B 923,962
TESTIMONY
LATEN BEFORE THE
SENATE COMMITTEE
ES
JK
3476
.A23
1891
VOLUME III.

GENERAL LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN.
THE
Hagerman Collection
OF BOOKS RELATING TO
HISTORY AND POLITICAL SCIENCE
BOUGHT WITH MONEY PLACED BY
JAMES J. HAGERMAN OF CLASS OF '61
IN THE HANDS OF
Professor Charles Kendall Adams
IN THE YEAR
1883.
TESTIMONY
TAKEN BEFORE THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON CITIES,
PURSUANT TO
RESOLUTION ADOPTED JANUARY 20, 1890.
་
VOLUME III.
TRANSMITTED TO THE LEGISLATURE APRIL 15, 1891.
ALBANY:
JAMES B. LYON, STATE PRINTER.
1891.
No. 80.]
1825
By Mr. IVINS (resuming):
Q. Now, after you have granted a license to a new party who has
come into possession through the bill of sale from an old party whose
license has been revoked, do you. make any inspection whatever of
the place to see how it is being run? A. The inspector's duty is to
make an inspection of that every day every week, in going around
his district; there are two or three annual inspections, I think, that
take place, ordered by the board to go around and ascertain all they
can from the various places [question and answer read by the sten-
ographer]; I will take back "every day;" every week; every month,
in his usual round in the precinct.
Q. What do you mean by the inspectors' duty in making the rounds
of his precinct? A. Step into make inquiries.
Q. Is there any rule which requires that sort of inspection to be
made? A. Not that I know of — written rule.
Q. Is there any specific instruction to inspectors to make inspection
as to the manner in which a licensed party is conducting his business?
A. They have been instructed by the president, in my hearing, to drop
in and inquire, if I rember correctly.
Q. I ask you that question because the chief inspector and the
deputy chief inspector have both said that they have no such duty.
A. The question is with me; I assume it is the duty of the inspector
to ascertain and inquire.
Senator FASSETT.- It amounts to this, Mr. Commissioner: After
having granted a license, does your duty cease, or has it only fairly
begun; do you have a continuing duty over the licensee and his place
to see that he keeps within the law? A. I expect he has; yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS (resuming):
Q. In other words, you have the duty of surveillance of this traffic
quite as much as the duty of granting licenses? A. To that extent the
inspector has a right to go and ascertain whether the place has changed
hands, whether the party that applied for the license and to whom it
was granted is conducting the place properly.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. You do not regard then that that is solely the duty of the police
department? A. Yes; I think it is part of their duties.
Q. But not exclusively theirs? A. Because, for instance, our
inspector is supposed to be on duty only so many hours of the day;
the police are on all hours, day and night.
[Senate, No. 80.]
229
1826
[SENATE,
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Do you consider that your board is responsible for the manner
in which the liquor traffic in New York city is conducted? A. No, sir.
Q. You do not; your first statement seemed to indicate the impres-
sion that you were responsible for the conduct of the liquor business
in New York; your second statement it seems does not. A. I didn't
mean to make that statement that way; I said it was the duty of the
inspector to ascertain whether any changes had been made, and
whether the party who applied for the license and to whom it is
granted is conducting the place as he should do; if there is any vio-
lation of the excise, or any violation of the police regulations, I think
that properly belongs to the police.
Q. Having the right to license and the duty to revoke in certain
cases, where does your duty end; is it not the duty of the excise board
to supervise this whole traffic, to see whether or not causes for revo-
cation do not arise? A. In what way?
Mr. JOHNSON.-The law provides what their duty is in so many
words.
The WITNESS.-Where there is an inspector night and day should go
into a place after lawful hours and find that man selling, he would be
compelled then to go and have the man arrested; he could not go and
make the arrest himself; he would be compelled to go and have the
man arrested; he might make a complaint the following day to the
board, and we would summon him and take his evidence against the
proprietor.
Q. Would you have the authority under the law to send an inspector
to a certain place to see whether there were violations? A. We would
have that right; yes; any citizen has that right.
Q. Suppose I were licensed, and rumors came to you that I was
selling all day Sunday, or selling to minors; would you have a right
to send an inspector there to look into it? A. On Sunday?
Q. Yes.
A. I don't know that I would have the right; no, I don't
hardly think I would.
Q. Suppose I was selling after hours, would you have the right to
send an inspector there to look into it? A. If I wanted information
to revoke the man's license; if I thought he wasn't a proper person,
was not conducting properly, I think I would have the right to send
anybody, a citizen or inspector.
Q. Suppose I was selling to a minor, right in the middle of the day;
you heard I was corrupting little boys or girls, would you have a right
嗶
​to send your inspector there to find out? A. Yes; send any citizen,
or go there myself.
No. 80.]
1827
Q. Now, it being the case, when does your duty to send inspectors
around cease; where does it cease?
Mr. JOHNSON. My friend is asking a lot of questions as to the wit-
ness' opinion.
Senator FASSETT.-Any citizen has a right to send anybody to inves-
tigate any saloon during legal hours.
Mr. JOHNSON.— That is a different question. He is asking him if he
has authority conferred upon him by law as excise commissioner.
Senator FASSETT. He is not deprived of these privileges because he
is excise commissioner. Now, then, another question arises; does he
have explicit duties put upon him by the statute in these directions?
The WITNESS.—No, sir; they are not.
Senator FASSETT.— If he has not, ought he to have; and, having the
privileges, is there any duty that he is called upon to perform in that
connection; if there is not a duty, ought such a duty to be imposed?
The WITNESS.—There is no duty, so far as I know, in regard to it,
part of my duty to do that; I think it is considered more of a police
regulation.
Mr. BROWN.-The General Term of the Supreme Court in this
department has decided in broad terms that the only duty of the com-
missioner is to grant or revoke licenses, and there their duty begins
and ends, I think.
Senator FASSETT.-With all that implies.
Mr. IVINS.-Does the duty to revoke a license imply the duty to
send an inspector to find out whether or not the place is by any means
being misconducted, after complaint has been made, for instance?
Mr. JOHNSON.— How can Mr. Fitzgerald decide that question?
Senator FASSETT.- He must decide it in every act of his official line.
Mr. IvINS.— I never heard such a proposition as this in my life, that
a man sworn to administer a law can not be asked to explain what he
understands the law to be, to administer which he is sworn.
Mr. JOHNSON.-Well, I never heard in my life that a man's under-
standing, if your honor please —I am afraid my friend's attention to
politics has taken him away from the law—that a man's understand-
ing was evidence of anything. He may tell the facts, and the court
and jury understand what it is. My friend Ivins asked this question,
whether it was not his duty to do something under the law? Now, I
say, if your honor please, he is not to decide whether it is his duty
under the law or not.
Senator FASSETT.-Mr. Ivins can change the question to this form.
Mr. JOHNSON.-I admit the question the committee has put is the
proper question, but the question my friend asks is a conclusion as to
what the law imposed upon him.
1
1828
[SENATE,
د.
Mr. IVINS.-I asked nothing of that kind, and even if I had asked
it, it would have been entirely pertinent, perfectly proper.
Mr. JOHNSON.-I say it would not. That is where we disagree
about it.
Mr. IVINS. The point it is necessary to get out is this: The coun-
sel states they have no duty as commissioners, and that they have no
right as commissioners of excise to send an inspector to make this
particular kind of an inspection under the particular circumstances
that I referred to. Now, if they have not, it is for this committee to
find it out. Then it remains to be seen whether or not they ought
to have it.
Mr. JOHNSON.—The commitee find it out by examining the law.
Mr. IVINS.- No; we will examine the witness.
By Mr. IVINS (resuming):
Q. Now, in your judgment, Mr. Commissioner, ought the commis-
sioners of excise of this city, as commissioners of excise, to have the
right and authority and the duty to send inspectors to make such
inspections as that; do you think they ought to have? A. I do.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Now, as matter of fact, don't you exercise that right; do you
send the inspectors, after issuing a license, to investigate how the
place is being conducted, with reference to revoking the same? A.
Upon complaints we do.
Q. Upon complaints?
A. Yes, sir; I believe it the duty of the
inspector, in making his daily walks around the district, to give all
the attention he can to ascertain whether a place is properly
conducted.
Q. In your practice, as you discharge the obligations of your office,
is it the business, as your department considers it, to see to it that
the entire liquor business is conducted within the law after you have
given the license, as well as before? A. I think that that portion
properly belongs to the police.
Q. It is not part of your duty to have the inspectors go into
licensed places? A. I suppose they do; I understand they do.
Q. Do your inspectors - by exercising this privilege of occasionally
dropping in and seeing everything is going right, it would be quite an
annoyance to him, would it not? A. Not unless the man was violating
the law.
Q. Do you have any complaints from saloon keepers that the inspec-
tors are annoying them? A. No; we have had complaints in this
way, Senator: That the saloon keeper had complained that the inspec-
No. 80.]
1829
tor had intimated to them that a consideration or the like of that
would be the proper thing; we have had those.
Q. That is, saloon keepers have given you this complaint: That the
inspectors were intimating that they might be complained of if they
did not pay them a little something? A. Yes; we have investigated
those matters, and where we have had the charges or allegations
substantiated we have discharged the inspectors.
Q. Have you made any such discharges? A. Five or six; I do not
know how many.
Q. That is one of the abuses incident to the discharging of the
duties of inspector, is it? A. Yes; I think they are a class of men
that is more subject to temptation than any other class in this com-
munity; they are tempted at times; they have no disposition or
intention of demanding anything or asking anything.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Gale, when on the stand, testified that the
duties of the inspectors consisted, first, to make the special inspections
which were allotted to them to make prior to the granting of the
license of any specific place; second, that two inspections were made
at any time; that is, general inspections over the entire city for the
purpose of checking off the accuracy of the books of your department;
he testified, as I understood it, that the inspectors had to make no
other inspections than that, except that it being in or about their pre-
cincts, if anything came to their attention they will note it; now, I
want to ask whether any instructions are given to the inspectors to
generally keep a supervision or surveillance in their precincts in the
manner in which the liquor business is conducted by licensees of the
board? A. I do not think it is a part—no instruction given; no, sir;
might be special instructions in particular cases.
Q. Yes; but I mean generally; so far as their continuous general
supervision is concerned then on the part of your inspectors, it does
not exist? A. I can not say that it does; but if I were an inspector I
would feel it well, I wouldn't say legally or lawfully incumbent
upon me, but I would feel that it was my duty to see whether a place
was properly run or not.
Q. Is the territorial jurisdiction of an inspector such as to make
him in any sense responsible for failure to discover irregularities in
the conduct of the business in any particular precinct? A. No; I do
not know as the districts are so large as that.
Q. Is it not a fact that several inspectors are allotted to the same
precinct? A. No; two is the greatest number.
1830
}
[SENATE,
Q. Two the greatest number to each precinct? A. Not to each
precinct; some precincts have only one.
Q. If you should discover some day that some man- let us say in
the twenty-ninth precinct-were selling in violation of law, you
wouldn't hold your inspector responsible for not having discovered
that, would you? A. No, sir.
净
​Q. Then, in reality the inspectors do not perform and have not
imposed upon them. the performance of, the duty of general super-
vision? A. Well, not imposed upon them; I feel that they had ought
to look around and see whether places are changing owners and
whether places are conducted properly; I do not know that it is a
duty imposed upon them to do it; I think that duty devolves upon
the police.
Q. Don't you think it would be an improvement upon this system
if the general supervision of the conduct of the business were not left
so entirely to the police as it is and were put more largely into the
hands of the excise board? A. I do not.
Q. Why not? A. Because the inspectors are only out on duty days;
they are supposed to retire to their homes at four o'clock, and any-
thing that occurs between that and twelve they hadn't ought to be
held responsible for.
Q. Is there any reason why sufficient inspectors should not be had
to do the duty in the same way which the policemen do their duty?
A. I am not thoroughly versed enough in the law to explain the
difference.
Q. I am asking you as a matter of judgment.
Senator FASSETT. He is asking you for your opinion as an expert,
as it were; whether it would not be an improvement in the way this
business is conducted in the city, if the powers of the commission
were extended or amplified so as to cover the business from the
beginning of a license to its termination, to watch over it to see that
the license was properly fulfilled; the law was obeyed.
The WITNESS. Providing you would increase the number of
employes.
Mr. IvINS.—I think I can illustrate it in this way: The commis-
sioner of street cleaning asked last winter to have a law passed which
would permit the board of police to place a certain number of police-
men at his disposal, which particular officers should have the
particular duty of seeing to it that certain of the city ordinances were
not broken. Those people are still members of the police department,
but at the same time they are specialized, so to speak; they are
turned off to a particular duty. Now, what do you think as to the
No. 80.]
1831
desirability of having the excise board given larger and fuller power
in the matter of policing and the police regulations of the liquor
traffic, as well as in the matter of granting a license and revoking it.
Of course, if it were done you would have to have enlarged means to
enable them to do it. We grant that.
The WITNESS. Well, you would have to qualify them in that way;
if they violated the law by changing owners, without the consent of
the excise commissioners, that would be a proper subject to come
under the inspection, upon such as you designate, or if they went in
there at an unseasonable hour; I think it would be well to have them
so authorized and empowered so as to either arrest or make a
complaint.
Senator FASSETT.-I don't think you get the full scope of the
question. It may be there is nothing in the suggestion at all. It is
simply to get your experience. In your opinion, from your experi-
ence, would you deem that the city would be better served, that quiet
and peace would dwell more among us, if the police department
should be invaded in its present prerogatives to this extent; that the
entire policing of the liquor traffic should be put over into the hands
of the board of excise commissioners rather than left where it now is
with a divided responsibility?
The WITNESS. - No; I do not think it would work well to have the
police powers entirely taken away from the police department.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. To put it concretely in this form, Mr. Chairman- A. I don't
think you can do it, because you would have to have a corps of men
standing, walking and perambulating the various districts same as
the police do; I don't think you can do it.
Q. Why should you have that? A. More properly a part of the
duty of the police, because they have authority and control over all
violations of the law.
Q. Don't you know that the administration as now conducted by
the police department is almost a complete failure so far as concerns
the ultimate punishment for violation of the liquor laws? A. I don't
know as it is part of their responsibility at all; they make arrests and
I think after they make the arrests for violation of the law, I don't
know as they have any right to proceed any further; let the other
authorities take charge of it then and conduct it.
Q. We have got somehow to get at the jist of this thing; there are
arrests for the violation of the law to the extent of many thousands
in this city; the assumption is that those arrests are properly made;
1832
[SENATE,
the assumption is that there has been a violation of the law; so far as
the excise commissioners are concerned, so far as the police commis-
sioners are concerned, the presumption is that the officer of the law
has acted within his duty; they can not get those on trial; the only
recourse is a revocation of the license; now, if the commissioners were
to summon the parties against whom the police make a complaint,
and try the question looking to the ultimate revocation of a license,
the law would be very readily enforced; that is not done; if they really
were put in charge of this work and had their own staff of men to do it
so that they could produce the proofs, you would not have to send
people to check or impose a penalty in order to see that the law was
enforced; all you would have to do would be to revoke the license.
Senator FASSETT.-In the light of the suggestions Mr. Ivins made,
I would like to say to you, Mr. Fitzpatrick, that this committee is in
search of suggestions as to what changes in the law will enable it
possibly to secure the better administration of this department, and
you will take advantage of the recess to consider whether you have
any suggestions to make, we will be very much obliged. We will
adjourn until to-morrow morning at half-past 10.
Adjourned until October 7, 10.30 A. M.
if
NEW YORK, TUESDAY MORNING, October 7, 1890.
Present-Senators Fassett, Stewart, Ahearn and McNaughton.
Mr. Ivins. Mr. Johnson tells me that Commissioner Fitzpatrick
is ill this morning and not able to be here, which being the case, we
will suspend his examination and call Commissioner Koch.
Senator FASSETT.- Have you any other witness to call, Mr Ivins?
Mr. IVINS.-I think probably Mr. Koch will take the entire session
to-day.
Mr. JOHNSON.—The only thing to say about Commissioner Koch is
that he starts out sick; he is sick in advance.
Senator FASSETT.- Do you think, Mr. Ivins, it will be safe to excuse
the other witnesses on the expectation that Mr. Koch will take the
morning?
Mr. IVINS.-I think so.
Senator FASSETT.- Very well, I think it will be only fair; if there
are any other witnesses who have been subpoenaed for this morning
they will be excused until to-morrow morning at half-past 10 o'clock.
Mr. IVINS.—I don't think that any new subpoenas were issued for
No. 80.]
1833
to-day at all; Mr. Gale and Mr. Bishop had better stop here, because
the commissioner may need them, and so may we.
Senator FASSETT.- Do you desire Mr. Gale this morning?
Mr. IvINS. Yes.
JOSEPH KOCH, being duly sworn, testifies as follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Where do you live? A. I reside at 706 Madison avenue.
Q. Are you now one of the commissioners of excise? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you been an excise commissioner? A. Since
May, 1889.
Q. Whom did you succeed? A. I succeeded one of the commis-
sioners of the commission which was comprised of John Von Glahn,
William H. Woodman and William S. Andrews.
Q. Charles H. Woodman, you mean? A. I think it was Charles H.
Woodman.
Q. Will you now, as preliminary to any interrogatories, describe
to the committee the organization and operations of your board? A.
The organization consists of the president and treasurer of the depart-
ment; the board has powers, executive and judicial; the executive
powers consist in passing upon applications which are made to añ
application clerk, referred to the chief inspector, by him referred to
one of the subordinate inspectors, who is expected to make a report
of the facts concerning the person and place by whom and where the
application is made, referred then to several clerks who examine the
documents of the office with reference to prior applications, protests and
the general locality, and then referred to the board for action; the
judicial part of it consists in passing up, or in examining into and
investigating the protests and in investigating and examining into
complaints that may be made from time to time against persons
holding licenses from the board.
Q. The present board has appointed all of the present subordinates,
or if not all, how many of them? A. It has not appointed all of the
present subordinates; but I think it has appointed about forty per
cent.
Q. About forty per cent of the present subordinates? A. I mean
about sixty per cent.
Q. How many inspectors have you? A. I can facilitate matters in
that respect because I have a book here which will show every resig-
nation, removal and appointment and retention.
Q. Let us get it. A. [To Mr. Bishop.] Mr. Bishop, have you got
the book?
[Senate, No. 80.]
230
1834
[SENATE,
[Mr. Bishop produces book and hands to witness.]
The WITNESS.—I thought I would leave the book with you to
examine if you desire.
Q. I thought you wanted to use it as a memorandum. A. If you
desire to use it you may, or I can read from there just exactly what
is entered there.
Q. If you will read from there and tell us exactly in each particular
case, as you go through, upon whose recommendation the appoint-
ment was made? A. That is an impossibility for me to tell.
Q. You can tell so far as you are concerned on whose recommenda-
tion it was made, can't you? A. As far as I am concerned there are
very few that I could tell you, as far as the recommendation is
concerned.
Q. Then begin by telling us how many appointments you yourself
have secured in the board since you have been there? A. There
was one appointment that was made upon my own personal recom-
mendation, upon my own especial recommendation; his name was
Meyer Elsis, one of the inspectors.
Q. No others? A. No others.
Q. Before taking up those names in detail, in order to make that
clearer, tell us what the method of appointment is? A. The method
of appointment was that as a vacancy would occur the president of
the board, Mr. Meakim would submit a name, if agreeable, and the
man was handed the civil service paper.
Q. What do you mean by, "if agreeable" there? A. If agreeable
to the members of the board.
Q. That particular name? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And if he was favorably considered by the board he was given
a civil service paper ? A. He was given a civil service paper; and
when the paper received the indorsement of the requisite number of
persons under the civil service regulations, it was returned to the
board and forwarded to Mr. Angle at Albany.
Q. By whom by the board? A. By the secretary of the board; it
was forwarded to the president, and by him, I presume, to Mr. Angle.
Q. So that that paper, containing that particular name, was a sort
of official recommendation to the civil service board of the par-
ticular person seeking an appointment? A. I should judge it was,
yes, sir; the party would then receive his notification to attend the
· examination before the civil service board; if qualified, the board
would be notified, and he would be notified, and upon that the
appointment was made.
No. 80.]
1835
Q. Now, do you understand that anybody can come up for examina-
tion before the civil service board unless they are so recommended
both by your board and the proper number of indorsers? A. I don't
think the civil service board would give it a consideration as long as
there was any probability that an application would be made in that
way by the board of excise.
Q. Then, it virtually amounts to this, that you really designate
the person whom, if he can pass the civil service examination, you
want to employ? A. I think that would be the result; it is non-
competitive.
Q. He then passes the civil service examination, which is non-
competitive? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And he is then employed? A. And he is then employed.
Q. That virtually gives you complete control in the matter of
appointments and complete responsibility for their appointees, doesn't
it, assuming that they have passed? A. With very few exceptions
that are designated as competitive by the civil service rules; we have
some competitive ones.
Q. Which are the competitive ones? A. The engrossing clerk,
and I think there are two or three other positions; just at present I
am unable to tell which they are.
