 Tribune |
New York, Wednesday, May 28, 1873
The BRIDGE FRAUDS
| Tribune |
|
Wednesday, May 28, 1873 FICTITIOUS TRANSFERS OF KINGSLEY’S STOCK FOUR MEMBERS OF THE BROOKLYN RING PRESENTED WITH TEN SHARES EACH - REPUTABLE CITIZENS CREDITED WITH STOCK WHICH THEY SAY THEY NEVER OWNED - AN ILLUSTRATION OF DESPERATE MISMANAGEMENT. The publication in yesterday’s Tribune of the repudiation of the Brooklyn Bridge Ring by the Common Council, the Committee of Fifty, and the Committee of One Hundred created great interest and considerable excitement in Brooklyn. The copies of the paper offered for sale at the news-stands were bought up at an early hour, and in many cases the whole number offered for sale at various stands was purchased by single individuals. The Brooklyn local papers were forced by the prevailing excitement to publish full reports of the action of the Committees and Councilmen. Later in the day various prominent citizens, aroused to action by THE TRIBUNE’S exposures of the purposes of the Ring, took trains for Albany in order to appear before the Legislative Committee and protest against the passage of Mr. Jacobs’s bill, which releases the Ring from all its money obligations without compelling them to relinquish the management of the bridge. It has been ascertained that on the very last day on which transfers of Bridge stock could be made (May 1), that William C. Kingsley made fictitious transfers of a portion of his stock to ten persons, the majority of whom are at Albany endeavoring to lobby through a scheme which puts ten thousand dollars in the pocket of each of them; and the rest of whom repudiate the proposed fraudulent transfer. Mr. Kingsley held and controlled 251 shares, a majority of the voting stock of the Bridge, for under the existing charter the two cities which subscribe nine-tenths of the money necessary to build it have no vote in the direction of the Bridge. Kingsley has transferred 100 shares to three or four friends who could be depended upon to act with him, and who are already in the Ring, and to half a dozen other men of character who were expected to accept it, and thus sustain the management. That this transfer is fictitious is clear from the fact that all the gentlemen named on the books as receiving stock who can be found repudiate the transaction altogether. The Hon. Wm. W. Goodrich, well known as a leading Liberal Republican in Kings County, to whom, according to the entry on the books of the Bridge Company, 10 shares of Kingsley’s stock was transferred, denies any knowledge of the transaction, and says that he owns no stock whatever. Mr. Hassam H. Wheeler, long identified with the Democratic managers and a member of the Board of Elections for the Appointment of Canvassers and Inspectors, stated that he believes he is a stockholder, but hasn’t any idea when he became one, and refused to give an particulars of how he became one, whether by trust or purchase. Wm. Schwartzwaelder, who is credited on the books with ten shares of stock transferred to Kingsley, denied that he had ever purchased any, and said that he knew nothing whatever of the Bridge management. Cortland P. Dixon, a large stone contractor for the Bridge Company, said that he had been told confidentially that he was the holder of ten shares of stock, and praised Kingsley’s management and denounced the TRIBUNE for exposing the Bridge directory. THE RING METHOD OF SELLING STOCK Late on Monday evening last, the following anonymous letter was received at the office of THE TRIBUNE: To the Editor of The Tribune. Sir: The following transfers of stock appear on the books of the East River Bridge Company: TRANSFERS OF STOCK, MAY 1, 1873 Kingsley and Keeney to: Hassam H. Wheeler 10 Robert Benedict 10 John B. Woodward 10 Francis D. Moulton 10 Wm. Schwartzwaelder 10 Wm. A. Fowler 10 John B. Norris 10 Benj. F. Tracy 10 Cortland P. Dixon 10 Wm. W. Goodrich 10 Yours, &c. Expose This was received at an hour too late, on Monday night, to make inquiries, but early yesterday morning a reporter of THE TRIBUNE called at the Bridge office - and stated Mr. Quintard, the Secretary, that the above letter had been received, and asking if it was true that such transfers of stock had been made. Mr. Quintard declined to answer, further than to say that one director had made transfers of part of his stock, and referred the reporter to Mr. Prentice, the Treasurer, who answered curtly that the Bridge Company owed no consideration to THE NEW-YORK TRIBUNE. On being told that THE TRIBUNE asked no favor or consideration at his hands, but applied there for information which the public were entitled to know, he became more gentlemanly in his manner, and said he must decline to answer unless