary for us to say who were the parties
to the plan in Brooklyn; for they
early became prominent in its management.
They obtained charter which gave the
management to themselves, as named in the
bill, on the subscription of a ridiculous frac-
ton of the anticipated cost. They divided
four.ffths of the private stock among them
selves, and dOled out the hundred thousand
remaining to men Of character who could
add respectability rs well as capital. They
organized an Executive Board, all powerful;
appointed Superintendent who was respon-
sible to no one and refused the Board OF
Directors itself, OF any of its members, the
authority to investigate or interfere in the con-
tracts or the work. They voted this Superin-
tendent percentage for his services, which
would have yielded three-quarters of million
on the first subscription, and were COM
PEELED to rescind the vote and give him
a fixed sum (the enormous one of S125OOO)
for what he had done in little over two
years. They thwarted investigation by every
committee of taxpayers organized to examine
public accounts. They skillfuly avoided a
legislative inquiry by inducing the Senators
and Assemblynen of Kings County to refuse
to present resolutions advocated by the Com
mittee Of Fifty. The public press agitation
and the repeated exposures of this Committee,
together with the demands of the minority in
the Board who threatened to resign and appeal to
the public, finally forced an investigation which
curtailed the power of the Executive Com
mittee and Superintendent in making con-
tracts with themselves at more than double
the fair rates, as was proved in one in
stance. at least. Now deprived of the fifteen
per cent allowance to the chief Of the Ring,
and compelled to make contracts openly and
above-board, these Directors pretend to retire.
and it is seriously proposed that they shall
have the money they have already invested
returned to them.


This proposition is called equitable by those
private stockholders who have not paid up
the private stockholders who hare paid their
calls insist ON calling it infamous. Already
doubt has been thrown upon the validity
of the subscriptions Of the two cities,
by failure to pay their installments as called
for. II is very serious question how culpa
bic Controller Schroeder has been in issuing
the bonds of Brooklyn without requiring the
private stockholders to pay their calls in
full. Superintendent Kingsley himself is
delinquent in his payments nearly $4,000,
and Others are in like manner, and even
greater proportions, as, for instance, the New
York confederates, Tweed, Connolly, and
Sweeny. There Is no clause in tho charter
permitting the forfeiture of this stock, and an
effort to insert such provision was defeated
by some mysterious influence" at Albany.
Yet, Controller Schroeder goes on issuing
bonds upon every call of the Bridge Company
and the delinquent subscribers who have
endangered tho success of this great enter