Q. Have you a competitive stenographer, for instance? A. The
stenographer is competitive too.
Q. The secretaryship is not competitive? A. No.
Q. In those cases where the examinations are competitive, it is con-
ducted, however, by the same examiners, is it not? A. Where it is
competitive?
Q. Yes? A. I presume it is; I won't be positive.
Q. The operation and effect of the civil service law then, so far as
concerns your board, is simply this, that a man who is absolutely
unqualified, because he can not read or write for instance, could not
get appointed? A. And character; sometimes the parties who vouch
for him in the first instance, when requested by the board of exami-
ners to forward individual letters, don't desire to go on record, and I have
known several instances where the parties have failed to pass, not on
account of not reading or writing, or not on account probably of not
being otherwise well qualified, but because the manner in which they
conducted themselves before the board of examiners did not commend
them.
Q. The men who are suggested to you by Mr. Meakim, are, so far
as you know, suggested to him in what manner? A. I should judge
that they are suggested by the organization.
1836
[SENATE,
Q. What do you mean by the organization? A. Tammany Hall.
Q. So that if Tammany Hall as an organization, suggests a man for
appointment in your department, that suggestion is made to the
president of your department, as its president, and then, if it be
agreeable to the other members, he is certified to the board of civil
service examiners? A. Yes.
Q. And if the board of civil service examiners do not pass adversely
upon the ground of character and upon the ground of qualification as
shown by a non-competitive examination, he is appointed? A. He is
appointed; yes, sir.
Q. The result of which is to virtually put the control of the
patronage of the departments in the hands of the organization; isn't
it? A. It is; it is the old theory, that to the victors belong the spoils,
I suppose.
Q. And is it pretty thoroughly applied in the department? A. I
should judge it would be.
Q. As one of the victors, do you regard it as in any sense a duty or
obligation to the organization to help them divide the spoils ? A. I
don't regard it as a duty in that sense, but I regard it as a matter of
gratitude that I would.
Q. Then, are we to understand that the organization of the service
of the excise board is based upon a feeling of gratitude on the part
of the commissioners to the organization which secured their places?
A. A feeling of gratitude to myself; all other matters being equal, the
person having passed the necessary rules, everything in compliance.
with the necessary rules, I think that would be the inference that
could be drawn, or should be drawn.
Q. Can you hold the organization in any way responsible for the
malfeasance or misfeasance, carelessness or negligence of the sub-
ordinates which you appoint at its request? A. I should in the same
way that I should hold any individual upon whose recommendation I
appointed anyone.
Q. In what way would that be? A. That would be a moral obliga-
tion that he recommended somebody that was not what he ought
to be.
Q. Do you regard the organization as having a sort of corporate
existence for those purposes, so that you could hold it corporately
responsible? A. No.
Q. Then, where does the moral obligation come in? A. The moral
obligation comes in that there has been an abuse practised upon
somebody in the organization that has recommended this man.
Q. If the organization were to recommend to you half a dozen men
whom you appointed, and whom you subsequently found out were
No. 80.]
1837
entirely unworthy of their places, would you hold the organization
responsible to the extent of refusing to recognize its recommenda-
tions in the future, as you would the recommendations of an individual
who had committed the same blunder? A. If it came wholesale like
that, I certainly should.
Q. Has not it come to the extent of five or six people already? A.
My knowledge has not been called to them.
Q. You heard the testimony yesterday by Commissioner Fitzpatrick
touching some of the reports by inspectors that were read yesterday?
A. It was the first time that I had ever heard it.
Q. You heard it then? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Don't you think that somebody has been deceived so far as
touches the qualifications of those inspectors for their work? A. I
think that somebody has either been deceived or these parties have
not given the testimony in the manner in which they ought to have
given it.
Q. Do you mean the manner in which they ought to have given it,
or the manner in which they had given it? A. The manner in which
they ought to have given it; I heard one or two reports read there
in which I knew that the parties knew better and did not intend to
convey the idea that in the stenographer's minutes shown would be
conveyed through what they had testified.
Q. Do you think that a man who does not know enough to know
how to tell the exact facts on the stand under oath, is properly quali-
fied to be an inspector as to the moral character and general reputa-
tion of others? A. I would take the character of the man intellectually
into consideration at first.
Q. Have you taken that into consideration in the appointment of
your inspectors? A. Certainly.
Q. And some of them are so intellectually weak that they don't
know how to testify as they ought to have testified? A. Some of them
are probably quite intellectual men of the class and kind that apply
for inspectorships, and still when on the stand would be nervous; you
must recollect that we have not had a single application from the 400
for the inspectors.
Q. Do you mean the organ-grinders? A. No; the others.
Q. There are two four hundreds, you know.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Mr. Fitzpatrick testified that five or six inspectors had been dis-
missed for extorting money; who recommended these? A. I think
there were two that came recommended to us in the manner in which
1838
[SENATE,
I have indicated, through the president of the board; I think Mr.
Quinn and Mr. Brady; I think these are the names; there were two,
and the others were handed down to us as heirlooms from another age.
Q. There were only two that were recommended by Tammany Hall
who were dismissed? A. I assume they were recommended by Tam-
many Hall; I won't even be positive as to that.
Q. That does not quite reach your maximum of half a dozen; so it
has not become wholesale yet; is that it? A. I presume so; I know
that I promptly dismissed them.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Would it be a fair statement to say that all of the appointees of
the board have been virtually appointed on the recommendation of
the organizations and not of individuals?
Mr. JOHNSON.-That is not a fair question; he says only sixty per
cent are new appointees.
Mr. IVINS.-I say of his appointees.
Mr. JOHNSON. You mean of the sixty per cent?
Mr. IVINS.-Yes, of his appointees,
The WITNESS.-A. Yes, sir; I think it would; I state again that I
have never been consulted with reference to any of the appointments;
when the vacancy occurred they came recommended from Mr. Meakim;
of course, he can answer that better than I can.
Q. Since the organization seems to have the disposal of these
places very largely, but at the same time is not an official public
body in any sense, will you tell us what constitutes the organi-
zation, and how the organization certifies its desire, or will, in the
premises? A. I am not a member of the organization.
Q. But how does it certify its will or desire? A. I can't tell; I am
a member of the Tammany Society, and that is the nearest approach
that I have to any committee or anything connected with the
organization.
Q. Then, if you don't know what the organization is, and don't
know how it certifies its desire, how do you know that these people
are those desired by the organization? A. You mistake me; I told
you that I supposed that they came recommended to Mr. Meakim
through the organization; Mr. Meakim can testify to that better
than I.
Q. Did you vote in favor of their appointment on that naked sup-
position and without going any further? A. I voted for them not
strictly because I supposed they were Tammany Hall men; I should
have voted for them if Mr. Meakim had suggested them.
•
'
No. 80.]
1839
>
Q. You hold yourself responsible as one of the commissioners for
the operations of that board, don't you? A. Yes.
Q. For your own appointments? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And for any shortcoming or miscarriage as incident to the work
of these appointees? A. That is held, and as a matter of law I am
obliged to.
Q. If this were your private business, or if you were acting as the
trustee for an estate, would you select your subordinates and assume
responsibilities upon the same basis and on the same theory that you
do in this department? A. In principle I think I would; I should
consult largely the interests of my clients, and I suppose the prin-
ciple would apply in that case.
Q. Have you ever made a personal investigation as to the suf-
ficiency or insufficiency of the staff in point of numbers? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Just tell us what that investigation was, and tell us what the
result of it was. A. In what respect do you mean?
Q. I said as to its sufficiency or insufficiency in point of numbers;
that is, have you not sufficient numerical strength, or have you more
men than you need? A. We would, during certain seasons of the
year, have a considerable number more than we want; and then at
other seasons of the year-say, for instance, from the middle of
April or beginning of April until the first of July, we would hardly
have enough to attend to all the duties that would be necessary; from
the first of September then until close on to the first of February we
would have about a sufficient number; there are about three or four
months in the year in which we could dispense with one-half of the
force that we have.
Q. Is there no way in which you could so organize your work that
that expense could be saved the city and that one-half of the force
could really be dispensed with? A. Not under the existing law.
Q. Now, I ask you if there is no way in which it could be done?
A. There is no doubt but what it could.
Q. Tell us how you think it could be arranged? A. I think if all
licenses were made to expire at certain times in the
year
By Senator F'ASSETT:
Q. That is if the dates of expiration were scattered through the
different months? A. Through three months in the year.
Q. They now come about twice a year, don't they? A. Oh, they
come every month.
By Ex-Judge BROWNE:
Q. Every day, isn't it? A. I say they come in large force every
month, at present, because as a license is transferred from one party
1840
[SENATE,
to the other, he is obliged to take out a new license for an entire
year.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. I fail to see, under these circumstances, how, if it were all con-
solidated into one or two months, instead of running through the
year, you would not intensify this mischief instead of curing it? A.
The difficulty there would be too much work during the one month
or two months; it would be almost impossible to get through the
entire work of passing upon twelve or fifteen thousand applications
during the three months.
Q. As a matter of fact, however, the volume of work now occurs
during March and April and May, doesn't it? A. Hardly that now;
it has become scattered more and more over the time.
Q. More perfectly distributed ? A. The principle work is dis-
tributed, as I say, from the first of April until the middle of June;
then there is a lull; then opens up another period of removals and
transfers and sales, and one thing or another, and then you get a
spurt during the month of Octobor, and probably November; then
comes a little light work, but work all the time from November until
February.
Q. This work is not work of surveillance in any sense, is it; it is
work of inspection as incident to the granting of a license in the first
instance? A. Inspection.
Q. That is what you are now speaking of? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many places could be comfortable but well inspected by an
inspector in the course of a week, in your judgment? A. By any one
inspector?
Q. By any one inspector?
Senator FASSETT.- A competent inspector.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. What would be a fair amount of work for any competent
inspector in the course of a week? A. I should judge that he could
take about eighteen to twenty.
Q. Mr. Gale testified that he thought, as an inspector himself, and
one familiar with the work, that it would be very easy for any compe-
tent inspector to inspect and report upon twenty-four in the course
of a week? A. I say it might be twenty-four or twenty.
Q. Making an average of about three or four a day? A. An aver-
age of about three or four a day.
Q. That is assuming that the entire work upon each one of these
sets of four is done on any one particular day, because he may have
No. 80.]
1841
to work upon one several days in succession? A. Certainly; I take
it that way.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. It would average about three or four a day? A. About.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. How many inspectors have you? A. I think we have about
sixty-five.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. How many? A. About sixty-five.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. On that basis then it is apparent that your force of inspectors,
if the work could be differently organized in some way, is somewhat
more than two or three times as large as is necessary? A. That is as
I say, that it is during certain periods that an inspector is obliged to
make six or eight a day.
Q. Then, for every very hard day's work that an inspector has dur-
ing the busy period, he has a corresponding very small day's work at
some other period, hasn't he? A No, sir; not correspondingly small;
he may have an average day's work; upon a rough thought I should
say that there are three very busy months; then there are about six
fairly busy months; then three that would run along here and there
an inspection.
Q. Are you aware of the fact that with your staff of inspectors as
compared with the volume of inspections made, each inspector does
not inspect on the average one place a day? A. That may be.
Q. Are you aware of the fact that he scarcely inspects on an average
more than one place in two days? A. That may be from your point of
calculation.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. As a matter of fact, I think the figures show that four a day for
sixty-five inspectors would be about eighty-one thousands a year.
Mr. IvINS.— About sixty-one thousands?
The WITNESS. But I presume that you are not aware that an inspec-
tor is obliged to go to one place five or six times a day at times, if he
wants to do his work properly.
Mr. IVINS.— We understood that; but in the course of a weeks work,
provided he is not compelled to report upon a particular day, and he
is working in the same precinct, there is nothing to prevent his mov-
ing about from place to place and doing a good deal of that work
simultaneously.
[Senate, No. 80.]
231
1842
[SENATE,
By Mr. LEVENTRITT:
Q. Do not the inspectors serve subpoenas and do clerical work in
the office? A. They do that; yes.
Q. So their whole time is not devoted to inspection? A. I didn't
state that.
Mr. LEVENTRITT. That is what Mr. Ivins wants to know.
By Mr. IVINS: .
Q. What clerical work do the inspectors have to do in the office?
A. They have got to make out their reports.
Q. That is part of the inspection, isn't it? A. Certainly.
Q. You don't call that clerical work, do you? A. You can't call it
an inspection to have a party go and put up the various questions,
make his notes, and then if he feels satisfied to write up his report
afterwards in the manner he does; that is hardly fair to call that an
inspection.
Q. All I want is not to have any confusion here in regard to the
work of the inspectors and the work of the clerks; do they do any
clerical work other than the clerical work incident to their own depart-
ment? A. No; none at all; if a complaint is made against a party-
By Ex-Judge BROWN:
Q. Are not the inspectors detailed in the office in the administration
of the department other than the regular clerks? A. Hardly that.
By Mr. LEVENTRITT:
Q. Do not those inspectors keep the precinct books and the record
books? A. They are all incident, of course, to the office.
Ex-Judge BROWN. That is not incident to their report.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Mr. Leventritt's question is entirely pertinent; I meant incident.
to their report, not incident to the records of the office? A. They
are obliged to keep books in order to keep themselves properly posted
within their precincts.
Q. What books do the inspectors keep, and which inspectors keep
the books? A. They keep the books connected with their precincts,
so that they can ascertain any information they desire.
Q. What do you call those books; what are they; are they the
so-called precinct books that we have had in evidence here? A. No;
not those precinct books.
Q. They are not those precinct books? A. No.
No. 80.]
1843
#
Q. What books are they? A. They are books that they keep for
their own information.
Q. Are they the records of the department? A. They become
records of the department, of course.
Q. What are they known as in the department? A. As local pre-
cinct books, I should judge.
Q. They are known as local precinct books? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. IVINS.-[To Mr. Bishop.] Mr. Bishop, have you got a messenger
that you can send for some of those local precinct books and let us
see what they are?
Q. Each inspector, you say, keeps a local precinct book? A. That
is his duty to do so, if he wants to keep in form with reference to the
general condition of his precinct.
Q. Do you know what he enters in that book? A. No, sir; I do not.
Q. The inspectors whom we have called, a half a dozen of them, have
sworn that it does not take more than half an hour to make out a
report in any particular case, that is the actual clerical work, and the
investigation of the report; but the committee has shown that a quick
man can do it much more quickly than that, because there is very
little writing on that paper; do you think that half an hour is
sufficient time to enable a man to make out his report?
Senator FASSETT.- Having done all the preliminary work before?
Mr. IVINS. Having made his examination before?
The WITNESS.—I should judge it would be.
Q. One of the inspectors has testified that he was able to make out
his report and investigate all the documents in the office bearing upon
the question of the reports, such as the newspaper files, the notices of
arrests and precinct books and everything of that kind in half an
hour? A. He might have been able to do it; he might have run up
a line of figures in a second.
Q. Then it is fair to say that an inspector who wrote out four
reports a day would not take over two hours in that work isn't it?
A. An inspector of that kind ought to take about two hours or three
hours.
Q. How much of his time does it take to make the daily entries in
this other book of which you speak? A. I should judge it would take
him probably fifteen or twenty minutes, or probably half an hour,
depending on the number of inspections he would make.
Q. As a matter of fact it is practically nothing more than the entry
of the name of the party applicant and the inspection? A. I don't
know what they are; I have paid no attention to it; I understand they
keep them for their own convenience.
1844
[SENATE,
Q. Do you feel as the result of your services to date in that board
that there has been a marked improvement in the work of the board
as compared with the last board? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you think there has been a marked improvement in the work
of the board as compared with the work of the board when Mr. John
R. Boorhis, for instance, was commissioner of excise? A. I paid no
attention to the board at that time; in fact I will say that I didn't pay
a great deal of attention to the workings of the last board; but if you
ask me the reason why I believe there is a marked improvement I will
tell you.
Q. Well, I will ask you that in a minute; I shall be glad to ask
and it is fair that you should answer; do you know with how many
inspectors the work of the board was done some ten or twelve years
ago? A. No, sir; I do not; I know that it was done with consider-
ably less than there are now; that I have heard.
Q. Do you know, as matter of fact, that there are fewer licenses now
than there were then, ten or twelve years ago? A. No, sir; that is
news to me.
Q. There are fewer licenses now than there were under your imme-
diate predecessors, are there not? A, Yes, sir.
Mr. LEVENTRITT.-The number of saloons is less, but the total
number I think is about the same.
Q. In the aggregate, is the number of licenses smaller than it was
under your predecessor, or does that occur to saloon licenses only?
A. The saloon licenses are smaller.
Q. The aggregate is about the same? A. Drinking places, taking
the saloons, ale, wine and beer, or ale and beer.
Q. Why is it that the saloon licenses are smaller; is it because
there has been a new differentiation or a new classification? A. The
resolution we formed at the beginning of our term was to limit the
number of licenses to the number that were in existence at the time
we went into office; and that, I hold, is one of the improvements in
the city, and if you desire any explanation I can give it to you.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Before you leave that subject of the distribution of the expira-
tions of licenses; I don't think you left that very clear; If I under-
stand you, it would be this, that if you could distribute the expirations.
and renewals of licenses more evenly through the year, so that each
day would almost approximate the average, that is, it would be about
thirty or forty a day, that would result in the minimum of employes,
would it not? A. I think it would.
No. 80.]
1845
Q. The maximum of distribution would result in the minimum of
employes? A. I think so.
By Senator MONAUGHTON:
Q. Can that be regulated?
Senator FASSETT.— That will be my next question.
A. I really have not given the matter any attention; I think it could
be regulated in a proper way; I could work it out.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. It could be regulated to a very great extent,if not entirely?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And if it could be regulated so there would not be more than
fifty applications in any one day, according to your own notions, twelve
or fifteen inspectors could do the work? A. It would become largely a
question of utility at that, as to whether it would be better, whether
the theory would be the best to distribute them in the manner in
which you would indicate, or to lump them so that all licenses should
expire within a period of about two months.
By Senator Stewart:
Q. Would that be possible to transact the business and have it done
in a few months- could you properly make an examination of 14,000
applications in a few months? A. Well, hardly.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Is not it the fact that fewer licenses were granted under your
term of office in view of the fact that there was a better inspection, a
more thorough inspection? A. Well, I can't say that, because the
mode and manner of inspection has been pretty much the same under
the two regimes, as I understand it; but it has been that we have
kept the number of saloon licenses within a certain limit.
By Mr. LEVENTRITT:
Q. I want to ask you a question which perhaps will assist the com-
mittee; does not a great deal of this work in April arise by reason of
removals, parties moving, as they do here in the city, on the first of
May, moving from one saloon to another; does not that create a great
deal of work in the transfer of licenses? A. That creates a great deal
of work during a period of the year.
Q. And if you can't obviate the number of removals at that time,
you can't obviate the difficulty regarding the labor at that particular
season of the year? A. You could obviate it by applying the same
rule to removals that applies to transfers; you could obviate that.
1846
[SENATE,
Q. And allow a licensee to remove from one place to another and
take his license with him, and have it apply to the subsequent place
as it did to the former place? A. Yes.
Q. Without any action on the part of the commissioners? A. Yes;
without any action on the part of the commissioners.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. What would the result be if the law was such that the place
were licensed instead of the individual? A. That would be an
improvement in my judgment; I think it would operate well; my own
individual judgment has been that the place instead of the person
should be licensed.
Q. If the place were licensed instead of the person every owner of
such a place would have a direct motive, would he not, to see that the
law was enforced, in order that he might not lose the value accruing,
or the possibility of renting that as a liquor store? A. I think the
landlord should have a right to license his place under the rules or
under the law as it exists; I think that if an abuse of the law were
practiced there that that license should be revoked and not relicensed
again for a period of two or three or five years.
Q. Would that not, in your opinion, be virtually making the land-
lord in every case a sort of assistant to the board of excise to see that
the law is enforced? A. Of course, as a matter of protection to his
property; they say that property of that kind is worth more, as a
general thing, than other property in the immediate vicinity, and if
that were the case, as a matter of self protection, I think he would be
a sort of private policeman to protect his own rights, and he would
see that proper persons were put there.
Q. Is your view as to the desirability of licensing a place instead of
a person due in any measure to your experience of the almost utter
impossibility of making a proper examination as to the character and
general reputation of applicants? A. Yes, sir; it is based upon that
very largely.
Q. We got off for a minute from the point of the inspectors; it is a
fact that because of the irregular distributions of the work your
inspectors are not busy during some parts of the year, is it not? A. I
don't understand what you mean oh, yes, sir; I understand you
now; yes, sir; that is the fact.
Q. And it is a fact that they have pretty easy times during that
part of the year, or in other words that the services of some of them
might readily be dispensed with, isn't it? A. Certainly.
No. 80.]
1847
Q. Unless they are occupied in other classes of work? A. Yes, sir.
Q. For instance, if their time were to be occupied in the work of
surveillance, or general supervision, then they would have plenty to
do, wouldn't they? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And there is no reason why, during large parts of the year, they
should not do that work, is there, unless that it is not within the duty
of the board to have it done? A. That is the truth.