the reporter was a stockholder of director of the Bridge. As he was neither, the reporter was compelled to seek the gentleman to whom the stock was said to have been transferred, and question them regarding it. Several reporters were dispatched in various directions, and the following information was elicited: Mr. Hassam H. Wheeler is well known in Brooklyn as one of the subordinate managers of the Democratic Ring party. He resides at No. 89 Lafayette-place, Brooklyn, but was found at his place of business, No. 215 Greenwich-st., in this city. The reporter, in calling on Mr. Wheeler, explained that he wished to make a few inquiries about some recent transactions in the stock of the Brooklyn Bridge Company. Mr. Wheeler - I would rather say nothing upon that subject this afternoon. Reporter - Will you please state whether or not you are, or have been, a stockholder in the Company? Mr. Wheeler - I believe I am a stockholder. Reporter - How long have you been a stockholder? Mr. Wheeler (smiling) - I would rather say nothing about it. Reporter - Did you acquire your stock by actual purchase or was it transferred? Mr. Wheeler (laughing outright) - I say I believe I am a stockholder, but don’t know, and would prefer not to speak upon that subject this afternoon. I know that gentlemen whom you have named as having had stock transferred to them, according to rumor, but have no knowledge as to the truth of the rumor. Reporter - You will not, then, answer for the truth of the rumor as far as it concerns you? Mr. Wheeler - I would prefer not. Mr. William Schwartzwaelder of No. 48 Lawrence-st. does business at No. 9 East Broadway, New-York. On being informed of the purpose of the reporter’s visit, Mr. Schwartzwaelder denied all knowledge whatsoever of the transfer of any stock in the Company to him in any shape or form. He spoke in the most positive form. He said he had never held any stock in trust or as owner; had never seen any, and had never heard of the rumored transfer of stock from Kingsley to others. He was acquainted with Mr. Kingsley, but had never been approached in relation to the affairs of the Company. In fact he had never had any connection with the Company whatever, except as tax-payer. Mr. William W. Goodrich is a prominent marine lawyer of No. 59 Wall-st., and a large property-owner on Brooklyn. He was identified with the Liberals of Brooklyn at the last election, and always bitterly opposed to the two faction of the Republican party led by B.F. Tracy and by Samuel McLean and Controller Schroeder. Mr. Goodrich was found at his office, and, in answer to the reporter’s inquiries as to his purchase of stock from William C. Kingsley, unqualifiedly denied having now or having ever had any stock of the Company in his possession. He said that he never made any bona fide purchase of stock of the Company; he had never been an owner of the Company’s stock for his own use, nor had he held it for any other person. Previous to the reporter’s questions he had never even had an intimation of his owning stock. “The fact is”, said Mr. Goodrich, laughingly, yet in earnest, “if any person holds any stock for me, or if there is any stock floating about for me, I should be very glad to get hold of it.” Continuing, Mr. Goodrich stated that he had never seen a certificate of the Company’s stock, and would not recognize one if he saw it. He added to the reporter, “You may make the statement of my denial as broad as possible, and I will subscribe to it.” In regard to the affairs of the bridge, he thought that there was “a nigger in the fence somewhere,” but did not know where. Mr. Cortland P. Dixon is one of the largest stone contractors who have dealt with Mr. Kingsley as Superintendent of the bridge. On making inquiry of him, a TRIBUNE reporter was told by Dixon in person, late last evening, that he had no share of the stock of the Company in his possession; neither had he ever possessed any in ownership or in trust. In answer to the reporter’s question as to whether certain shares of the stock owned were transferred to him, Mr. Dixon stated that some one had remarked to him yesterday morning that some shares of the Bridge Company’s stock were to be dealt with in that manner. He did not like to give the name of the person who had made the remark; did not, in fact, see any use in so doing. He thought that the affairs of the bridge were well conducted and that there was no fraud in their management. Superintendent Kingsley, he was sure, was not guilty of any unfair dealing in the matter. The salary of 15 per cent attempted to be paid him was not too high for a man whose previous business had paid as his had. He reiterated the assertion that there was no fraud connected