Q. Now, do you know of any reason why an arrangement could not
be made by the board of estimate and apportionment which would
provide for the appointment of a number of special inspectors who
should assist the regular inspectors during the busy part of the year,
and in that way make the burden upon the city treasury much smaller,
and in that connection I call your attention to this fact, that whereas
this department cost only from $40,000 to $50,000 some ten years ago,
it is now costing, I think, $125,000; isn't it? A. About $114,000, I
think.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Right here, I would like to ask, what is the reason of the rule of
the board of excise which reads as follows: "The duties of an
inspector of excise and confined to making such sufficient report to
the board of excise as are required by the rules of the board;" why
confine them to that? A. It was a rule that was adopted in accord-
ance with what had been handed down to us by our predecessors, and
I will state right here — not desiring to state matters out of school,
and very much against my protest
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. It is the existing rule of your board? A. Yes.
Q. You have not changed it? A. No; it has not been changed; but
it is not my fault.
Q. Have you ever considered the desirability or feasibility or prac-
ticability of changing it? A. Yes, sir; I have.
Q. Don't you think it would be a good idea? A. I had a committee
on rules appointed the very first thing that I did when I went into the
board; I hadn't been there three days before I did that.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. You were out-voted? A. Yes, sir, I was out-voted; I had never
been a member of the excise board and hadn't given much attention
to it except such as I obtained through legislation and one thing and
another, and the rules were never changed; they were supposed to be
good enough; they were good enough for the old board and worked
1848
[SENATF,
along; they had received a great many encomiums, and so they sup-
posed it would be well enough to go along with them.
Q. A kind of Chinese method? A. Well, that may be; of course, I
am a member of the board and I stand by the rules as they were
adopted.
Mr. IVINS [to the stenographer].-Will you read my question to
the witness?
The WITNESS.—I think I recollect your question.
Mr. IVINS.— I think he better read it.
[Question repeated: "Now, do you know of any reason why an
arrangement could not be made by the board of estimate and apportion-
ment which would provide for the appointment of a number of special
inspectors who should assist the regular inspectors during the busy
part of the year, and in that way make the burden upon the city
treasury much smaller, and in that connection, I call your attention to
this fact, that whereas this department cost only from $40,000 to
$50,000 some ten years ago it is now costing $125,000?"] A. To
appoint inspectors of any kind they would be permanent inspectors;
you might term them assistants or adjuncts or whatever you please;
under the ruling of the Court of Appeals recently, in the case of
Gregory against the board of excise, I think, reported in the 113 of
New York-do you recollect that case, Mr. Leventritt?]
Mr. LEVENTRITT. That is correct.
The WITNESS. It was in the 113 New York, I think. It was ruled
there that the board of excise had no power to suspend. They could
remove, but they could not suspend, and the consequence was that
there was a judgment given against the city for something like
$13,000.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Is it your belief that the board ought to have the right to sus-
pend; I don't mean under the present law? A. Yes, sir; decidedly;
if it were the law; I should have that belief; I should not allow a man
while he was under my charge to do any duty nor to draw any salary,
of course.
Q. If you had the right by law to suspend, you could regulate your
work so as to have only sufficient men on the pay-rolls during the dull
season to do that work? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you would have an ample force during the busy season to
do that work? A. If we had the right to appoint temporary inspectors
in the manner in which you suggest, I should be a decided advocate
of it, and think that it would operate advantageously, as well as
economically.
No. 80.]
1849
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. There is no trouble in getting these auxiliary men at any time,
is there? A. I don't think so.
Q. There are always applicants enough? A. There are always
applicants enough to do that work; it is a legal difficulty that prevents.
Mr. IVINS. I will read here at Mr. Leventritt's suggestion, the
last paragraph in the opinion of the case in the Court of Appeals.
We think the commissioners had no power to suspend the plaintiff
and that the plaintiff's attendance at the office of the board and his
continuous offers to perform the duties of the position to which he
had been appointed were sufficient tenders on his part to warrant the
conclusion of the trial judge in directing a verdict." You understand
by that, that that applies equally well to suspensions which you would
feel justified in making because there was no work to be done.
The WITNESS. — Yes, sir.
Q. You feel that the decision applies equally to that? A. Yes, sir;
I think so.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Was this a case where a man had been discharged of non-per-
formance? A. No, he was simply suspended.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. What was he suspended for in that case? A. I don't recollect
what he was suspended for.
By Ex-Judge BROWN:
Q. He was suspended under the previous administration, wasn't he?
A. Long before the previous administration.
Q. For over four years? A. It was eleven years or thirteen years ago.
Mr. IVINS.-I don't think that is material.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. There is no question as to the power of this board to discharge
inspectors absolutely, is there? A. No, sir; I don't think there is.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Could you discharge an inspector, as you understand the law,
simply because you had no work to do, if he himself were entirely
without fault?
Senator FASSETT.-That is, can you discharge without cause?
The WITNESS.-I should hardly think that we could; we might
abolish his place.
[Senate, No. 80.]
232
1850
[SENATE,
Q. The chairman used the words "without cause," and that you
think would be cause, so far as the board was concerned, if you had
no work to do, don't you? A. If the courts would think so, we would.
Q. But that wouldn't be in your judgment personal cause so far as
concerns the individual? A. No, sir.
Q. Therefore, if the individual were not in the wrong in any regard
and no complaint laid against him, all could be sustained, no matter
what the work of your board was, you would have to go on paying
him; is that the result of the present law?
Ex-Judge BROWN.-That is not the result.
The WITNESS.-I don't think so.
By Mr. LEVENTRITT:
Q. Are not these inspectors employed by the board at their pleas-
ure, to hold at the pleasure of the board—is not that the extent of
their employment? A. Yes, sir; I think that is the extent of their
employment; I think that is the manner in which they are appointed.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Then what is to prevent your discharging these people, or a
number of them when you have no work for them, and the appropria-
tions having been made in advance, and the fund being there and
re-employing them when the time comes? A. It is a question of dis-
crimination between the inspectors as to which should be employed
and which should be removed, because a removal is a stigma.
Q. Would a removal under these circumstances be a stigma if it
were understood that removals were made on that basis? A. But
these things are not confined to people who are supposed to know
them; they go abroad.
Q. If a change were made in the law, would that have any effect as
bearing on the feeling that a man had been stigmatized because he
had been removed? A. If a change were made in the law so that the
board had the power to suspend during a given period
(C
Q. Has not the board virtually got that in view of what we have
just developed here, that is, that these people are employed during
we have no more work for
your pleasure; it is your pleasure to say,
yout," and it is your pleasure to take them on again when you have
work? A. It has a tendency to work just as I say, that it is a dis-
missal, and that we couldn't very well discriminate between whom to
discharge and whom to retain.
By Mr. JOHNSON:
Q. Wouldn't it demoralize the force? A. I think to a very great
extent it might.
No. 80.]
1851
A
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Wouldn't it rather, on the contrary, promote rivalry as to who
should deserve being retained?
By Ex-Judge BROWN:
Q. And wouldn't they have to pass another civil service examination
before reappointment, if they were once discharged? A. They would
have to pass another civil service examination.
Q. And it would retard the progress of the administration of the
office? A. Yes, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Under the evidence of the witness, I don't think that would be
any hindrance? A. It might; we have had cases in which it has taken,
from the time when the nomination went before the civil service board
until the affirmance came to our board, a period of six or eight weeks.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Do you think it would be any inconvenience or matter of dis-
pleasure to the organization if these dismissals were made from time
to time? A. I don't think that it would be if the question of economy
were shown to the organization.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Where would the greater stigma arise, for a board of excise to
employ and pay men whose services they did not require, or to say
frankly to a man, we have not anything for you to do, and therefore you
must go-
would the stigma be greater on him than on the board of
excise for retaining him? A. I think it would be greater on the man.
Q. On the man? A. Yes, sir; that is my judgment.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. I think we have got to a point now where we can close this par-
ticular feature; would it not be possible for the board of excise
to go before a board of estimate and apportionment and say,
"We can get along with the regular staff about half the size
of that which we have; we ask appropriations for that; we
can get along with a temporary staff of a certain number and we
ask appropriations for that," and then inasmuch as these men
are employed at the pleasure of the board, when your appropriations
for the temporary inspectors had been expended, and when the work
had been done and their term as a term should end, and there would
1852
[SENATE,
be no stigma on anyone? A. Probably that might be a proper
solution, if it would be a legal one.
Q. Do you know of any reason why that can't be done to-day by the
board of estimate and apportionment and the excise commissioners?
A. I don't know of any reason unless as I say there is a legal objection,
and I have in my mind that there would be a very strong legal
objection in the way of doing that.
Q. What is that? A. That is if they were employed for a year they
would be
Q. No; not employed for a year; employed at the pleasure of the
board? A. I mean employed until they were discharged.
Q. No; not discharged, but employed at the pleasure of the board
until that particular work was accomplished.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. The board employing them to do definite work and when the
work was done that discharging them of itself? A. I always
understood that the pleasure of the board meant in removal.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Don't you know that exactly that thing is done now in the
comptroller's office in regard to the employment of extra clerks in the
tax department? A. I don't, and if I did I don't think it would be
any
criterion for me in either of these places.
Q. Do you think there is any difference in the law as affects the
employment of men to do work for a short service in the finance
department, and that which prevails with regard to the excise depart-
ment? A. In the finance department, there are persons, as I under-
stand it, if the same rule prevails to-day as did a year ago, or two
years ago, they take parties as laborers, who are not subjected to
civil service examination, who are employed from day to day, called
skilled laborers; employed during this busy season in making up and
writing up the books and then discharged as laborers are; I don't
know; it may be a very pleasant way; it may be a very economical
way of doing things, but it is not complying with the law.
Q. It would assist this committee very much if you have any evi-
dence of that kind, because in that case it is a direct evasion of the
law; if you have any evidence of that kind, we would like to have it?
A. I make no charges against anybody; I say I don't know; they may
have a different law to-day from what they had a few years ago.
Q. You recollect that you have said under oath that this thing is
being done in the tax department? A. No, sir; I beg pardon; I said
4
No. 80.]
1853
if the same thing was being done to-day and the same rules that
existed heretofore.
Q. What do you mean by heretofore?
Senator FASSETT.- When before ?
A. I think a year or two years; I am not positive, but I think a
year ago.
Mr. JOHNSON.-Look out; you may get back into Mr. Ivins' time.
Senator FASSETT. That would make no difference.
The WITNESS. No, sir; he was not comptroller at the time; he was
city chamberlain.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. The present comptroller was also comptroller two years ago?
A. Yes, sir; two years ago, I think, he was.
Q. I shall want to ask you some questions about that when we come
to the finance department? A. I only hear what is common rumor; I
don't know anything else.
By Mr. JOHNSON:
Q. You have no absolute knowledge about it? A. I have no abso-
lute knowledge about it; I don't say this to prefer charges against any-
body, or to cast any reflection, or because I have any positive knowledge
of my own from any investigation; why I say this was because it is cur
rent and common rumor that that mode of transacting that kind of
business existed.
Mr. IVINS.- These were evasions of the law.
Senator FASSETT.— Which resulted in economy.
Mr. IVINS. But that was not the thing of which I was speaking.
The thing of which I was speaking, that appropriations were made by
the board of estimate and apportionment for the appointment by the
comptroller during the busy season of the year of a special class of
clerks to do a special work, and the work of them, when accomplished,
results in the laying off of these men?
The WITNESS.-There may be special legislation in that respect; I
don't know.
Q. There is not special legislation for them as far as I know; but do
you know of any limitations on the power of the board of estimate
and apportionment which would prevent their doing that sort of
thing if your board asked for it? A. I don't think I know of any-
thing that would interfere with it.
Q. Would you, as a commissioner of the board, recommend some
such course to the board of estimate and apportionment for the pur-
1854
[SENATE,
pose of decreasing the expenses of your department, if legal? A. If
we had the legal power I should certainly do so.
Q. Then there is nothing preventing your trying to find out from
the commissioners whether they have the power? A. Nothing at all,
and I should certainly advocate it.
Mr. BISHOP.- This is the book you sent for, Mr. Ivins. [Producing
book.]
The WITNESS. This is only one of thirty-four.
Mr. IVINS.—This is one of the local precinct books; it is numbered
14; the entries are as follows page 68 I open to- it is headed
"First Avenue;" the entry is "52, near Northeast East Third street,
Louis Jacobs, license No. 459, class 3, expiration May 13, 1890, appli-
cation No. 731;" there is a column for remarks; in a few of these
pages there is a single line filled with remarks, but in most of them
there are no remarks at all; does that appear to be the extent of the
entry which is made by the inspector; and if he made four inspec-
tions a day he would make four such entries, would he not?
The WITNESS.-About that; yes, sir.
Q. And that would take him at the outside fifteen minutes? A. It
ought to take him about fifteen minutes.
Q. And that is what you mean by the clerical work done in the
office other than his filing out of the blanks on the inspection? A.
Of course, I don't know what assignments may be made to the inspec-
tor by the chief inspector.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. You would know what possible assignments might be made in
the way of clerical duties in the office? A. Hardly that.
By Mr. LEVENTRITT:
Q. Are there not eleven or twelve inspectors assigned in the office
to do clerical work there principally—is not that the principal part
of their duty, out of the number that has been stated here to be the
aggregate of the inspectors? A. Not by the commissioners; they may
be assigned by the chief to do that sort of work.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Not by the commissioners? A. Not by the commissioners.
By Mr. LEVENTRITT:
Q, Do you know whether that sort of work is done there? A. It
may be; I won't be positive.
No. 80.]
1855
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. What right has the chief clerk to assign inspectors to do clerical
work? A. That is a matter, I suppose, incident to the office of chief
inspector and to the office of chief clerk of the department.
Q. Does the same rule prevail under the civil service schedules with
regard to the appointment of clerks of the department and with regard
to the appointment of inspectors? A. I doubt whether it does; I
won't be positive.
Q. An applicant for a clerkship is not subjected to the same exami-
nation as an applicant for an inspectorship? A. I don't think so.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. That is a competitive examination, is it? A. I think some of the
clerkships are competitive also.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. So if a man knew he was going to be employed to do clerical
duty he would not be subjected to the clerical examination which is
applied to a man who is alleged to be an inspector? A. That is my
impression; I won't be positive; but that is my impression.
Q. If you found out that the chief clerk was assigning inspectors to
do the work of clerks, do you think it is a matter that demands the
attention of the commissioners? A. I think I would transgress my
duties if I permitted it.
Q. Do you think that what has been said here by the other inspec-
tors in the testimony that has been taken, and what is now brought
out, is sufficient to put you on your notice with regard to that matter?
A. I don't know what it is.
Q. That is the employment of inspectors to do clerical work? A.
If they were employed to do work in the clerical department, certainly
it is not only sufficient to put me on my guard, but I shall see that it
is attended to.
Q. You heard the testimony of Commissioner Fitzpatrick yesterday
with the general character and value of the inspections; in the first,
do you agree with him as to the almost entirely formal character of
these inspections? A. No, sir; I do not; if he stated that, I didn't so
understand him, though.
Q. He stated that in answer to a question of the chairman? A. I
didn't so understand him.
Mr. JOHNSON.— Nor I.
By Mr. IVINS:
This inspection, commissioner, shows the name of the applicant, the
class of license for which he has applied, the location of his place, the
1856
[SENATÉ,
date of the inspector's visit, the firm style, the name of the saloon,
that is all formal, anyhow; is it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where it is located, which is also formal; then as to whether
there are other rooms separate and apart from the barroom, such as
restaurants, café or sleeping-rooms, that is all virtually formal; is it
not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Because it is subject to mere physical investigation? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. JOHNSON. You can not call that formal, Mr. Ivins; he has got to
make an investigation.
Senator FASSETT.-It does not require any exercise of discretion.
Mr. JOHNSON.—Yes; but it is not formal; it has to be done.
Q. That involves a personal investigation, but it involves no exercise
of judgment in any sense? A. No, sir.
Q. Does not involve a recommendation on the part of the inspector
one way or the other, either for or against the proprietor of granting
a license? A. It requires a certain amount of actual physical work.
Q. "I have carefully examined said premises and buildings, and find
that there is no indication that the same are used or are to be used
for gambling or immoral purpose, and no part of said building is a
resort for immoral persons;" the first part of that is of the same gen-
eral character as the other question and answer; is it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Involves a mere physical investigation; now, for the first time, it
appears that we come to something that a little bit transcends a physi-
cal investigation; that is that "no part of said building is a resort, for
immoral persons;" what instructions have the inspectors as to the
manner in which they shall conduct their investigation for the purpose
of seeing whether any part of a building is a resort for immoral per-
sons? A. To make investigations in the neighborhood.
Q. Do you think that you could, by making an investigation in the
neighborhood, find out whether a place was used for immoral pur-
poses? A. Well, you would be put on your guard sufficiently to ask
for a report from the police as to what the character of the place is.
Q. There is nothing that compels you to ask for a report from the
police? A. Nothing at all.
Q. There is nothing that absolves you from making that investiga-
tion yourself, is there? A. Nothing at all.
Q. Did you vote in favor of licensing the Sixth Avenue Hotel?
Yes, sir.
A.
Q. Were the investigations made there so complete as to be abso-
lutely satisfactory in your mind to the effect that that is not used for
immoral purposes? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How were those investigations made? A. Those investigations
were made by an inspector reporting that the place had existed
No. 80.]
1857
there during a long number of years, and I thing it was Mr. Meakim
who requested-
QIt is too bad Mr. Meakim is not here? A. Well, it would not
make any difference.
Mr. BISHOP. I have just received a letter from Mr. Meakim, stating
that he would be on duty to-morrow. Will you kindly hand that to
the judge.
The WITNESS.- Who made that request to ask for a police report on
the Sixth Avenue Hotel?
Mr. BISHOP.—I believe two of the commissioners.
The WITNESS.— Were there two? Well, I certainly did not. I was
going on to state that the report came from the captain of the
precinct. Captain Killillea reported it, and I met Captain Killillea as
it happened, and he spoke to me about it, that he had made a report
on that place, said it was a first-class restaurant, had been there for
years. I recollect that Commissioner Fitzpatrick and I were there at
the meeting one morning, and several very estimable gentlemen came
and advocated it.
Q. Will you please name the etimable gentlemen that advocated it?
A. I don't know that I care about it.
Q. Well, did their advocacy have any effect on your judgment as
an excise commissioner in granting the license? A. I should have
granted it anyway.
Q. You would have granted it any way? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then there was no necessity for your having to refer to their
advocacy at all? A. I say the police captain's report was quite suffi-
cient for me, and I certainly should not have regarded it either one
way or the other. If the police captain's report had been adverse,
the application would have been refused, and their advocacy would
not have amounted to a snap.
Q. Well, we will refer to that later; the present purpose here is
confined to this form of inspector's report.
Mr. JOHNSON. You went to the Sixth Avenue Hotel yourself.
Mr. IVINS - I took that as an illustration, and we will take it up
later, but it is impossible that that should have been licensed, is it not,
unless the inspector had reported that no part of the building had
been used as a resort for immoral purposes? A. It is almost impos-
sible that that would have been licensed if he had reported against
the place.
Q. What instructions have your inspectors received, either formally
or informally in regard to the method to be pursued in conducting
such an investigation? A. To put themselves in possession in every
[Senate, No. 80. |
233
1858
[SENATE,
reasonable manner of every knowledge they could obtain in reference
to the place.
Q. Take the Sixth Avenue Hotel again for a minute, did you prior
to granting that license have your attention called in any way to any
matter whatever that would have put you on your guard as against
licensing the place? A. No; in no way, shape or form.
Q. Then there was nothing whatever to put you on your guard to
such an extent to have resulted in your asking how that report came
to be made, and what the actual process of investigation was? A.
No, sir.
Q. It went through as in any other case, where the answer came in
in an informal manner? A. Yes, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. No protest had been filed with the board? A. No, sir; our
attention had not been called to the place; I had passed there quite
frequently, and had never seen anything that would in any way, shape
or form indicate that the place should not be licensed.
Q. These things were subsequently developed? A. Yes, sir; I had
gone into Burns' place, which was immediately adjacent to the Sixth
Avenue Hotel, probably at 12, 1 and 2 o'clock in the morning, and
never noticed anything there that would indicate that it was a place
of immoral character.
By Mr. BROWN:
Q. Burns' is an oyster saloon? A. Burns' is an oyster saloon
immediately adjacent to this place, probably one of the most
respectable places in the city.
Mr. BISHOP.- Chairman Clark Bell sent the protest to the police
board by mistake.
The WITNESS. It never came to the board of excise. We had no
indication of anything of the kind.
By Mr. IVINS: .
Q. “The balance of the place is used for a concert garden?" A.
No, sir.
Q. I am talking about this inspector's report; that simply involves.
a physical investigation.
The WITNESS [Referring to letter produced by Mr. Bishop.] — Mr.
Meakim says he will be on hand to-morrow.
Q." No part of the building is used as a skating rink;" that is a mere:
physical examination? A. Yes, sir.
22.-
Q. "No waiter girs are employed?' A.. That is the same thing.
No. 80.]
1859
Q. "These premises are not known as being disorderly; " now that is
a variation again; what do you suppose to be meant by-" not supposed
to be disorderly; " not known to the inspector or to the community?
A. Not known by general reputation in the neighborhood as being a
disorderly place.
Q. So that involves the exercise of some little investigation? A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
"There is no license in this building;" that is also a mere record
of the office? A. It is a record of the office.
Q.
“These premises have not been licensed since?” A. That is, a
record of the office too.
Q. "There are no signs on the premises advertising the sale of
liquor;" that involves a mere physical examination? A. Yes, sir.
Q. As to the number of licensed places in the neighborhood, that is
also a physical examination? A. Yes, sir; or that could even be
obtained from the record; we can ascertain from the maps we have in
our office, just exactly.
Q. As to churches, schools, hospitals and asylums, they say, "see
diagram," and that is shown on the maps in the office as well as going
to the place? A. The better way is to have the diagram, because that
will obviate the difficulty; the inspectors should make an investiga-
tion anyway, because some new place may have sprung up.
Q. "The character of the surrounding neighborhood is business
houses;" that is a mere physical matter? A. Yes, sir.
Q. The name of the former licensee appears on the records? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. "Former licensee's bartender was arrested for violation of the
excise laws;" that appears on the records? A. That appears on the
records; sometimes it is necessary to go to the police.
Q. Former licensee was not convicted;" that appears on the
records? A. Yes, sir; it ought to at all events.
Q. Whether an application has or has not been made, whether an
application has been rejected, is all on the record? A. Yes, sir.
Q. "Upon diligent inquiry I find the general reputation and moral
character of the applicant to be good." A. Yes, sir.
Q. "Applicant is a citizen;" how is that determined? A. That
would be determined by his application.
Q. His affidavit on application, but that is a record? A. Yes, sir.
Q. "The applicant is not now licensed;" that is a record? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. "The applicant was formerly licensed; " that is in the record;
"applicant's license was " or " was not revoked;" and "was restored,"
1860
[SENATE,
or “not restored,” “convicted," or "not convicted," for violation of
the excise law; there has "or has not been a discharge filed, or there
has or has not been a bill of sale filed; the license has or has not
been surrendered; grade of internal revenue and date of issue,” are all
matters of record? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then it appears that there is nothing in this inspection except a
certain physical inspection of the place and its neighborhood, certain
matters of record which are filled in quite clerically by the inspector,
and three items which really involve some exercise of judgment on
the part of the inspector himself; that is, "as to any part of the build-
ing being used for immoral purposes, whether the premises are known
to be disorderly, and the moral character and general reputation of
the applicant?" A. That is quite correct.
Q. Now, as to those things, are they not really the gist of the
whole inspection? A. I agree with you entirely; yes, sir; and I
think they ought to be gone into fully; I think a question of this
kind should be put:
"State the character of the man."
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. You think a new question ought to be put? A. While the thing
occurs to me—"your sources of information, if you think his character
is good," or, without putting that in, "state what you ascertain to be
his character, your sources of information, how obtained and where
obtained."
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Failure to answer any of these questions except those three
could under no circumstances involve your board in wrong-doing or
maladministration at all, could it? A. I don't think it could.
Q. But you might be very seriously involved by the failure to
answer these three, might you not? A. Beyond any doubt.
Q. Then that is really the gist of your administration, is it not?
A. I take it so; yes, sir.
Q. It looks so; and that in its turn falls on the shoulders of the
inspectors, does it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And those inspectors are appointed on the application of the
organization? A. No, sir; I don't say that entirely; I stated that I
understood that the president might have taken that into considera-
tion and probably did when he recommended them.
Q. Do you as a commissioner feel satisfied that so far as those
essential matters are concerned the inspections as they are made
to-day really efficiently and thoroughly and satisfactorily made, or do
No. 80.]
1861
you agree with Commissioner Fitzpatrick in regard to the most
important of them, that it is almost entirely a matter of form? A. I
don't think it should be a matter of form.
Q. No; as it actually is, without casting any blame on anyone except
the system as it is? A. I think that the mode of inspection might be
made more critical and more satisfactory both to the board of excise
and the people generally.
Q. Do you think it might be made more satisfactory and more
critical if you had a better grade of ability on the part of the inspectors,
than you have got to-day? A. I think it might be made more satis-
factorily and more critically with the grade of inspectors that we have
got, if the rules were changed so as to allow more stress with reference
to the character and everything that I have indicated in those
questions.
Q. You said a little while ago that none of the 400 had applied
for appointment as inspectors; suppose, that while we do not
take the richest of the rich, neither do we take the poorest of the poor,
but that a salary was to be made which was sufficient to really get
first rate ability, and to induce men of real standing in the community
to take the places; would that improve the administration? A. I do
not know whether it would or not.
Q. You pay inspectors 1,200 to-day; until two or three years ago
you paid them 900, did you not? A. The salary was 1,200 when we
got there.
Q. When you got there, yes; but under the previous board the
salary had been 900? A. I understood the salary had been raised; I
did not know whether it was the previous board or the board previous
to that; when was it, Mr. Gale?
Mr. GALE. It was raised in December, 1886.
The WITNESS. That was the board before the last.
Q. Do you think that by increasing the salaries of those officers,
and offering inducements for securing a better class of judgment and
ability, that the service might be improved? A. It might.
Q. You heard the testimony of these inspectors as read to Commis-
sioner Fitzpatrick, yesterday, didn't you? A. I heard part of it;
yes, sir.
Q. Do you think that is indicative of a very high grade of ability?
A. No, sir; I do not state that they were very able men.
Q. Now, we will recur to the Sixth Avenue Hotel, will you please
tell us right in this connection, all that has been done in reference to
that hotel? A. We granted the license, and I think about a month
after that, a protest came in which we regarded as a complaint by the
1862
[SENATE,
neighbors, of an organization called the "Forty-seventh Street Asso-
ciation," headed by Mr. Clark Bell, an attorney of this city; he pre-
sented that; we set the matter down, summoned Griffith, the owner of
the Sixth Avenue Hotel, and gave him the subpoenas, and went regu-
larly to the trial of the case; there were adjournments from time to
time, by consent, on account of disadvantages on both sides, which
were not objected to and no fault found.
By Mr. JOHNSON:
Q. Were there counsel on both sides? A. Yes, sir; Mr. Lindsey was
counsel on one side, and Mr. Bell, himself, the counsel on the other.
By Mr. BROWN:
Q. Quincey; was it not? A. It was Quincey; John D. Quincey; we
tried the case and both sides submitted briefs, and the license was
revoked; the place is without a license to-day; Mr. Bell, prior to his
filing the complaint, or this protest, on which we took action, had Mr.
Griffith indicted by the grand jury, and that trial has never come for-
ward; our people have been subpoenaed from time to time and attended
regularly; I think Mr. Bishop was subpoenaed a week ago last Mon-
day, and then again on the following Wednesday, and then again on
last Monday, and nothing has ever come, so far as I know, of the trial.
Q. Did you vote to license Gombossy's place? A. I don't know; I
should have no hesitancy in doing it.
Q. You would have no hesitation in doing it? A. No, sir."
Q. Would you have no hesitation in doing it now in view of what
has appeared in regard to the place during this investigation? A.
Not a particle.
Q. Do you know what the police board did in regard to Officer Price
and another officer? A. I will state this, that we had the report on
Gombossy's place; our attention was called to it and we had the police
report, and I think one of the best captains in New York, Captain
Meakim, recommending it in every respect; I passed by there several
times during the night myself in order to see some of these news-
paper reports ought to be substantiated, and I found that the doors
were wide open, a regular concert going on; every person passing the
door could look from one end of the room to the other to see what was
going on in passing the place; so that in view of that I think I would
be doing the man an injustice were I to vote against renewing his
license.
Q. Did you vote to license Walsh's place; I think it is on the corner
of Fourth and Thompson street? A. I do not know whether I did
or not.
No. 80.]
1863
Q. You know the place; do you? A. I think I do — I don't know the
place; I was going to say I know nothing against the place, but I can
not recall the facts there.
Q. That is the particular place concerning which Mr. Ely and his
socięty made a complaint? A. And Mr. Levy made the protest.
Q. No; Mr. Ely? A. Mr. Ely and Napoleon Levy.
Q. Mr. Ely came here and testified, whereupon we got the reports
of the department, and the reports of the inspectors were so scandal-
ous that they could not even be put in public print, although they are
spread upon our record, and those reports appear to have been before
your board at the time the license was granted? A. The place was
formerly occupied, if that is the place, by Coroner Henry; he had a
lease of it; is that Thompson or Green street?
Mr. LEVENTRITT. It is a different place.
The WITNESS.—Then I don't recollect anything about it, and don't
know whether I voted for it or not.
Q. The records, as I understand from Mr. Gale when he was on the
stand, show that you did vote for it? A. That may be; how is that
Mr. Gale.
Mr. GALE. He was licensed by the former board.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. The place had been licensed by the old board, there had been a
revocation, there had been an application by a new party, and it was
one of the first acts of your board to grant the license to this new
party for this place, concerning which these reports were on file and the
testimony which was given shows that it has continued in about the
same way in which it had been prior to the licensing to a new party,
and that the relations between the old party and the new party were
very close.
Mr. GALE.—The reports were not in on the application when we
acted on it.
The WITNESS.—That is entirely new news to me, and I shall be very
much astonished if I were confronted with a record of that kind; I
can tell you as to that.
Mr. IVINS.—Mr. Gale has already been sworn, and I will ask him some
questions now.
Mr. GALE, recalled.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Mr. Gale, were not the reports of the inspectors, with regard
to this place, on file in the board of excise at the time that the license
1864
[SENATE,
was granted for the same place to a new party, under a bill of sale
from the old party? A. They were, but they were not before the
commissioners.
Examination of Mr. KOCH, continued.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Is it your custom to grant licenses without having the papers
before you? A. He does not mean the papers upon which the applica-
tions are made; Mr. Gale said the papers were not before the board
Mr. Gale, just state the papers that were not before the board and
what paper were before them.
Mr. GALE. These reports to which Mr. Ivins refers were under
another application. When the new party applied, it was one of the
first papers before the present board, and during the rush of business
the paper was passed through without those reports that Mr. Ivins
refers to. They were not attached at all.
Q. It is customary to attach such reports?
Mr. GALE. It is.
Q. In this case they were not attached?
Mr. GALE. They were not.
Mr. KосH.-Were not the papers that were there, to which General
Ivins refers, were they not passed upon by the previous board?
Mr. GALE.-No, sir. The previous board sent the inspector to get
this information that was put in that paper.
Mr. KOCH.-Did they reject the application?
Mr. GALE. The case was undergoing a hearing at the time.
Mr. KоCH.—But the papers were never placed before us?
Mr. GALE. Never placed before the board.
Mr. IVINS.- Mr. Andrews, who has also been sworn, says that the
license was revoked by the old board.
Mr. ANDREWS.-Complaint against that place was made and we had
Mr. Ely as a witness, and revoked the license.
Mr. JOHNSON.—Those papers were not before you when you acted on
the application, were they? A. The papers were not before me imme-,
diately, or in any way such as they ought to be to warrant me in
rejecting the license.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Now, if it should appear that you have made a mistake in the
granting of a license, and that mistake had been made because of the
failure to have those papers before you, who would be responsible;
which one of your employes? A. I should say the chief clerk would
probably be responsible.
No. 80.]
1865
Q. Has any inquiry been made to find out at any time why those
papers were not placed before you? A. To my knowledge our atten-
tion has never been called to it in that respect; it is entirely new to me.
Mr. JOHNSON.—Did you ever know of it before Mr. Ivins spoke of
it? A. It is entirely new to me.
Senator FASSETT.- The importance of this examination is this: It
may happen that they may be in possession of the excise commis-
sioners, information which if placed before the commissioner would
lead to the revocation of a license or the rejection of an application,
and yet the commissioners grant the application; that is owing to the
methods pursued while your board has sufficient information in its
possession to prevent the license, still the license is granted.
Mr. JOHNSON.- A mistake may occur and papers may not be
attached.
Senator FASSETT.—That is exactly what I want to know.
The WITNESS.-It can happen that a mistake can be made by one of
the clerks.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Then you are to that extent in the hands of your clerks? A. To
a very great extent.
Q. And if to favor a friend of theirs they wanted to slide through
an application, it would be a very easy thing to do? A. Yes; but if
we find it out it would be very dangerous to them.
Q. Do you think this was done in that way? A. I don't think so.
Mr. LEVENTRITT.- Mr. Bishop was not the chief clerk at the time of
this occurrence, was he? A. I don't know when it occurred.
Mr. LEVENTRITT. Between the granting of that license and the
omission to supply you with the information in that office; it occurred
before May, 1889? A. I have not the papers, so I don't know.
Q. Do you know whether Mr. Harper was the chief clerk then? A.
When did that occur?
Mr. IVINS.-It was the first two or three days after your return.
The WITNESS.—Mr. Bishop entered the office over a week or about
ten days after that.
Mr. LEVENTRITT.—If this occurred then within the first few days of
your office, Mr. Bishop was not the chief clerk? A. No, sir; Mr.
Harper was the chief clerk then.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Now if you were to find out that a mistake had been made
because of the carelessness of your subordinates and an improper
place had been licensed, would you yourself compel an investigation
[Senate, No. 80.]
234
1866
[SENATE,
of that place without waiting for any formal complaint for the pur-
pose of revoking the license and remedying the wrong? A. Yes, sir;
we would do that, and we would investigate the official, as we have
done; we did it in one instance.
Q. Well, we have got pretty well through with the matter of
inspecting now; after the inspector has reports, the papers are laid
before you, and those papers, among other things, contain an applica-
tion which is sworn to, do they not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And let me ask; there are two classes of applications, are there
not; one for the original licensing of a new place, and the application
for a license of a place where there has either been a renewal or a
bill of sale to a new party? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the applications are not identical in those cases? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Now these applications are sworn to, among other things, the
applicant swears that the building is named so and so, which name
of the building is subsequently transcribed by the inspector? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Where it.is located and what it is to be used for, etc., etc., and by
whom owned, all of which is part of the record that the inspector
copies in making his report, and all of which is already here
[referring to paper], and did not require to be copied because it is on
the same paper? A. Yes, sir; except the question of moral character.
Q. Then he swears that neither he nor his employes have been
arrested for violation of the excise law? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then he swears that neither he nor his employes have been con-
victed for violation of the excise law; that no license of his, of this or
any other place has ever been revoked; he swears also that the
premises were never reported as disorderly; he swears that no part
of the building is to be used as a skating rink, concert room or for
other purposes of entertainment, as the case may be; he himself
swears as to the proximity of other places, and swears that he is a
citizen; those are sworn to before a commissioner of deeds, are they
not? A. One of the application clerks.
Q. One of the application clerks who is also a commisioner of
deeds? A. Yes, sir; there are three application clerks, each a com-
missioner of deeds.
Q. Now, what is the motive for exacting that oath from the parties
on this application; is it so that they can be held criminally respon-
sible for a misstatement? A. They ought to be, but the motive
appears to have been originally in the hands of those who pre-
ceded us
No. 80.]
1867 ·
Q. But you still do this to-day? A. Yes.
Q. This is on the application of Mr. Berthold whom you have just
licensed on Fourteenth street [referring to paper]? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why should you exact that affidavit from Mr. Berthold?
À. There is no reason for it; his statement of it ought to be
sufficient under the law.
Q. Isn't there really a reason for it, that if the affidavit were taken
before some person who was properly qualified to take it he could be
held responsible penally, for any misstatement? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then why are not these affidavits by applicants sworn to before
the cop.missioners themselves? A. Because the commissioners have
hardly time to attend to it; it is only a convenience, that is all.
Q. Failing in that, so far as the penalty is concerned, the affidavit
may be dispensed with and the signature of the party taken? A. I
think so; I think any willful and material misstatement should
operate as a revocation of a license.
Q. This is accompanied by a bond, is it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who draws those bonds? A. One of these application clerks.
Q. One of these application clerks? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You heard the discussion here, yesterday, concering these
bonds? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is your opinion as to the actual value of those bonds to
the excise commissioners as a means of preventing mistakes of judg-
ment on their part as to proper parties to license? A. Do you want
me to state it?
Q. Yes. A. I don't think they are worth the paper written on.
You don't think they are worth the paper written on? A. Never
thought they were.
Mr. BROWN.-Does that apply to all?
The WITNESS.-No, not all; I mean as to the saloons, and I assume
that Mr. Ivins means them.
Q. Now, in view of the fact that none at all have sought to be
enforced of late years, does not your answer apply practically to all?
A. I don't know that there has been any violations, in other respects,
of any consequence, although I believe test cases have been made.
Q. Now, who prints those forms of bonds? A. The board of excise
has them printed through its clerk
Q. Then that is a useless public expense, so far as it would appear?
Mr. JOHNSON.- Why don't you ask him whether he thinks the law
ought to be amended?
Mr. IVINS.-I will ask him that when the time comes.
The WITNESS.-What is the question?
1868
[SENATE,
Q. That is a useless public expense to print the bonds, is it not?
A. Well, it would be a logical deduction, of course.
Mr. JOHNSON.- I agree with him.
Q. Does it not take considerable time of some of your clerks to fill
these bonds out? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. JOHNSON.— The law requires the bond.
Mr. IVINS. It may be useless, notwithstanding the fact that the law
requires it.
Mr. JOHNSON.
They are bound to comply with the law.
Q. I am saying nothing about the regularity or the irregularity of
the course of the commissioners, but it would seem to be useless to
put in the records of the county clerk's office many thousands of
these. A. And paying the fee for filing.
Q. And that is a source of revenue to the city, however, the paying
of the fee on the filing of that bond? A. That is a source of revenue
to the county.
Q. Now to whom is the drawing of these bonds a source of revenue?
A. The drawing of the bonds?
Q. Yes; to whom is the drawing of the bonds a source of revenue?
A. I don't know.
Q. Have you ever taken any steps to find out to whom the drawing
of the bonds is a source of revenue? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know whether anybody in or about, or connected with
your department in any way, ever exacts from applicants any fee for
drawing these bonds? A. No, sir; I do not.
Q. You never heard of any such thing? A. No, sir; I should not
permit it.
Q. Do you know whether or not the commissioner of deeds who
swears these applicants and who swears the sureties on the bonds,
takes a commissioner of deed's fee? A. No, sir; I do not.
Q. Do you know that he does not? A. I do not; I don't know any-
thing about it.
Mr. IVINS.- Mr. Gale, how is that; is it customary to take a com-
missioner of deed's fees?
Mr. GALE.- No, sir; it is not.
The WITNESS.-I know previous to the last board there were a num-
ber of people who hovered around the board, who made it their
business to do that, but I believe the last board did away with them.
Isn't that so, Mr. Andrews?
Mr. ANDREWS.-I did not hear that.
The WITNESS.
I say previous to your board a number of people
No. 80.]
1869
hovered around and did that, and you established the application
clerk, and they were not allowed to take any fees.
Mr. ANDREWS.— Previous to our going into office there were applica-
tion clerks just as there are now, but the board authorized persons
whom they called notaries—they were not appointed, but they simply
had authority to take acknowledgments, and they visited the saloons
and charged for filling out the bond and swearing the applicant. That
was changed; we stopped that completely, and compelled all persons
to come to the board, and we stopped the fee system absolutely.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Is it not the rule of your office that every-
thing of that kind is done without charge?
The WITNESS. Yes, sir.
Mr. LEVENTRITT.
Does not that appear on posters around the office?
The WITNESS.-Yes,. sir.
Mr. LEVENTRITT.- Persons having dealings with the office have
these posters before them, so that they are apprised of the fact that
they are to pay for no services rendered there?
The WITNESS. Yes, sir.
Senator MCNAUGHTON. It is a rule of the board that if a clerk does
receive fees he will be discharged, is it not?
The WITNESS.-Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Speaking of the rules, let us now revert to those generally; we
understand from the testimony taken that the rules of your board are
identical with the rules of the old board, with the exception that rule
No. 4, that is the rule concerning licensing a place next door of
another already licensed place? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are we right in so understanding? A. I think so.
Now will you tell us when rule 4 was changed and why it was
changed? A. Rule 4 was one that I never held myself amenable to;
I protested at the time-
Q. You mean old rule 4? A. If it is the one you said, why, I know
it; Commissioner Fitzpatrick and Commissioner Meakim stated that
they thought that was a good rule; we had not been in the board
over six months before it was deemed entirely impracticable; I do not
know the day on which it was revoked, but Commissioner Fitzpatrick
voted to revoke it and I voted with him, because I never thought any-
thing of it, it was impracticable; but I think Commissioner Meakim
adheres to that rule to this day.
Q. You say it was impracticable? A. Yes, sir.
1
1870
[SENATE,
Q. Do you know of any failure on the part of your predecessors to
observe the rule? A. I do not.