with the building of the bridge as far, at least, as the supply of stone which he supplied was concerned. He thought that THE TRIBUNE had attacked the bridge for the purpose of gaining notoriety thereby, and not because there was any fraud in it. These four were the only gentlemen of the ten named to be found in the City. All the rest were at Albany lobbying for the passage of the Jacobs bill, or on visits out of the city. In corroboration of the truth of the alleged transfers it was learned, however, that the names as above given were read in the Committee of One Hundred on Monday night by Mr. Harvey Farrington, who stated that to his positive knowledge such entries had been made. On inquiry from various sources, the following particulars regarding the other six new stockholders were obtained: Mr. William A. Fowler was not in his office, that of the Board of City Works, and the reporter who called was told that he was in Albany and would not return “until the game was finished and he had won the pot: - whatever that mysterious phrase may mean. Mr. Fowler has long been a member of the McLaughlin Ring of Brooklyn, and is now a member of the Board of City Works. In reorganizing the Water Board, last year, it was provided that one of the members of the old concern should be appointed by the Mayor. This was for the purpose of keeping in Mr. Fowler, who acts wholly in the interest of the firm of Kingsley, to which he gave the profitable contract to build the useless Hampstead reservoir. Mr. John B. Woodward was not to be found at No. 195 Waster-st., his place of business, and the reporter was told that he would be out of town until to-day. Mr. Woodward is a Major-General of Kings County militia. Mr. Benjamin F. Tracy, who was represented to be at Albany, is a Republican, and for years has been a leader of the Republican Ring in Brooklyn. He was United States District Attorney, but list the position and now controls the patronage of only a single department of local government - that of Collector Burroughs. Samuel McLean, another leader of the Republican Ring, has gradually destroyed Mr. Tracy’s power, and, with Controller Schroeder as his candidate for Mayor, proposed to make a strong campaign against Mr. Tracy in the one hand and the genuine Reformers on the other. Mr. Tracy is consequently making a closer alliance with Kingsley, McCue, and McLaughlin, and this transfer of Kingsley’s stock is very generally understood to be in the Ring interest. Robert D. Benedict was also out of town when the reporter called, and was not expected soon to return. He was a member of the Election Board at the last elections, and is not thought to have any connections with Kingsley’s Ring. John B. Norris is a wealthy banker, who was very influential with the old Water Board, and is now a power in the Board of City Works. He was out of town and not expected soon to return. Mr. F. D. Moultin, who is also a friend of Commissioner Fowler, had gone to Albany and was not expected back before the end of the week. His business there could not be ascertained. It was generally accepted by the score of Brooklyn gentlemen with whom the reporters conferred that Kingsley’s design in transferring the stock to these men was to control the election on next Monday, when a new Directory is to be elected. The transfers in the cases of Tracy, Fowler, Dixon, Wheeler, are thought to be genuine. All of these gentlemen can be depended upon to vote as Kingsley may direct, and would aid the members of the Ring already in possession of stock to control the new Board of Directors. The other named transfers have probably never been made and were never intended to be made. As the fact that the transfers had been made on the books would not be known (except for the exposure of THE TRIBUNE) until the day of the election, the purpose could not have been thwarted as it may now be. In case the bill of Mr. Jacobs was passed, and the Mayor was given power to appoint, it was intended that some of the most useful of the ten named should be nominated as directors. HOW THE BRIDGE MAY BE BUILT. Col. A.C. Davis, in his long and exhaustive speech on the management of the East River Bridge, made before the Reform Committee of One Hundred, on Monday evening, gave his theory of the proper course to be pursued to secure the requisite funds to complete the enterprise. His remarks were not published in full in yesterday’s TRIBUNE, but the following extracts, touching on the pith of the matter in which the tax-payers of Brooklyn and New-York are so deeply interested, are given in full: The people of Brooklyn need and demand the early completion of the bridge. They are willing and able to pay whatever sum may be necessary