Q. Then why do you say it is impracticable? A. I don't know
whether they did it or not.
Senator FASSETT.- Is that rule 4, a third corner will not be licensed
as a new place?
The WITNESS.— Oh, no; that we adhere to strictly.
Mr. IVINS.- No; rule 4, prior to the entering of this board, was
somewhat different from this. In addition to the fact that a third
corner would not be licensed as a new place, it also provided that a
place next door to a place already licensed would not be licensed. At
any rate, the provision of the rules to prohibit the licensing of the
place next door to a place already licensed was stricken out, so that
.now the board licenses places next door to a place already licensed,
and whereas it was the policy of their predecessors not so to do, that
was expressed in the rules.
Q. Now, I want to know the reason for changing the rules, and you
say it was impracticable; now, I want to know if it is not entirely
impracticable for the board to say it is not proper to license a place
next door to another place already licensed, and then enforce the rule
and not permit such a place to be licensed, is not that possible? A.
If the rule were that the place next door to a place already licensed
must be licensed, why, that would be all right, but it would simply
become a dead letter; every case must stand in its own particular place.
Mr. JOHNSON.-It must stand on its own merits?
We have places
The WITNESS.-It must stand on it own merits.
where it would be entirely impracticable, where it would be wrong,
where it would be almost a crime.
Q. Those are renewals, are they not? A. I say new places where
an old one already exists on certain blocks, and a number of blocks
Q. And it would be almost a crime not to permit a man to have
a license? A. To permit a man to have it; I should vote against it,
rule or no rule; but there are places in the city where it would do
nobody any harm, where a liquor, beer saloon for instance, what is
a block that has a mixed class of
strictly an ale and beer place
people there who did not care about drinking ale or beer entirely, and
they would like to have a saloon there where they could get harder
stuff, as they call it, I don't see any reason why a rule should exist
that it can not be had there.
Mr. JOHNSON.
That is an ironclad rule?
The WITNESS.- Exactly.
No. 80.]
1871
Senator FASSETT.-You don't mean that it is impracticable; you
mean it would be inconvenient at times?
The WITNESS.— I suppose that would be the better way to put it.
Mr. JOHNSON. You mean it would be unjust?
The WITNESS.— Yes, and unjust; it would be impracticable for the
board to do it; we would have to move to suspend that rule, and then
somebody would come along and say: "You have done it in that
case, why can't you do it in another case.'
""
Q. Now, you have a rule that a license will not be issued for a new
place adjoining or in the immediate vicinity of a church, hospital or
asylum; what do you mean by an immediate vicinity? A. That
depends upon the judgment of the man; the commissioner.
Senator FASSETT.—That is an elastic phase, is it not?
The WITNESS.- Why certainly; it must be an elastic phase.
Q. Would you consider it, being in the immediate vicinity, if a
liquor store were located here and a church were located 200 feet
down on the other side of the street? A. That would depend upon
the character of the neighborhood.
Q. Let us see how that would be; suppose it was a thickly populated
neighborhood in which there was a Roman Catholic church only 200
feet away, and suppose on the other hand it was a thinly populated
part of the city where rich people lived, and an Episcopal church
were there, 300 feet away, what would be the difference? A. the
character of the neighborhood would be taken into consideration; we
would ask first, is there a saloon nearer to the church than the place
applied for; the second consideration would be, is it on the same side
of the street where the people are in the habit of passing and repass-
ing when they attend masses or meetings.
2
Mr. JOHNSON.-It would depend also upon where the entrance to
the church was, and where the door of the saloon was, would it not?
The WITNESS. Of course; I make it a rule to scrutinize very closely
applications for license of saloons on the same block, but I am opposed
to passing an arbitrary rule that there should be a distance of 300
feet in every direction; say, for instance, there is a church on Thirty-
fourth street; if there is a place near the corner, twenty-five feet from
the corner of Thirty-fifth street, the distance between Thirty-fourth
street and Thirty-fifth street being 200 feet, making 225 feet, and
then around the corner fifty feet distant an application was made for
a saloon, no objections on the part of the neighbors, no church or
school-house there, I should think it would be a great hardship if a
landlord could let that place there not to allow him to do so because
there might be a rule that it would not be allowed within 400 feet;
1872
[SENATE,
now that is the difference between my associate, Commissioner Meakim
and myself; he will establish a rule of 400 feet, it don't make any
difference in which direction; Mr. Fitzpatrick will establish a distance
of 250 feet or 300 feet; my own impression is that it should be treated
according to the merits of the case.
Q. The result of which is that this rule as it appears on the
face of the papers, is really and after all no rule? A. I will tell
you what the result of that rule is, and it was talked over by
Commissioner Fitzpatrick and myself about two weeks ago, that just
as soon as Commissioner Meakim returned we would amend the rule
some way so as to make it comprehensible; not so elastic as the chair-
man remarked, as it actually is.
}
Q. Even after you have done that, there is nothing to prevent you
disregarding it, is there? A. I don't think it is likely that all three
will disagree.
Q. How many votes does it take to change a rule? A. Two votes.
Mr. JOHNSON.—That is the same way as it is in every department?
The WITNESS.-In the dock department they have by-laws, but they
are compelled to have by-laws under the laws of the State; we are not.
Mr. JOHNSON.—It is a matter of discretion; it is a matter of discre-
tion entirely.
Q. The power that makes the rules can suspend them? A. Yes, sir;
and that was held in an excise matter in the board that Commissioner
Andrews was a member of; it was held that any rule could be changed
at any time that two commissioners desired to vote that way.
Mr. ANDREWS.-It follows, as a matter of course, from the law?
The WITNESS. I mean there was a suit pending at that time.
Q. Your board is not in any sense bound by these rules? A. How
do you mean?
Q. As a board? A. They are bound to carry out what they are
directed to do.
Q. They are not in any sense fast rules? A. No, sir; I never
regarded them in that way, and I told Commissioner Meakim and Com-
missioner Fitzpatrick that I thought it was nonsense to put any rules
in when they were being prepared.
Mr. JOHNSON.
The WITNESS.
They are simply declaration of independence.
A declaration that each man goes as he pleases.
Q. Then the rules themselves fall into the general category with
much of the other documentary work of the office as being after all.
something to be read and looked at, and not to be too much relied
upon?
A. I always found that to a very great extent in many of the
departments that I have been a member of and that I have been
attending.
No. 80.]
1873
Q. Now, as to a third corner, you say you will not license a third
corner for a new place where the two corners of any street are already
licensed? A. That has been a rule that has been righteously adhered
to since our board went into existence.
Q. There have been no exceptions? A. There have been no exceptions.
Q. Still you could to-morrow, if any two of you wish, license a
place notwithstanding that rule? A. We could if we chose; we
could license all four corners if we chose; there is nothing against it,
unless you can show me something to the contrary.
Q. Now, it is not your custom to license to the same person two
different places in the city, is it? A. No, sir.
Q. The reason for that is, what? A. The law proclaims against it
entirely.
Q. Now, how do you evade the law? A. We do not evade the law.
Q. How does the other fellow evade it? A. I don't know.
Q. Do you know Mr. Stokes of the Hoffman House? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know that Mr. Stokes has three, four or five different
liquor saloons in New York city? A. I do.
Q. Then there has been evasion somewhere? A. No, sir; the law
is this, as I understand it, and I think you will agree with me also;
the law says there shall not be two licenses issued to the same person,
but it does not prevent any man who holds a license already from
being interested in the business with another party who holds a
license.
Senator Fassett. There is nothing preventing an interest?
The WITNESS.— No, sir.
Senator FASSETT.- As a matter of fact, don't all these large brew-
eries control a large number substantially?
The WITNESS.- No, sir; except in this way: They take chattel
mortgages.
Mr. BROWN.— Brewers are not required to take out a license.
The WITNESS.—They hold chattel mortgages on quite a number of
places, but the parties own the places.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Is there any reason, in your judgment as an excise commissioner,
as a citizen and an ex-legislator, why the law should not openly per-
mit one person to have a license for two or more places, in view of the
fact that it now virtually results in the same thing? A. I see no more
reason for that than passing a proper Sunday law.
Q. Let us take the case of Mr. Gerkin for instance, or Mr. Stewart,
who have three or four different places —
[Senate, No. 80.7
235
1874*
[SENATE,
The WITNESS.– Mr. Delmonico.
Q. [Continuing.] Or Mr. Delmonico; if licenses were to run to them
individually and they were made responsible-Park & Tilford is
another illustration - A. I never could see any reason why that law
should exist.
Mr. JOHNSON.—Is there any more reason why a man should not
carry on the liquor business in three different places than there is
that a man should not carry on three dry goods stores?
Senator FASSETT.— Aren't there more reasons why it should be so?
Is it not easier to obtain a small number of perfectly reliable and
responsible parties to carry on a large number of places? A. I think
that would be the effect. It would have a more salutory effect.
Mr. BROWN. That would be establishing a monopoly.
Senator FASSETT.— If it resulted in decency and a compliance with
law and order, perhaps that would be a good thing. Why would it
not be a good thing to establish a monopoly?
Mr. IVINS.— As a matter of fact, can not any man in New York city,
who has got enough money to do it, and who will sell sufficiently good
liquors and sell them cheaply, virtually get a monopoly under the
present law? A. It would not astonish me; it could be done.
Senator FASSETT. You have testified that you think it would be a
good plan to license places? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What would you think of having these places, after once being
licensed, put up at public auction to be sold for a definite period
of time to the highest bidder? A. I never thought of that.
Q. It would result in a very fine revenue to the city, wouldn't it?
A. It would result in a very fine revenue for the city, there is no
doubt about that; of course I never thought of that.
Q. You commissioners have, have you not, absolute discretion after
an application is made and all your forms are complied with as to
whether you will or will not grant a license? A. Yes, sir; I think so.
Q. And as to where you will put them? A. Yes, sir; it makes no
difference where we put them.
Q. Then it lies within your power to control the liquor traffic, does
it not? A. I think so; that is my judgment of the law.
Q. As the law is to-day? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And there is nothing to prevent your limiting the saloons to one
saloon to every thousand people? A. Nothing in the law.
Q. Or a saloon to every five hundred people? A. Exactly; I think
we could do that, to establish a rule, if we desired to comply with it,
just as we did in regard to the three corners, and not grant an appli-
cation for a new place, unless an old license is surrendered.
No. 80.]
1875
Q. Then any difficulties or complaints that are made against the
present situation of things, could all be remedied by your board under
the powers you now possess? A. The powers, I think, are very wide,
but then the laws are very crude at the same time; I think it would
be far better if there were a little more definite legislation.
Mr. IVINS.-I find there is a difference here at once between Mr.
Andrews, who at one time was in the board, and who has already tes-
tified, and Judge Brown, the counsel for the present board, one of
them holding that the law does not preclude the licensing of one per-
son to sell in a number of places, the other holding it does. For the
purpose of facilitating matters, I would like to read that section and
have it go on the record, because, as you just suggested, it may be
desirable to have the law made somewhat more clear and specific, in
any event: "The board of excise in any city, town or village shall
have the power to grant license to any person or persons of good
moral character so that they are required by statute to say that it
is good moral character?
"
The WITNESS.-Yes.
Mr. IVINS."who shall be approved by them, permitting him or
them to sell and dispose of at any one named place within said city,
town, village,” etc. That is section 12 of the Laws of 1873.
Q. Commissioner Koch, are you of the opinion that the excise com-
missioners are by law either authorized to or required to maintain a
surveillance of the liquor traffic in New York city, apart from the
granting of licenses and the revocation of licenses in specific cases?
A. No, sir; I do not think we are; I have expressed myself to that
effect and hold an opinion from Judge Brown, in which he agreed
with me to a great extent.
Q. Do you think that you are required by law to have your inspec-
tors keep themselves posted as to the continuous good standing and
reputation of the licensees of the board? A. I don't think that we
Q. I said "required?" A. Required; no, sir.
Q. Now, do you think that you are permitted by law? A. That is a
matter of extreme doubt with me.
Q. The other you are certain about? A. I am certain; this I am
doubtful, but doubtful in the direction that we have not the
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. You do not think you have? A. I do not think we have.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You do not think you have the right to send an inspector to a
certain place where the inspector himself has accidentally discovered,
1876
[SENATE,
for instance, that something wrong was going on and reported that to
you, that you have a right to send him or the chief inspector to look
into it, and so take the initiative yourselves, without waiting for the
complaint of a neighbor; don't you think you have the right in such
a case? A. Well, in that case I think we have the right.
Mr. JOHNSON.—The law says they may investigate, and shall, on
complaint.
Q. Now, since the law says you may investigate, what is to prevent
your having a systematic investigation? A. Just allow me to read it
as it reads; I think it says that the board of excise may, and upon
complaint shall.
Mr. LEVENTRITT.
you in a moment.
That is the language of the act. I will get it for
Mr. JOHNSON. That is the language of it.
Mr. LEVENTRITT.-You have it exactly right, commissioner.
Q. Now, "the board may, and upon complaint shall;" does not that
give you authority, if you see fit to exercise it, to institute a regular
systematic inspection of the manner in which the traffic is carried on
in the several precincts of the city? A. Hardly.
Q. Well, why not? A. Because I do not think that that is implied
in that.
Senator FASSETT. That is not the question, whether you think the
law contemplated that, but whether the law, reading that way, pre-
vents your doing it.
Mr. IVINS.- Whether the law permits them to do it. If you wanted
to-day to send three inspectors into this precinct, and say we have
heard generally, without any complaint, but we have heard generally
by public rumor and something that has appeared in the newspapers,
that in the second district, for instance, the liquor laws are not being
well observed, or in the fourth district they are not being well
observed, and we want you to go down there and see whether they
are or not being well observed, although no complaint has been made;
it is a sort of public scandal; wouldn't you have the right under that
provision to send a half dozen inspectors down there?
The WITNESS.-I don't think we would.
Q. And keep a watch on the thing a week? A. No, sir.
Mr. JOHNSON.- Aren't you stealing a legal opinion from the judge?
Mr. IVINS.-I want to. The judge is a lawyer; his legal opinion is
very valuable; he has also helped make the laws, and he is now
administering them.
The WITNESS.—I think the proper thing in that case would be to
bring us some proof; or "are you ready to prove?" and we will
No. 80.]
1877
summon that party. Or, if we thought the party was out for black-
mail, we might send for the police and notify them.
Q. On that theory you never would take any steps without a specific
complaint from an individual, would you? A. Information of some
kind.
Q. Then if the public believes that your department is responsible
for the surveillance of the traffic in this city, the public is entirely
deceived and wrong in that belief, is it not? A. I think they are;
yes, sir.
Q. Who is responsible for that? A. I think the police department
would be largely responsible.
Q. You think the police department would need the strong right
arm of the district attorney, however, do you not? A. I think so;
yes, sir.
Q. Don't you, as a public officer and a man who has been watching
this traffic, and who is now administering this law, realize that there
is a doubt all around as to who is responsible? A. Yes, sir; I do,
and I think that doubt ought to be cleared up, and the sooner the
better.
Q. Now, how would you suggest that it be cleared up? A. Well, I
don't know.
Q. We want your suggestions as an expert in this business? A. I
think there ought to be two sides.
By Mr. JOHNSON:
Q. To your board? A. To the board of excise; there ought to be
an administrative and executive side, and there ought to be a judicial
side; the administrative side ought to take up all matters affecting
licenses to which there are no protests, no complaints, and recom-
mendations from the judicial side after protests and complaints shall
have been heard by them, which shall be referred to them by the
administrative board; I think the judicial side should have a certain
number of police, of the municipal police assigned to them, probably
similar in manner to the way in which Mr. Beattie has sixty or
seventy, or whatever numher would be required in order to have all
the functions and all the powers of the police to carry out the police
regulations, you think if every police arrest were treated as being
equivalent to a specific complaint-mark you, that is my own
individual opinion.
Q. I understand that; that is just the opinion we want, your own
individual opinion; well, do you think if every police arrest were
treated as being equivalent to a specific complaint, and in addition to
1878
[SENATE,
taking these alleged offenders before the criminal machinery of the
law they were also to be taken before the excise commissioners and the
policeman made a complainant and asked to prove his case, and upon
ample proof being given in that particular case, a revocation were to
follow, don't you think that that, carried out systematically, would
really be the sufficient application of a penalty so as really to bring
the offenders within the law, and sooner or later minimize offenses
against the law? A. Yes, sir; I do; and I think, in addition to that,
any person that the oath of any person who swore that he had no
interest, or that nobody else but him had any interest in the place-
should be perjury.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Any false swearing as to any papers which you require ought to
be constitued by the law perjury? A. Yes; perjury.
Q. Punishable as such? A. As such.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Do you think that the liability to arrest and fine, particularly
where the liability or conviction and ultimate punishment only applies
to about one case out of ten, begins to be as effective a remedy as the
deprivation of a party of his license? A. No; I do not think it does.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. You think the most effective remedy would be a revocation of
the license? A. The revocation of the license.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You think that would be a much more effective remedy than the
mere liability to be arrested nine times and tried once? A. Yes, sir;
I do.
Q. And then to be fined only $100, if convicted? A. Twenty-five
dollars.
By Mr. JOHNSON:
Q. But the present board would not have time to attend to that,
would they, if they had the administrative as well as the judicial? A.
No, sir.
Senator FASSETT.-Your suggestion, judge, goes to the creation of a
double board; you do not mean a single board with double-headed
powers, but substantially two sets of men? A. Two sets of men.
Q. Acting independently of each other; one to grant licenses, hear-
ing applications, and one to revoke them? A. An excise board and
an excise court.
No. 80.]
1879
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Has your attention ever been called to the possibility of placing
some jurisdiction in the hands of police magistrates? A. No, sir.
Q. And then providing that wherever the police magistrate had
punished the party, no matter if it were ten dollars or twenty-five
dollars, that the decree in that case, or that the result of that trial
should, ipso facto, vacate the
a license for three years.
A. It does, and the party can not get
Mr. LEVENTRITT.Not before the police magistrate.
Mr. IVINS.-Have summary jurisdiction? A. No; I thought you
meant before the sessions.
Q. Oh, no; we understand it does before the sessions? A. No, sir.
Q. What do you think of the desirability of placing summary juris-
diction in the hands of the police justices to impose penalties for viola-
tion of the law but with the provision to follow that where a penalty
of that kind had been imposed, the license should be ipso facto, termi-
nated? A. With fair-minded police magistrates I think that it would
be a good thing.
Q. Then, if that thing did not work well, if it were tried and, in your
judgment, did not work well, it would be, in your judgment, the fault
of the magistrates? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, do you think there would be any danger in that system in
bringing the police magistracy too closely in connection with the
liquor traffic and that class of politics which grows out of the liquor
traffic? A. Might be; yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT.- Can they be brought much closer than they are?
Mr. IVINS. The commissioner has never been a police magistrate.
The WITNESS.- No particular desire either.
Q. Now, commissioner, you have a perfect right, have you not, your
board, arbitrarily, if you wish, to limit the number of licenses that
you will grant in the city? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have also a perfect right to limit the number of places that
you will license for any specific territory? A. Well, wait; I wouldn't
be positive about that, because that mandamus law that was passed
by Charley Smith some years ago is very loose and very elastic, so I
spoke too fast.
Mr. LEVENTRITT.- Mr. Ivins used the word "arbitrary."
Q. I do not mean arbitrary in that sense; I mean it is within your
power to say to-day: "We, as a board, will only grant 2,500 licenses
in New York city?" A. Subject to review by the court we would,
under that mandamus act.
1880
[SENATE,
*
Q. Then you think if you granted your full 2,500 and a man were
to come up and ask for the twenty-five hundred and first, that they
might appeal from you to the courts? A. To the courts; yes, sir.
Q. As matter of fact, the ultimate administration of this whole
system, in virtue of that Smith bill, has been thrown on the shoulders
of the court, has it not? A. Entirely; yes.
Q. And you know of cases, do you not, in which, while in your
judgment, the license should not have been issued, the courts have,
nevertheless, compelled the issuing of a license? A. Well, not-
Q. In the judgment of the commissioners, I say? A. Not within
our term; we have had a half dozen applications which we have
refused; parties have appealed to the courts and in each case the
court denied them the application.
Q. There have been very few of those cases, have there not; how
many were there; four or five, six, probably?
Mr. LEVENTRITT. Not more than that, certainly.
The WITNESS.- Not more than that.
Q. That did not require a great deal of attention on the part of the
counsel, did it; that was not the burden of his work? A. No, sir.
Q. I was half led to suppose, from some of the testimony, that it
was. A. In one case there was a license granted; that was the Kruse
case, I think.
Mr. LEVENTRITT.—That was before your term?
The WITNESS.-That was before our time.
Mr. LEVENTRITT.—And that is now pending in the Court of Appeals.
Senator FASSETT. That is the case in which a bill was passed,
is it not?
The WITNESS.-Yes, sir; counsel asked me whether I recollected
any; I do not recollect that case.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Now, commissioner, have you any suggestions to make further
than those that you have already made in passing, with regard to pos-
sible amendments in the law or possible improvements in the service
under the laws as they exist? A. No, sir; not just at the present,
but if the committee desire, I will devote my attention to it and write
out some suggestions to you.