for its construction, but they are not willing that their taxes shall be unnecessarily increased. Controller Schroeder seems apprehensive that the work upon the bridge may be brought to a standstill. He is evidently alarmed that the exposures that have taken place may cause the people to refuse and further contributions of money. I take a different view. The only way, in my judgment, to secure the requisite funds to hasten the bridge to completion is to restore public confidence in its management. It is useless to disguise the fact that the past management has forfeited and lost the confidence of the people. It is idle for the Reform Association, or for any man or body of men, to attempt longer to humbug or deceive the people with reference to the management of this great enterprise. In the present state of the public mind, any legislation looking to reimbursing the private stockholders, in violation of the contract which they made when they undertook the work, will be justly regarded as a robbery of the tax-payer. The first duty is to hold the private stockholders to their solemn contract. “Not one cent out of the pocket of the tax-payer to reimburse these parties” is the only safe ground on which to stand. The next great duty is to investigate the past acts of the Board of Directors and show to the public that there is virtue and intelligence enough among us to know the acts of our servants, and to honestly and justly applaud or condemn them, as the facts may warrant. It is useless to tell me that the management of the bridge has been twice investigated. I concede, if you please, that the two investigating committees who have reported upon the bridge matters have done the best they could under the circumstances, and yet I assert that there has been no genuine investigation tending to elicit the whole truth in the matter up to the present time. Barnes, Schroeder, and Hewitt had not even the semblance of power to make an investigation. They could only take the voluntary statements of such parties as would talk with them, and yet the points upon which these three gentlemen concurred in their report are startling to our people. The Aldermanic investigation went no further than did Barnes, Schroeder, and Hewitt, and yet the facts which they elicited on the voluntary statements of those connected with the past bridge management were such as to cause a widespread feeling of distrust in our company. No one who has read the majority and minority reports of both these committees believes that there has been anything like a full, fair, and exhaustive examination into the affairs of the bridge. Its present estimated costs is about double the estimate of Mr. Roebling, sr., who was admittedly second to no engineer in the world. He was able and competent to calculate accurately. He did calculate accurately. There was not money enough in the world to induce him to miscalculate willfully, and his skill as an engineer and his familiarity with bridge building precludes the possibility of his blundering to the extent shown by the bridge management. He lost his life in devotion to a great public enterprise, and his memory should not be clouded with the charge that he deceived the people either willfully or ignorantly as to the necessary cost of the bridge. His figures tell no lie. They were the honest figures of an honest and capable man, and wherever they have been substantially deviated from the fault must rest upon others, but never cloud his memory. It is easy to restore public confidence. It is easy to raise the money to complete the bridge. But these objects must be attained by fair, honest, and open dealing with our tax-burdened people. No chicanery or humbug will answer the purpose. No lame and impotent pretenses at investigation will satisfy the present arouse public sentiment. Turn on the lights. Bring out the facts. Tell the people just how much money they must pay, and what they are paying it for. Convince them that their money is passing through honest hands for an honest purpose, and we may speedily have a bridge which will not only be the admiration of the civilized world, but will amply recompense our taxpayers for every dollar or their hard-earned money which they have invested in the enterprise. As a Reform Committee, we cannot afford to be behind public sentiment in this matter. The people are thoroughly aroused. Whatever we may do, the bridge management will be investigated. The people will see that their money is honestly handled, and that this great enterprise, so needful to the prosperity of both Brooklyn and New-York is not destroyed or retarded by the artifices of unfaithful public servants. |
This website maintained by:
Gary Feuerstein