Q. Will you do that in such a way that we can spread your sugges-
tions on the record after you had a chance to thoroughly mature them?
A. Yes, sir; I will do it, and will do it succinctly; and when will you
want it — three or four weeks?
Q. Any time within a month will answer for that, before the draft-
No. 80.]
1881
ing of the report to the legislature. A. Yes, sir; well I will do it
between now and the first of November.
Mr. IVINS. Now, Mr. Chairman, I expected that Mr. Fitzpatrick
would have been here, and that between these two witnesses it would
have taken the day, but Mr. Fitzpatrick is not here, and that is all I
desire to ask this witness.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Do I understand you to say that you approve of the system of
transferring the licenses without the consent of the board? A. No,
sir; not without the consent of the board, but that formal way; if a
party presents himself personally, and to the satisfaction of the com-
mission, either of the commissioners or a majority of the commission-
ers could indorse; you see the way in which it is done now, a party
asking for a transfer, even, is obliged to go through all the forms of
the person making an application for a license itself; now, I think
that is entirely red tape; a man conducts himself well, and inspection
could be made in five minutes of the place, and we could see from
our maps, from the records, whether the place is a proper place to be
licensed.
Q. That is, the new place? A. New place, and the indorsement
might go on just the same.
Q. Then you approve of having the license operative in the new
place, if you approve of the new place as a location? A. Yes, sir;
it is anyway, except all the circumlocution has got to be gone through
with.
By Mr. JOHNSON:
Q. It is a very difficult office to fill, and one in which you are very
likely to be imposed upon, is it not? A. I think so.
By Senator McNaughtoŃ:
Q. How many licenses have you granted since the first day of Janu-
ary up to this time? A. I can not tell very well; our fiscal year ends
on the first day of May; Mr. Gale probably would know because he is
more directly-
Q. But when you make your annual report to the mayor A. We
make it in May.
Mr. IVINS.— We have that. It is 8,085 licenses were granted during
the year of the board, and there were 11,000 and odd inspections made
for the purposes of licensing in the first instance, and to that had to
be added the special inspection made semi-annually looking over the
whole city.
[Senate, No. 80.]
236
•
[SENATE,
1882
·
By Mr. JOHNSON:
Q. Just one thing, commissioner; on these questions of revocation
of licenses you have regular trials; counsel appear? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And proceedings are conducted the same as in court?
A. Sometimes run along four or five or six hours a day.
Q. Then you have different sessions; you have adjournments of
them? A. We have adjournments of them; they are set down regu-
larly; we have our record; we can show you our record, in which
every proceeding is noted.
Q. Does it not consume actually a great deal of the time of the
commission? A. It does, particularly-now, the election day cases
consume, I should judge, in the aggregate probably nearly 200 hours
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. How long before those complaints are made do you take it up
for trial? A. Took them right up as soon as they presented their
complaints; they were tardy in bringing. them at first; they never
started their complaints, the first batch, until about the fifteenth of
January, and now we have got this Briton society-we have got them;
there are twenty-five down for to-morrow.
Mr. IVINS. Speaking of that, will you permit me to interject some-
thing here while I think of it; you speak of the Briton society?
A. Well, Dr. Gunn's society.
Q. Well, that is the society of which Mr. Joseph A. Briton is an
officer, is it not? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. IVINS.—I want to say to the committee that Mr. Joseph A.
Briton has been reported to me by half a dozen people as having
alleged that he was in the employment of this committee and was
seeking evidence of divers kinds for this committee. I wish to say
to the committee that neither I nor anybody on my behalf, nor any
of the counsel for this committee, directly or indirectly, at any time
or in any way, have ever employed Mr. Briton for any such service.
Senator FASSETT.— The committee certainly has not.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Is not your report to the mayor made on the last day of Decem-
ber of each year? A. I think it is on the first of May, is it not?
Mr. GALE.- Last of December.
The WITNESS.- Last of December; I was confusing that with
the dock board report; that is on the first of May.
Q. Well, that then includes - you include the first four months of
the term of which some other commissioner may have been in office?
No. 80.]
1883
A. Yes, sir; first four months that the old commission were in office;
yes, sir.
Q. Don't you think that objectionable? A. I think it is.
Mr. JOHNSON. Each board ought to report for itself, ought it not?
Q. Each board should report its own facts, say from the first of
May to the first of January? A. It could operate no harm in the case
of the excise board, because it has nothing to do with the city govern-
ment as a city government.
Q. Well, it operates harm in misleading the public. A. I say it
could do no harm in changing the law in the way in which you
suggest.
By Mr. LEVENTRITT:
Q. I want to ask you this question: In the months of April and May
are not the commissioners engaged there until almost midnight very
frequently, merely signing licenses and approving of bonds? A. I
have been engaged there not only during the first week in May I
was there until 10 or 11 or 12 o'clock, and then during three Sundays-
took work home on Sunday that occupied me two or three hours.
Q. So that there is very little opportunity afforded the commis-
sioners during these months, at least, to entertain any of these appli-
cations for revocation of licenses or matters of that kind, is there not?
A. Very little; still they are expected-
Q. Is not that one of the reasons of the delay, sometimes, in the
procedure of those trials before the commissioners? A. Yes, sir; there
is no doubt about that.
By Mr. BROWN:
Q. The same form as to protests as to licenses? A. Certainly; I
explained that when I explained it originally, the system; Mr. Johnson
do you want to ask me anything?
Mr. JOHNSON.—No; I do not just now.
By Mr. LEVENTRITT:
Q. With regard to the non-competitive examinations made by the
State civil service board, has your attention been called to this por-
tion of the report with reference to the qualifications of the employes;
that marked in brackets [presenting report]. A. "It has been my
aim to make these examinations."
Q. Will you please read that? A. "It has been my aim to make these
examinations so thorough that the certificate of the commission would
be a guaranty that the person obtaining it possesses the expert knowl-
edge necessary to the successful performance of his duties."
1884
[SENATE,
Q. Does that apply to the inspectors nominated by the excise board,
to the civil service commissioners? A. I presume it applies more
particularly to the inspectors of the excise board than to any other
class.
}
Q. To whom is that addressed, that report; to the Governor? A.
No, sir; I think-
Q. It is the civil service report; chief examiner of the civil service
report this year, 1890? A. That is to the Governor of this State.
Q. To the Governor of the State? A. Yeş, sir.
Q. And the inspectors of excise come within schedule "C" of the
civil service rules and regulations of this city? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that report refers to those enumerated in schedule “C?”
A. Refers to the inspectors of excise; those are enumerated in
shedule "C."
Q. Now, is it not a fact that in the applications for appointment to
the excise board, that the recommendations of individuals, with their
name and address, is appended to each application for examination of
applicant? A. I think I explained that, judge; I believe I did, general.
Mr. IVINS.-Yes; you explained it.
By Mr. LEVENTRITT:
Q. And those are examined again by the civil service board at
Albany? A. Yes, sir; and the civil service board at Albany requires a
special letter from the party signing the indorsements of the candidate.
Q. And the civil service examiners examine these applicants as to
their qualifications to become inspectors? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And pass upon them? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And this report says it is a guaranty of their qualifications?
A. Certainly.
Q. As an inspector? A. So it reads.
Senator FASSETT.
it a guaranty.
Mr. IVINS.- No.
The report says they have endeavored to make
"It has been my aim to make these examinations
so thorough that the certificate of the commission would be a guar-
anty that the person obtaining it possesses the expert knowledge "-
Senator FASSETT.- Mr. Ivins, just read there in that report the
number of applications made for examination.
Mr. IVINS. The number of applications made for examination is
forty-eight; inspectors, board of excise, New York, forty-eight, of
whom eight were not qualified, of whom forty were qualified, and
those forty were appointed, were they not?
The WITNESS.—I presume they were.
No. 80.]
1885
Senator FASSETT.-I understood Commissioner Fitzpatrick to testify
that the civil service examination, so far as interfering with the wishes
of the people who wanted men appointed, was no bar.
The WITNESS.-Well, he was entirely wrong, because I know several
instances in which the parties were rejected on account of not being
qualified, on account of the manner in which they conducted them-
selves in the room during the examination.
Senator FASSETT.— There seems to be eight instances there out of
forty-eight.
Mr. LEVENTRITT.
In which they were rejected?
Senator FASSETT.- Yes; in which they were not qualified.
Mr. LEVENTRITT.-And the others were qualified and the certificate
is a guaranty of their competency.
Senator FASSETT.— That is, it is aimed to be.
Mr. LEVENTRITT.-No; if your honor please, it is this; he certifies
that it is; it may be accepted as such.
The WITNESS.-One of the parties rejected was recommended from
a very high judicial officer of this county.
Senator FASSETT.—Well, there is the question we were going to take
up with Mr. Fitzpatrick. What judges have recommended him ?
The WITNESS.—I do not choose to state; I will tell you privately,
general.
Senator FASSETT.-I want to find out a little more about this certi-
ficate being a guaranty.
Mr. IVINS.—I was going to ask the same thing.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Now, have you ever examined these examination papers? A. I
did in several instances at Albany; I went in to see Mr. Angle one
morning and examined them.
Mr. JOHNSON.
You are an old school teacher yourself, are you not,
Mr. Koch? A. Slightly.
By Mr. IVINS:
קן
Q. You are familiar with the scope of the examination? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Now, in your judgment, is the scope of that examination such
that if a man passes it is a guaranty that he has expert knowledge
necessary for the performance of this work? A. It is a practical
examination.
Q. It is not an expert examination at all, is it? A. Well, I would
not like to criticise that board?
Q. No, but you have to take its men; don't you? A. Yes, sir.
1886
[SENATE,
Q. Then who would be a more proper critic? A. If the examina-
tion were referred to, referred to the board and they held responsible,
referred to our board and I was held responsible, probably I would
have a different line of examination.
Q. Well, don't you really think that if this whole matter were done
without the intervention of the board as it is done to-day, and you
commissioners were held to a strict personal and broad responsibility,
made your own examinations and did your own work, it would be an
improvement over the present system? A. I advocated that when I
was in the State Legislature and voted cn question of civil service,
and those were my ideas exactly, and I am on record with reference
to it.
Q. One of the reasons for it is, is it not, that the present system
does not accomplish the ideals that its advocates designed? A. That
the idealists thought it would.
Q. Because of the conditions of the law itself? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And apart from all abstract questions, so far as the existing law
is concerned, you think you would be better off without it? A.
Couldn't be worse.
Q. Now, have you complaints pending before your board against
one Trainor, who has a place on Sixth avenue and Thirty-third or
Fourth street? A. I think that we have a complaint against him by
this society that I referred to a few moments ago; I think they sign
themselves a Society for the Enforcement of the Criminal Law; that
is it.
Q. I have just received a letter from one Mr. Leander Richardson,
the editor of the Dramatic News, in which he calls the attention of
this committee to that particular case; and that leads me to ask
whether or not there is such a case pending; whether there has been
a trial? A. No, sir; I am mistaken there; I do not think that there
is a complaint pending; that was the case in which two actors were
found in there one night; one Sunday night or Saturday — or Sunday
morning; they were fighting with each other or with the barkeeper;
one was bruised, but I do not think any formal complaint was ever
made.
•
Q. Have you ever heard anything about that place and the way in
which it was conducted? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You know about the place yourself; do you not? A. Yes, sir;
I do.
Q. You have been there; have you not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Been there after 1 o'clock at night; have you not? A. I don't
think I have.
No. 80.]
1887
Q. Well, don't you know or haven't you heard, that the place is open
after 1 o'clock at night; in fact open all night? A. No, sir; I do not.
Q. You never heard that it is one of the so-called all night places
in New York? A. No, sir; I don't; it is a hotel.
Q. Well, if this committee now calls your attention to the fact that
it is charged, would that be sufficient to lead you to act under your
permissible authority to send somebody there to make investigation
and look into the matter? A. Certainly I should.
Q. Mr. Richardson is the complainant to the committee? A. The
license is in the name of a party by the name of Ennis, and it has been
an astonishing thing to me that these people have not been before our
board on complaint.
Q. Now, Mr. Trainor is commonly reputed as owning the place, is
he not? A. Mr. Trainor is.
Q. And he runs the place, don't he? A. I shouldn't wonder.
Q. And he is a convicted criminal, is he not? A. Not that I know
of; that is news to me; no, sir; I always thought he was a very repu-
table person.
Q. The question has been asked me several times as to whether he
was or was not an ex-convict; asked me pending this investigation; I
have no personal knowledge about it myself one way or the other.
A. I thought that he was a man of very good character.
Mr. IVINS. He may not be, and I do not want to cast any aspersion
on him; I ask you the question because of the rumors.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Suppose the commissioners were to act
upon this suggestion that the committee makes, that complaint; what
position do they occupy ?
Mr. IVINS.—No, no; they do not make the complaint; they simply
call the attention of this commission to the case. That is all there is
of it. They have the right on their own motion to investigate it.
The WITNESS. Yes, sir.
By Mr. JOHNSON:
Q. Now, Mr. Commissioner, a word on this subject of complaints
and investigations, and revocations; I understand you to say that you
have regular formal trials as to protests, and as to revocations? A.
Yes, sir; as to protests and complaints upon revocation.
Q. Can you give the committee an idea of how much of actual time
of the board is consumed by these investigations proper as contra-´
distinguished from your other business? A. The average would be
about three days a week; five hours each day; about fifteen hours a
week.
1888
[SENATE,
Q. That is taken up entirely by these complaints? A. Yes, sir.
Q. To the interference of the other business? A. Any other busi-
ness that is there.
Q. And these matters are regularly heard and disposed of as a court
would dispose of them? A. Yes, sir; they are; a docket kept, that is,
the register kept.
Senator FASSETT.- No question about the decree being final.
›Mr. JOHNSON.—Yes; there is no question about that; I want to show
how long, how much time is taken up.
By Senator АHEARN:
Q. Mr. Trainor has been a liquor dealer for a number of years, has
he not? A. Yes, sir; I recollect when he was at the Bowery — Trainor
and somebody else; corner of Hester and Bowery.
Q. Never had any complaint against his place? A. No, sir; as I say,
I have always found him and heard him spoken of in the highest of
terms; he certainly has not been a criminal during a period of
fifteen years that I have known.
By Mr. JOHNSON:
Q. Well, suppose, Mr. Commissioner, a man had been convicted of
a crime, and had served his term, and then behaved himself; would
that be any reason why he should not have a chance to reform and
carry on that business? A. No, not at all; but I have always looked
upon Mr. Trainor's place as a very excellent place; mark you, this is
simply a casual opinion that I give you; it is not by any means, so to
speak, engrafted in me; I throw that out as a suggestion; I may be
wrong, just the same, probably, as anybody else.
Adjourned until half-past 10 o'clock Wednesday, October 8, 1890.
NEW YORK, October 8, 1890.
Present Senators Fassett, Stewart, McNaughton and Ahearn.
ALEXANDER MEAKIM, called as a witness, being duly sworn, testified
as follows:
Mr. JOHNSON.- Before the committee goes on with the examination
of Mr. Meakim, I want to say that Mr. Fitzpatrick will be here for
further cross-examination, if desired, during the morning, but I
understood yesterday from my friend Mr. Ivins, that he did not desire
to cross-examine Mr. Fitzpatrick further. If this is so, I should like
a public announcement made of it, so that it may not seem as if Mr.
Fitzpatrick was shirking a conclusion of his cross-examination. I
think my friend does not desire to cross-examine him further.
No. 80.1
1889
Senator FASSETT. There were a few questions we wanted to ask
Mr. Fitzpatrick, but I do not know how counsel feels about it.
Mr. IVINS. So far as I am concerned I do not want to examine Mr.
Fitzpatrick further, because the ground I wanted to cover in my
further examination of him I have covered in my examination of Mr.
Koch yesterday.
Mr. JOHNSON.—I simply want to make the announcement so that it
may be publicly understood that Mr. Fitzpatrick is not shirking
further examination.
Senator FASSETT.-If we should want Mr. Fitzpatrick further, we
will send for him.
Mr. JOHNSON.-Very well, he will be on hand; he will be here to-day.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Mr. Meakim, what is your business? A. I am a commission
merchant.
Q. Are you now one of the commissioners of excise? A. I am, sir.
Q. And president of the board? A. I am.
Q. How long have you been such commissioner and such president?
A. Since the 4th day of May, 1889.
Q. Were you appointed by Mayor Grant? A. I was, sir.
Q. Were you appointed at the request of any organization?
Not that I know of, sir.
Q. I mean any political organization? A. Not that I know of; it
came to me unsolicited.
Q. When were you elected president of the board? A. On the 4th
day of May, 1889.
Q. Was that at the first meeting of the board? A. Let me correct
that; I was appointed the second day of May and sworn in on the
fourth, made president on the fourth.
Q. And you have been president continuously since then?
I have; sir.
Q. Now, will you, Mr. Meakim, for the committee, in your own way
and as you please before any specific questions are asked, state
exactly what your duties are, what the general duties of the staff are
and what your own understanding of the theory and practice of the
administration of the board is? A. Well, as president of the board I
preside at all meetings when I am present; as president of the
board most all of the complaints go through my hands and are set down
for a hearing; of course, as president of the board I have a general
supervision, with the co-operation of the other commissioners, with
[Senate, No. 80.]
237
1890
[SENATE,
all of the workings of the office; most all the minutia work goes
through my hands, being president of the board.
Q. What do you mean by that? A. That minutiæ work?
Q. Yes? A. Well, if complaints come in, to see that the com-
plaints are attended to, to see that the proper people are sent out to
investigate, to see that the investigations are made, and reports
handed in to the proper clerks or the proper departments of the
office.
Q. You are in reality then the actual executive officer? A. Well, I
am the president; yes; the executive officer, with the co-operation of
the other two members of the board.
Q. But you do a good deal of business for account of the board, do
you not, without any specific direction on the part of the board? A.
I take that responsibility upon myself, trusting that the board will
sustain me afterwards.
Q. Licenses, however, are never granted without the approval of a
majority of the board? A. A majority of the board.
Q. Licenses are never revoked without the approval of a majority
of the board? A. No, sir.
Q. Now, how is that majority got, in meeting? A. In meeting?
Q. In actual meeting? A. In actual meeting.
Q. Or do you consider it a sufficient majority if one commissioner
says: "Well, I will vote in favor of that," and another says:
"I will
vote in favor of that," and then one after another they sign it or
declare their willingness to do so; do you call that a meeting? A.
No; we call a meeting in the morning, and that is supposed to be all
day if a quorum is there.
Q. If a quorum is there? A. If a quorum is there.
Q. That is, if a quorum is in the building? A. Up in the meeting-
room.
Q. Now, how is it in the matter of appointments on the staff of the
force? A. How do you mean, the matter of appointments?
Q. The appointments of your subordinates; that is done by the
action of the board? A. That is done by the action of the board.
Q. And all the.commissioners who vote in favor of the appointment
of an employe are equally responsible, as you understand it? A.
They are equally responsible.
Q. Will you describe to the committee what the method of
appointment is? A. The applicant is properly recommended to
the commissioners, and the commissioners recommend him to the
State civil service, and upon him qualifying and receiving a commu-
nication from the State civil service, that man is qualifed to be
No. 80.]
1891
appointed an inspector, having first passed the necessary examination,
if the board sees fit to appoint the inspector.
Q. Are you any more responsible for the appointment of subordinates
than any other member of the board? A. Am I any more responsible ?
Q. Yes. A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever assumed to undertake the general management
and control of the matter of appointments? A. Most of the appoint-
ments have been recommended to me and by me to the board.
Q. Who have recommended those appointments to you? A. Out-
sider have recommended them and the organization have recom-
mended them.
Q. In what form do those recommendations come to you? A. Some
of them come through the leaders and some will come personally.
Q. What leaders? A. Well, Senator Plunkett, for instance, Judge-
I can't think of his name now - the judge of the twenty-second
assembly district - Mr. Bishop may know.
Mr. BISHOP.— Judge McQuade.
The WITNESS.—Yes; Judge McQuade. Hamilton Fish recommended
a man.
Q. Who is Judge McQuade? A. Judge McQuade; I believe he is
the Tammany leader of the twenty-second assembly district.
Q. Who is Mr. Plunkett? A. Mr. Plunkett is the Tammany leader
of the seventeenth assembly district.
Q. Well, do you not know there are quite a number of leaders in
Tammany Hall? A. Yes, sir; I do.
Q. Well, are they the only two leaders who have ever recommended
anybody to you? A. No; Mr. Frank Fitzgerald has recommended.
Q. Do you know whether there is a committee on patronage in
Tammany Hall? A. I do not; I have heard there was, but not
belonging to the organization, I do not know anything about the
working part of the organization.
Q. Has anybody ever claimed to represent the committee on patron-
age and made recommendations to you? A. Not particularly, that is,
the board has made recommendations and we have made appointments.
Q. Has Mr. Croker ever made recommendations? A. Yes; Mr.
Croker has; three or four.
Q. Mr. Croker recommended your secretary? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And your secretary is the most permanent officer of the board,
is he not? A. Yes; the secretary and chief clerk.
Q. Did Mr. Croker recommend the cashier? A. He did.
Q. Did Mr. Croker recommend the deputy cashier? A. I think Mr.
Croker did.
1892
[SENATE,
Q. Did Mr. Croker recommend the chief inspector? A. He did.
Q. Did Mr. Croker recommend the deputy chief inspector? A. No,
sir; he did not.
Q. Who else did Mr. Croker recommend? A. Mr. Croker either
recommended a man named Stephin or Pierson, I forget which
now; that is as far as my memory will allow me to state.
Q. Did Mr. Grant ever recommend any one to you? A. No, sir.
Q. Did any one ever recommend any one to you in Mr. Grant's
behalf? A. Well, I think the appointment of the men recommended
by Mr. Fish might have come some way through that; I can not say
positively.
Q. How did the appointment of Mr. Fish come about? A. Mr. Fish
himself came personally to the excise board and asked for the appoint-
ment of Mr. James Delaney.
Q. What did you do? A. Of course, I found out that Mr. Delaney
was acceptable.
Q. Acceptable to whom? A. The organization.
Q. What organization? A. Tammany Hall.
Q. Is there any reason why you should not have appointed Mr.
Delaney without first finding out whether he was acceptable to the
organization, assuming that he was acceptable to you? A. I felt that
the organization was responsible for the office, and that they ought to
have something to say, provided the men to be appointed were com-
petent and capable men; men that the commissioners felt would do
their work properly.
By Mr. BROWN:
Q. Are you certain that Mr. Croker recommended the deputy
cashier; was he not appointed during the absence of Mr. Croker in
Europe? A. I say I am not sure on that; that is what I intended
to say.
Q. Was it not Commissioner Martin, who is in charge of one of the
districts of Tammany Hall, that recommended him? A. Yes; I think
it was.
Mr. IVINS.-Which one?
The WITNESS.-James J., the commissioner of police.
Q. And he was chairman of the Tammany Hall organization of the
twenty-first district? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And when you refer to leaders you refer to the chairman of dis- ´
tricts? A. Yes, sir; the chairman of the districts.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You said a minute ago that the organization was responsible for
the administration of the board; did I so understand you? A. Yes.
No. 80.1
1893
Q. Will you explain to the committee how the organization comes
to be responsible, and what the measure of responsibility is? A.
Well, I took for granted, as Tammany Hall has been successful at the
election; of course, the people would hold Tammany Hall responsible
for the government of the different departments that they controlled
Q. Is that a superior responsibility to your responsibility as a com-
missioner? A. No; but as I qualified my statement before, in making
these appointments no person would be appointed if he were not a
proper person; if he were not a capable person.
Q. Did you ever, directly or indirectly, before taking the office of
commissioner, state to any one that in the administration of the office
you would recognize the so-called responsibility of the organization?
A, No, sir.
Q. Then you are under no obligation in any form, directly or
indirectly, to recognize that responsibility? A. No, sir.
Q. And when you took office there was nothing that stood between
you and the people but your own conscience and your own oath, was
there? A. That is all, sir.
Q. Well, how did it happen thereafter that you came to recognize.
the responsibility of the organization? A. Well, I felt, as I said
before, that the organization having been successful, and that as the
people would hold the organization responsible, as long as they were
good people, of course, I would give them the preference, but under
no condition would we appoint any person whom we did not deem it
proper to appoint.
Q. Have you ever refused to appoint people suggested by Mr.
Croker? A. We refused to appoint people who made suggestions; I
do not know as they came through Mr. Croker.
Q. Well, have you ever refused to appoint people suggested by Mr.
Croker? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who? A. Who?
Q. Yes. A. Mr. Lanigan.
Q. Mr. Mark Lanigan? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did Mr. Croker recommend Mr. Mark Lanigan to you for a
place? A It was at his suggestion that he was brought before the
board.
Q. For what place was Mr. Mark Lanigan recommended to the
board? A. An inspector of excise; one of the inspectors of the board.
Q. How long have you known Mr. Lanigan? A. How long have I
known Mr. Lanigan?
Q. Yes. A. I have only known Mr. Lanigan since he was an
applicant before the board.
1894
[SENATE,
Q. On what ground did you refuse to appoint him, on the ground
of unfitness? A. I did not think he was a capable man to be appointed.
Q. General character? A. Well, I surmised besides that he was
in the liquor business, and of course I take the stand that I would not
appoint anybody who had any connection with the liquor business.
Senator FASSETT.- That was one of your tests, was it, that no one
would be appointed inspector who was in the liquor business? A.
That no one should be appointed inspector who was in the liquor
business.
Q. When a person comes to you recommended by Mr. Croker, or
Mr. Martin, or Mr. McQuade, what steps do you take for the purpose
of investigating the party recommended as to his fitness? A. Well,
one of the investigations, of course, is through the civil service board
themselves.
Q. Leaving that apart, I mean what investigation do you as a com-
missioner, or your board as a board, make? A. I make inquiries
outside, as I made inquiries in Mr. Lanigan's case.
Q. Has that been done uniformly? A. It has been by me.
Q. Did you make inquiries in relation to the secretary? A.
No; the secretary having been so highly recommended, and the
secretary having been in a business that would warrant him being
a competent officer, there was nothing to warrant us in making an
investigation.
Q. That is, there was nothing brought up against him, and you
therefore did not think you were warranted in making an investiga-
tion ? A. He was brought up in the Dodds Transfer Company.
Q. Besides Mr. Croker, who recommended the secretary?
Besides Mr. Croker, who recommended the secretary?
Q. Yes. A. Nobody, to my knowledge.
A.
Q. You say he came so highly recommended? A. I meant by
highly recommended, of course, the recommendations from where he
had been before in the Dodds Transfer Company, knowing he had
been there for some time; of course, I took that as a proof of his
ability; and then the civil service — oh, no; there is no civil service
on the secretary.
By Mr. BROWN:
Q. Did you find out how long he had been employed by that com-
pany before you employed him? A. I think I did.
Q. How many years had he been employed? A. I don't remember
now.
Q. Wasn't it twenty-three? A. I don't remember; I would answer,
but I dont' know.
No. 80.]
1895
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Now, do you remember having appointed anyone to office on any
recommendation of a person not belonging to and being a leader of
Tammany Hall excepting only the case that you referred to of
Mr. Fish? A. I don't think I do.
Q. You don't recall one? A. No.
Q. Now, you said a minute ago that after finding out if Mr. Fish's
man was satisfactory, you appointed him; now just tell us what you
did to find out if he was satisfactory, and tell us why you mentioned
him as one of those whom Mr. Grant may have indirectly favored?
A. I think to the best of my knowledge and belief that after Mr. Fish
had been there, I think I called upon Mr. Grant and Mr. Grant was
perfectly willing; if I mistake not, I think Mr. Fish referred me to
the mayor; I won't say positively.
Q. You don't remember whether Mr. Fish referred you to the
mayor or not? A. I don't remember positively, not enough to give
an answer under oath.
Q. In either case, did you go to Mr. Grant to find out whether or
not the appointment would be satisfactory to him? A. I don't think
I did; I am answering that way now because it is sometime back and
there are a great many appointments there, of course; I don't want to
answer anything under oath unless I am able to state positively.
Q. Has it been your custom to go to Mr. Croker and ask if certain
applicants are satisfactory to him? A. No.
Q. Is it your custom to go to any other leader? A. No; the leader
generally comes to me or to the office.
Q. Unless the leader happened to be the mayor? A. No; I think
that was suggested by Mr. Fish; I think so; that is the best of my
belief.
Q. When was that? A. Sometime in the early part of the admini-
stration, of this new administration.
Q. Are the qualifications and fitness of applicants discussed at board
meetings? A. Before the appointments are made?
Q. Yes. A. It depends altogether on who the persons are; a
person like Mr. Bishop was not discussed, because we felt confident
that his qualifications warranted his appointment.
Q. So that it was virtually ageed to before you went into meeting?
A. I don't say that.
Q. He was not discussed though? A. No; he was not discussed.
Q. Have the board provided any systematic way or means of
inquiry as to the responsibility of applicants? A. Of course, the
board to a certain extent, are at the mercy of the inspectors.
1896
[SENATE,
Q. I mean applicants for appointment? A. Excuse me, I did not
so understand you; I could not say about that; if there has been
any question against an applicant inquiries have been made; If there
was nothing against the applicant and the applicant seemed to be all
right of course, we had the civil service who thought his qualifica-
tions would fit him for the position; of course, we stood on that.
Q. You have one case of a man named Redmund whom you found
in the office when you went there, a man whom it appears was
convicted of a crime and sentenced to State's prison; do you know
what answers Redmund must have made in his examination by the
civil service commissioners, in order to have prevented a disclosure
of that fact? A. That matter was thoroughly investigated; the
matter was referred to counsel, and from counsel reported back to the
board that as Mr. Redmund was a citizen at the time he made
application for the position of inspector, and as he answered all
questions, evaded nothing, was recommended to the board as being
qualified as inspector, and the previous board had appointed him,
and being a Grand Army man, we had no jurisdiction unless charges
were brought and sustained.
Q. Being in -A. Being a citizen when he made his application, not
evading any questions, having been appointed by the previous board,
having been certified as being eligible, of course, we had no
jurisdiction.
Mr. LEVENTRITT.-What were Mr. Redmund's politics?
The WITNESS.
From what I heard, Mr. Redmund was appointed as
a Republican, by Mr. Murphy.
Mr. JOHNSON.- He was a Grand Army man?
The WITNESS—He was a Grand Army man.
Q. Did you make any investigation, personally, as to the questions
which were asked him by the civil service board? A. Yes; we had
a full copy sent to the excise board, word for word, and that was
turned over to the counsel.
Q. No question was asked him about his previous career? A. No,
sir; nothing at all, whether he was a convict or not, that was not in
the examination.
Q. Well, as president of the board of excise, feeling self-obligated
to take the men who are sent to you by the State civil service
examiners, in view of the facts shown in a case like this, a
convicted criminal may escape without being known to the civil
service examiners, do you think that is right as it stands? A. He was
restored to full citizenship; he was pardoned by Governor Tilden.
Q. When was he pardoned by Governor Tilden, before or after he
No. 80.]
1897
served his term? A. I think before he served his term, if I remember
aright.
Q. Did you look into that? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Could you suggest any improvement in the system of civil service
examinations which would enable the facts of a man's antecedent life
to be brought out? A. I could suggest that it might be done by
having that inserted; it is inserted in the other civil service examina-
tions, the competitive, but it is not in the non-competitive.
Senator FASSETT.-In the competitive examinations a man must dis-
close about his previous life, that is where merit has a chance to
assert itself, in the competitive examination; in the non-competitive
examination he is not compelled to disclose about his previous life?
A. That is, as far as the non-competitive examinations are concerned
in the excise matters; I do not know about the other part.
By Mr. BROWN:
Q. Mr. President, are you aware that in non-competitive examina-
tions the applicant has to state what his occupations have been for six
years prior to the date of his application; do you recall that fact?
A. Five years.
Q. Five years? A. Yes.
Q. So that the civil service com missioners are advised as to the
occupation of the applicant for five years previous to his appointment?
A. Yes.
Mr. JOHNSON.— In other words, if a man has worked well and has
behaved himself well he has proved himself to be a reputable citizen,
and they do not go back of it, and they are right.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Have you yourself, since you have been president of the board,
ever taken the initiative in looking around among your friends, and
in the community, for men of fitness and ability to fill any of these
places? A. No; I found since I have been in the board that I had
my hands full in staying in the office attending to the routine business
of the office; I had looked around among those in the board to find
out who were competent clerks so as to retain them in the board.
Q. But there have been a great many men removed, have there not?
A. I do not think a great many under the circumstances; I think
retaining forty per cent of the employes belonging to the other side
who are not friendly to the successful party is doing pretty well.
Q. Sixty per cent were removed? A. I think in other cases one
hundred per cent would be removed.
[Senate, No. 80.]
238
་
1898
[SENATE,
Q. Is it not a fact where peculiar skill and experience was neces-
sary, such men were retained, such men as Mr. Gale, for instance
The WITNESS.-And Mr. Hoyle.
Mr. IVINS.-And Mr. Hoyle —
The WITNESS.-And Mr. Gildersleeve, and Mr. Prime, and Mr.
Cregg-
Mr. IVINS (continuing).- Where there has been peculiar experience,
and where peculiar ability was required those men were retained?
A. Where the services of the board would not be benefited by
resignations or removals, they have been retained; where other
people could be got better competent, they were not retained.
Q. Is it not a fact that in the staff of inspectors more than sixty
per cent were removed? A. I could not say.
Q. The inspectors are the only ones of your clerks who are system-
atically and habitually out in the districts, are they not? A Some
are out in the districts and some are doing routine work in the office.
Q. Well, the most active of all your subordinates in outdoor work
are your inspectors, are they not? A. I think the people who do the
most active work are indoor.
Q. I do not mean them; I mean the outdoor work is done by your
inspectors? A. Oh, yes; entirely.
Q. Now, is there any man in your department who is more
important to it and to the success of your administration than an
inspector? A. No, sir; there isn't in one sense; and then, of course,
there are people indoors; but of course the inspector is the keynote
to the proper licensing of places.
Q. And the inspector is really the linchpin of the whole system?
A. Certainly; there is no doubt about that.
Senator FASSETT. That is, all the licensing depends upon the report
of the inspector. A. Certainly.
Q. And you are really at the mercy of the inspectors? A. Without
of our own knowledge we know something that we may order a
reinspection.
Q. And is it not almost impracticable for you to have a system of
check so that you would not be at the mercy of your inspectors?
A. We could not change it unless we go over it ourselves, and that is
impracticable.
Q. So it is almost impracticable to have a check? A. Certainly.
Q. And, if so impracticable, the inspector continues to be the real
final fact in the system? A. There is no doubt about that.
Q. Now, more than sixty per cent of the inspectors were removed,
were they not? A. I haven't figured that up; I could not say.
No. 80.]
1899
Q. Have you never during your term as commissioner or president,
of your own notion, sought to find anyone whom you regarded as
peculiarly qualified for the work of inspector? A. I don't think I
have; no; I have not.
Q. You waited entirely for suggestions? A. And accepted people
whom I thought were proper, and others whom I thought were not
proper I did not accept.
Q. Did you ever take any suggestions from citizens disconnected
with the organization other than Mr. Fish? A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Did you ever take any suggestions from a Republican organiza-
tion? A. No, sir; I do not think I have.
Q. Did you ever take any suggestions from the County Democracy
organization? A. No; but there are county men in the office.
Q. They were retained because they were good men; were they not?
A. That is what we retain them all for.
Q. Were they not retained because they were better people? A.
No; some of them are inspectors.
Q. Do you know any of the nien who have been retained who were
county men or Republicans who have since been made members
of the Tammany Hall organization? A. I don't know anything
about that.
Senator FASSETT.- I understand that Mr. Meakim is not a member
of Tammany Hall.
Mr. JOHNSON. There is only one who is.
Senator FASSETT.- Which one is that?
Mr. JOHNSON. Commissioner Fitzpatrick.
Q. Even if you had been a Tammany Hall man could you have done
anything more for Tammany Hall men than you have done? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. What could you have done? A. I have refused to remove men
to make room for Tammany men.
Q. Who have you refused to remove although you know that the
place was wanted by Tammany Hall men? A. Well, I don't know
directly, but I know of places that people would have wanted; now,
I will name Mr. Gildersleeve.
Q. You mean places that would have been filled by men who were
perfectly willing to take them? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Gale was one of the County Democracy men who was
retained?
Mr. GALE.- No, sir; I deny it.
Senator FASSETT.— Mr. Gale testified that he joined Tammany Hall
on the recommendation of Mr. Grace.
i
1900
[SENATE,
Q. Did you know that Mr. Gale had joined Tammany Hall on the
recommendation of Mr. Grace prior to your assurance that he would
be retained? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know that Mr. Cart had become a Tammany Hall man
afterwards? A. No, sir.
Q. Then there are a great many details that you have not looked
into? A. In the political part there are plenty of details that I know
nothing about.
Q. Has anyone called your attention in any way, directly or
indirectly, to charges of interference by the inspectors in matters
political? A. There was one charge made, and I sent for the inspector
and told the inspector if I heard again that he interfered in any way
I would prefer charges against him and ask for his removal.
Q. What inspector was that? A. Julius Simon.
Q. What district was he allotted to? A. He was allotted to the
Eighth precinct, but I think this act was over in the Eleventh precinct.
Q. What Assembly district was that in? A. The Tenth.
Q. What Senate district was that in? A. You mean who ran in the
district?
Q. Yes, the number of the district, or who is the present Senator?
A. That I could not tell you.
Commissioner FITZPATRICK. It is the Eighth Assembly district; it
is the Seventh Senatorial district.
Q. Is that the one that Commissioner Fitzpatrick lived in ?
Commissioner FITZPATRICK.- No, sir; it is the one that John J.
O'Brien lived in.
Q. Have you ever instructed the inspectors not to interfere in
politics? A. I think I have, but not in a general order promulgated.
Q. Have you ever inquired whether or not the inspectors were
actually active politicians as members of political organizations? A.
No, sir; I have not.
Q. Do you know whether or not the inspectors are usually allotted
to the precincts in which they as politicians also have influence? A.
I know in some cases they have been, and in some cases we have not
allowed it.
Q. Now, in what cases are they so allotted? A. I will have to
refresh my memory on that; I have been away from the office a
month, and, of course, on that question I would have to refresh my
memory by the records.
Q. In what particular cases have you disallowed it? A. I would
have to refresh my memory on that.
C-
No. 80.]
1901
Q. Is your memory sufficiently clear to enable you to state in what
proportion of cases you permitted it? A. I think there are very few
cases anyway.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Well, why isn't it a proper thing; why shouldn't they be
assigned to those districts where they have political influence? A.
Well, from a political standpoint, I suppose that is all right, but
may be from the standpoint of the efficiency of the officer, it might not
be right.
Q. Why not? A. Well, if they are among their friends who are
liquor dealers, they may overlook some things and allow them to do
things that is an infringement on the law, without reporting them.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q If men have already been licensed, can they show favors to
them? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In what way? A. For instance, a man might sell out his store,
a man who is already licensed, to John Jones, and the inspector will
report that to the board if he does his duty, and the man will have to
get a new license.
Q. And defraud the city out of just so much? A. The charity
fund, because the money does not go to the city.
Q. Then it is possible for these inspectors to exercise quite a good
deal of power in the granting or withholding of favors? A. Certainly;
that is an open secret.
Q. Is there much pressure for this office of inspector; that is, are
there a great many applicants and recommendations for the office;
are there more than there are offices? A. No; I don't think so.
Q. It is not a very desirable berth? A. I should not think so, at
the salary; it seems they are undesirable, that is, if a man does his
duty properly.
Q. You are never at a loss for somebody to appoint; there are always
two or three ready to be appointed? A. I know of two now willing
to be appointed; I don't know of any others.
By Mr. IVINS:
+
Q. Have you ever appointed anybody on the application of Judge
Steckler? A. Not Judge Steckler.
Q. Charles Steckler, then? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who is Charles Steckler? A. He is a Tammany Hall leader in
the tenth district, I believe.
1902
[SENATE,
Q. Do you know how many members of the Steckler Association
are inspectors of the excise board? A. I don't know; I can tell you
how many people have been appointed through Mr. Steckler, but what
they belong to, I don't know.
Q. Now, who have you appointed through Mr. Steckler? A. Mr.
David Hirsch.
Q. Who did you remove to make a place for Mr. Hirsch? A. Trans-
ferred Mr. Gildersleeve.
Q. Did you make any examination about Mr. Hirsch's qualifications
for office, yourself, before you appointed him? A. Only that Mr.
Steckler recommended him, and that he went through the civil service
examination.
Q. Did you see and talk with Mr. Hirsch before you appointed him ?
A. I saw Mr. Hirsch; I don't know what I said to him.
Q. Does Mr. Hirsch now do the work that Mr. Gildersleeve used to
do? A. I suppose he does.
Q. He testified that he did not? A. Let me tell you there is a great
deal done in the office that, of course, I can not keep track of and
know of my own personal knowledge what is done; I know that that
department is doing just as effective work as it ever has done.
Senator FASSETT.- But whether he has done the work that Mr.
Gildersleeve did, you do not know?
The WITNESS.-I do not know that.
Q. Is Mr. Hirsch a good man, whose qualifications are such that
they could be taken as a fair average standard of the qualifications of
people for appointment to office in your board?
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- I think that is hardly a fair question.
Mr. IVINS.-I think it is. Mr. Hirsch has been here and we have
seen him, and he has been compared with Mr. Gildersleeve.
Q. Well, is Mr. Hirsch a man whose qualifications are above or
below the standard of qualifications required in your board?
have heard of no complaints being made against him; Mr. Hirsch, I
suppose, does his work properly because we have had no complaints
against him.
Q. Have you ever looked into any other reason except as to whether
he did his work properly? A. I have sent Mr. Hirsch out and Mr.
Hirsch has done his work properly.
Q. Have you ever inquired as to the amount of work Mr. Hirsch
does and when and how he does it? A. I know that the work is done
by the department, by the bureau, and Mr. Hirsch is in the bureau.
Q. Have you ever inquired whether Mr. Hirsch is doing the work
that Mr. Gildersleeve used to do? A. No.
No. 80.]
1903
Q. Do you, as president, know whether he does or not? A. I take
it for granted that he is doing his duty, as there are no complaints
against him.
Q. Do you know what, in fact, the men are doing? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What men have you watched in that way so that you can tell
what they are doing? A. Well, I watched Mr. Rothchild, the engross-
ing clerk, Mr. Hoyle, Mr. Prime, Mr. Craig, Mr. Gildersleeve, Mr-
Hirsch, for instance.
Q. How did you watch Mr. Hirsch, for instance? A. By going out
and finding out what complaints have been brought in, and seeing
whether they were being properly attended to.
Q. Who else have you appointed for Mr. Steckler? A. Samuel
Rauch, inspector.
Mr. JOHNSON. If you were to watch the detailed work of each
inspector, you could do nothing else, could you?
THE WITNESS.—I would want a horse and wagon to do that, as they
cover twenty miles of the city.
Senator FASSETT.- Mr. Hirsch is an outside inspector, is he not?
A. Mr. Hirsch is in what we call the complaint bureau.
Q. His work is in the office, is it? A. No; his work is outside.
Mr. IVINS. Mr. Hirsch testified:
Mr. Hirsch testified: "Q. Then it takes all of your
time to receive the complaints, and divide them between Mr. Gilder-
sleeve and the other gentleman and yourself? A. Yes, sir. Q. When
do you investigate the complaints that you take for yourself? A. I
go after 4 o'clock, after business hours. Q. Now, do you think you
have investigated such complaints as you have taken for yourself, and
where you have made the investigation after business hours, as many
as one a day? A. Yes, sir; many times. Q. These complaints are
only in cases where licenses have been issued and a complaint is made
against the licensee? A. No, sir; they are not those complaints. Q.
What complaints are they? A. Complaints we receive from the
public, or saloons change hands, or we hear of a grocery store that is
selling without a license, or a drug store. Q. Are these all of the
duties of the general inspector? A. That is all I know of. Q. Are
you responsible in any way for the work of the other forty-nine
inspectors? A. No, sir. Q. Do you examine the reports of the other
forty-nine inspectors? A. No, sir. Q. Do you assign the other forty-
nine inspectors to their precincts? A. No, sir. Q. Do you exercise
any direction or control over them at all? A. No, sir. Q. You
get $1,800 a year? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Gildersleeve does all
the work that he used to do as general inspector? A. He don't
do it all; he gets it from me; he don't do all the work. Q. That
he used to do as general inspector? A. He was general inspector
1904
[SENATE,
2
before I got there. Q. Was the work of the general inspector during
that time different from the work of the general inspector now, so far
as you know? A. Not that I know of."
Q. Now, in order that my statement of what he testified to may be
corrected, in case there was any error in it, I read what was said by
Mr. Hirsch; is that an intelligible statement of his duties? A. Mr.
Hirsch has testified to it
Mr. LEVENTRITT.-Didn't he testify that he made special investiga-
tions outside of that?
Mr. IVINS.
He said he made one or two.
"Do
..
Mr. LEVENTRITT.- Give him the benefit of that testimony.
Mr. IVINS.-I have it here. He said he goes out after hours.
you remember any particular case where you have made an investiga-
tion as to the change of ownership? A. Yes, sir. Q. Just name it?
A. One-176 Allen street. Q. That is enough; now, who was the
former licensee in that case? A. I forget the name now; Mr. Krause
has taken out a license there; I guess it is in the book there.
Krause has taken out a license there? A. Yes, sir. Q. He was the
new licensee? A. Yes, sir. Q Was there a bill of sale from the old
licensee from Krause? A. I didn't see any bill of sale. Q. Never
saw any? A. No, sir. Q. What steps did you take to find out
whether Krause was the bona fide purchaser of the bill of sale? A.
I went there and found that the former owner was not the proprietor
of that place. Q. Who did you find that out from? A. The bar-
tender; and then the bartender told me that the party has moved
away, and he don't know where he is; and I informed Krause to come
and take his license out; he immediately came — the next day -- and
took his license. Q. Did you take any steps to find out whether Mr.
Krause was the owner? A. Mr. Krause told me he was. Q. Did
you take any steps other than that? A. No, sir; that was sufficient
for me.
Q. How long have you known Mr. Krause? A. I do not
know him at all.”
Q. Is that, in your judgment, a sufficient investigation? A. Well,
he could have been more accurate.
Q. And that is the work of your general inspector? A. Well, I
remember one case of a general inspector where a license was
revoked on his inspection.
Q. [Counsel continues reading.] "How many cases of this kind
have you investigated," etc.; now, has the general inspector never
received any more instructions that might be inferred from his testi-
mony here as to his specific duties? A. Well, of course, his duties
are, that when the complaint comes, to thorougly investigate it.
No. 80.]
1905
Q. I have read you one instance of what he called an investigation;
do you regard that as thorough? A. No; I think it ought to be more
thorough than that.
Q. Would that have been satisfactory to you had you known that
that was all that he did? A. No, sir; it would not.
Q. Do you take any steps whatever to find out how thorough these
investigations are? A. There are thousands and thousands of cases
and some one or two cases may slip through where the investigation
of the commissioner is not as thorough, may be as it ought to be.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. I understood the counsel's question to be generally whether
you depend on the report of your general inspector ordinarily? A.
Well, we have to the same as the other inspectors.
Q. Unless something extraordinary develops to call your attention
to the case, you do not go behind his report? A. No, sir; we are not
expected to.
By Mr. JOHNSON:
Q, In other words, you rely upon the fact, as I understand it, that
the inspector does his duty? A. Certainly.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. The general staff of inspectors get $1,200 per annum? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. The general inspector, so called, gets $1,800, does he not? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Wherein does the duty of the so-called general inspector who
gets $600 a year more than the other inspectors differ from the duty
of the other inspectors? A. Well, the other inspectors' duties are
confined to a certain limit and the general inspector is all over the
city.
Q. You hold the general inspector responsible for the whole
inspection staff? A. We hold the general inspector responsible for
any dereliction of duty if he had received a complaint that the
licensed were not conducting the business properly.
Senator FASSETT. He is not the chief inspector.
persons
Mr. IVINSI understand that, but I want to find out what the
general inspector is as distinguished from the other inspectors and
what he is as distinguished from the chief inspector.
The WITNESS.-The chief inspector has charge of the district
inspectors and the general inspector has charge of all the complaints.
Q. Has the general inspector authority to send persons out to
[Senate, No. 80.]
239
1906
[SENATE,
investigate the complaints? A. He has authority through the
secretary.
Q. He has to go to the secretary in the first instance, however?
A. That is outside of his own department.
Q. Is he expected also to make personal investigations whenever he
sees fit in regard to complaints? A. He ought to; yes, sir.
Q. Now, suppose the general inspector were to say that he had
investigated a certain matter and the complaint was not seriously
pressed, would that end it? A. It depends altogether what the
complaint was, whether it was a complaint of the ordinary nature or
not; just the same as any other inspectors.
Q. Then his duties really are very serious? A. We are at his mercy
just the same as we are at the mercy of the other inspectors.
Q. But he is the man who in the first instance has to pass on the
great body of complaints? A. Passes on complaints; he does not
pass on the complaints that we receive from the police department or
complaints of that kind; he passes on the complaints we receive.
through letters; the complaints received through the police depart-
ment, or for violation of the excise law in keeping open or anything
like that are turned over to the board, and the board sets it down for
a hearing.
Q. Are there many complaints made through letters? A. I suppose
a great many; there are a great many received through letters that
the secretary turns over to that bureau without handing to the
commissioner.
Q. Have you any idea how many there are? A. No.
Q. Do you suppose there are a hundred a day? A, I could not
tell you.
Q. Or ten a day? A. I could not say; I do not want to say anything
I do not know positive, because I am under oath.
Q. In case a complaint came by letter and it was turned over to
Hirsch, and Hirsch were to examine it and report that in his judg-
ment there was nothing in it, would that end it? A. That would
depend upon the style of the complaint.
Q. Who would there be beside, Mr. Hirsch to determine what the
seriousness and style of the complaint was? A. Well, the complaints
are generally turned over to that bureau; if an inspector makes a
report that there is nothing in it, and he has thoroughly investigated
it, as I said before, we are at his mercy the same as the other.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Hirsch gets all his mail himself? A. No, sir; it comes to the
secretary.
No. 80.j
*
1907
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. The secretary turns it over to Hirsch? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that Hirsch is really the intermediary between the depart-
ment and all persons complaining by mail? A. It goes through his
hand as chief of the bureau.
Q. And it is for Mr. Hirsch to investigate these complaints and
report either for or against the complainants? A. No; Mr.
Gildersleeve is there to assist him.
Q. Is he responsible for Mr. Gildersleeve's work? A. He ought to
be, certainly.
Q. Does he supervise the manner in which Mr. Gildersleeve does
his work? A. No, sir; but the reports of Mr. Gildersleeve are made
through him.
Q. Who supervises him? A. Who?
Q. Mr. Hirsch? A. The secretary.
Q. Do you know to what extent the secretary supervises Mr. Hirsch?
A. I suppose to the extent that when these complaints are handed he
sees that each complaint has a report made on it.
A. Then this general inspector who is generally responsible for all
complaints of this particular class and at whose mercy you are, was
appointed by you on the application of Mr. Charles Steckler without
any further examination or investigation, so far as you were personally
concerned, into his antecedents? A. No; except his antecedents for
the past five years; he stated what his business was.
By Mr. BROWN:
Q. These general inspectors you speak of, their duty is to investi-
gate complaints for violation of the excise law when in the ordinary
course of mail, or otherwise, the complaints are made to the board?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Those are handed by Mr. Bishop to Mr. Hirsch? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is Mr. Van Hoven an inspector in that department also?
Yes, sir.
Q. And Mr. Pierson? A. Yes, sir.
A.
Q. After the complaints have been investigated by one or two of
those I have mentioned, what is done with them; are they not returned
to the secretary? A. That is just what I told Mr. Ivins.
Q. And after that placed before the commissioners for investigation
and determination? A. Certainly.
Q. And there is not a record kept of all these transactions? A.
Certainly.
1908
[SENATE,
1
Q. In some of the books of the department; now will you state,
commissioner, how many books altogether are kept in the department,
in the administrative department of the board? A. I think Mr.
Bishop counted those up.
Mr. BISHOP.-Five hundred and fifty.
The WITNESS.I have to rely upon Mr. Bishop refreshing my
memory on that.
Q. Five hundred and fifty with maps, books and other records out-
side of the ordinary applications which are in pamphlet form or in the
legal form of books; now, after the complaints are returned or inves-
tigated by these general inspectors if anything appeared requiring
the action of the commissioners, then the complaints are made and
the parties notified? A. Yes, sir.
Q. If the examination satisfies you that they ought not to be pur-
sued further they are discharged? A. Discharged.
Q. Is not that the usual course of conduct? A. That is what I told
Mr. Ivins.
Q. And the inspectors are obliged, with the exception of the three
application clerks, to keep all the records I have mentioned in the
book that I have mentioned, in addition to their other duties? A.
Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Mr. Rauch was also appointed on the same application; did you
make any examination as to his qualifications? A. The same as the
other.
Q. Have you ever made any investigation since he has been there
as to the manner in which he has performed his duty? A. I suppose
he has performed his duty or the chief would make the report.
Q. Then if he has not would you hold the chief responsible? A.
Certainly.
Q. Now suppose he has not properly performed his duty and the
chief has not discovered it, what is the measure of the chief's respon-
sibility? A. If he has not performed it and the chief has not dis-
covered it?
Q. And not called your attention to it so that you are continued to
be left at Rauch's mercy? A. If the chief knows it and does not
report it, he is liable.
Q. Is it the chief's duty to know it? A. He ought to know it; he
keeps a report of all applications and all inspections made.
Q. Did you know that he had been a deputy collector under Judge
Deidrich? A. I think I heard that; I won't say positive.
No. 80.]
1909
Q. Did you know that he had been the official floor manager of the
ball room known as Webster's Hall? A. I did not.
Q. Did you know that he had been a clerk in the postoffice? A. I
did not?
Q. Now, I shall read from his testimony what I have already read
from his testimony to one or two other commissioners, and the stenog-
raphers need not take it here; it is contained on pages 1137, 1138,
1139, 1140 and 1143. [Mr. Ivins here read the testimony referred to.]
Now, Commissioner Meakim, do you regard that a sufficient investiga-
tion to justify an inspector in truthfully saying: "Upon diligent
inquiry I find the moral character and general reputation of the appli-
cant Murphy to be good?" A. No; if he did not see him and did not
know anything about him.
Q. Well, you heard what he testified to; do you regard that as a
sufficient and proper investigation? A. No, sir.
[Mr. Ivins continues reading from pages referred to.]
Q. You regard that as a sufficient investigation? A. Well, now, as
regards Mr. Blank's place, I personally inspected that place myself.
Q. Well, that was not the question; we will take that up in a
minute; do you regard that as a sufficient investigation, assuming
that you had not personally taken it up? A. Well, not if I had not
known of my own knowledge.
Q. Would you regard that as a sufficient examination? A. Well, I
think he if he testified there that he had known them for twenty-
five years
Q. That he had lived in the neighborhood for twenty-five years?
A. Been there for twenty-five years and the man had been in business
there, I should think, knowing a man for twenty-five years, he ought
to be able to make a report.
Q. You made an investigation of that place yourself? A. I did.
Q. How did you come to make an investigation of it? A. I
simply made an investigation because I am around Thirteenth street
nearly every night, and I was watching the Golden Horn, across the
street, and I says, "I might just slip into Blank's and see what it
looks like, because it may be of use for me later on; there may be a
time when they will raise some objection because Blank's has been
licensed."
Q. Did anybody call your attention to it particularly before you
went there? A. No, sir; nobody.
Q. "Did you examine William Lyth's place, 252 West Eighteenth
street?" [Page 1142—Mr. Ivins reads to and including "on a new
1910
[SENATE,
1
party; yes, sir." Page 1144.] Now, do you regard that as a sufficient
investigation? A. No; I think it ought to be more rigid.
Q. Do you regard that as evidence of the fact that he understands
his duties as an inspector? A. I think that examination ought to be
more rigid.
Q. He asked no questions of anybody and made no attempt what-
ever to find out anything about the antecedents of the man, and that,
he says, is the way in which he conducts an investigation in regard to
a new applicant. A. There is another case where we are at the mercy
of the inspector, as I have said before.
Q. Would you be so much at the mercy of the inspector if the
inspector was specifically instructed that that was not an investiga-
tion? A. Well, that is only that has come out now; of course,
when a report comes in and they answer all those, we take it for
granted that they do observe due diligence.
Q. Is there any reason why you could not find out those things as
well as this committee? A. Well, you are looking for everything that
is going to implicate the board, and the board are looking for the
good government of it, and when a man takes an oath to do his duty
faithfully and he makes a report that he has used diligent service, we
take it for granted that he has; if we started out on each individual
case ourselves we will grant fifty licenses a year, if we go out to make
investigation ourselves after the inspector gets through.
Mr. IvINS.-In one regard you are entirely wrong. We are not
looking for things to implicate the board. Quite at hap-hazard I
picked out a list of five or six inspectors and sent for them and had
their last five or six reports brought in. These are three of their
reports, of Mr. John Rauch, the only three which were read. The first,
you say, was not a proper inspection; the second, you say, in view
of the fact that he had knowledge for twenty-five years, was a proper
inspection; the third you say was not a proper inspection. We did
not pick Mr. Rauch out; we did not pick out the cases.
simply the first thing we touched, and it was so with regard to all the
other inspectors.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Well, let me ask, perhaps
It was
would this be a fair question: Have
you any reason to believe that these cases read by Mr. Ivins are not
fair illustrations of the manner in which the inspections are made?
A. Well, no; I don't know anything about that; we take up each case
individually, and the inspector is sworn.
Q. And depend on the inspector's report? A. Certainly; he is
sworn to his report; his report is sworn to.
No. 80.]
1911
Q. I ask you if you know of any facts that lead you to think that by
some fate we had selected or found or chanced to find flagrant
instances of indifference to duty? A. No; I don't think you picked
them out.
Q. No reason to suppose these are not fair reports? A. No; I don't
charge that at all.
By Judge BROwn:
Q. Are you not largely guided, in determining whether the proper
inspection has been made, by the records of the office, where parties
have been licensed by the commissioners for a long time prior to the
time of the application? A. Certainly, and that is a part of his
inspection.
Q. And where a man had been engaged in the liquor business for
a number of years, having a license from the board, and no complaints
made against him, it is fair evidence to you that he is possessed of a
moral character sufficiently to entitle him to continue in business?
A. Certainly.
Q. And the inspection aids you in determining whether he is
proper to continue to have a license for the business again; is it not
so? A. Certainly it does.
Q. And do you largely rest upon the fact that a man's character had
not been impeached, that the presumption is he continues to have a
good moral character? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Your attention has been called to section 12 of the statute,
heretofore?
Judge BROWN.— You call his attention to it now.
The WITNESS.- Read it.
Mr. Ivins reads as follows: "The board of excise in any city, town
or village shall have the power to grant license to any person or per-
sons of good moral character who shall be approved by them.”
The WITNESS. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you understand that your duty is sufficiently performed,
under the law, by taking it for granted that a man has a good moral
character, unless his character is impeached? A. Well, the only way
that we can ascertain a man's good moral character, is through our
employes who are authorized by law to do it, and if they report a
man of good moral character, and we don't know anything to the
contrary, of course, we naturally take it for granted it is so.
Q. Do you think that the statute is sufficiently complied with by
the application on your part of a rule that a man is assumed to be
¿
1912
[SENATE,
innocent until he is proved guilty? A. Well, I think in a great many
cases a man is innocent until he is proved guilty.
Q. That is not an answer to my question? A. I would have to
answer that this way, that a great many times people have been
arrested´in the excise business and I should take it for granted they
were innocent until they were proved guilty; there might be other
cases that people have been repeatedly arrested for different things, I
might take a different view; each case would stand on its own bottom
when it came up; I have no general rule for every case.
By Judge Brown:
Q. You don't start out with the presumption that a man is of bad
moral character? A. No.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Do you start out with the assumption that that law necessitates
investigation on your part of the question of character? A. By the
inspector; yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT.- Well, he is your agent.
Q. It says "the board of excise-" A. Well, through our agent.
Q. "shall grant-" A. Well, to be sure, we grant upon the
recommendation of our authorized agents, the inspectors.
Q. Now, do you, as a commissioner, hold it a sufficient compliance
with the statute to regard a man as being of good moral character
provided you know nothing about him? A. If the inspector makes
such report.
Q. No; no; no? A. I know, but
Senator FASSETT.— As an abstract proposition.
Q. The abstract proposition; we will get to the inspector's report
later? A. Well, I think if I know nothing against a man, I would
naturally say that he was of good moral character, if I don't know
anything to the contrary; I would give him that benefit anyhow.
Q. Well, have the inspectors been instructed to give the benefit in
the same way? A. I don't know the the inspectors have been
instructed to find out a man's moral character; I don't think they have
been instructed how to find it out; I suppose their common sense
will
Q. What instructions have been given to the inspectors as to the
extent to which they shall prosecute their inquiries concerning char-
acter? A. I don't know as anything only their own common sense.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Well, Mr. Meakim, your report that the inspectors.furnish to the
commission is a blank; it says, in response to one question, "on
No. 80.]
1913
diligent inquiry I find his moral character to be blank," and that they
fill out "good, bad or indifferent," with remarks as they please; now,
have your inspectors ever been instructed as to how much effort
should constitute diligent inquiry? A. No; I think that has been left
to them; I think they have been - they are men of average intelli-
gence, and if they swear they have made diligent inquiry, of course
Q. Apart from their volunteering to insert in that blank a descrip-
tion of what they have done in the way of inquiry, you have to
depend on their own judgment of the meaning of that phrase
"diligent inquiry?" A. Certainly.
Q. In other words, you are absolutely dependent on the integrity and
the capacity and the fidelity of your inspectors, are you not? A.
Certainly, on that report and also on the diagram they put on the
back of the report, as to churches and schools and things of that kind.
Q. And one of the most important things to determine in granting
a license is whether the applicant be of good moral character? A.
Certainly, that ought to be.
Q. That is the first, is it not? A. Certainly, that is the first thing.
Q. It is the paramount issue in the statute, is it not? A. Certainly.
Q. Are you convinced that the present system results in a thorough
inquiry as to the moral character? A. I think it could be improved on.
Q. Think it could be improved? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you suggest in what way the present method could be
improved? A. Well, I think it could be improved on by making the
position of inspector a competitive one and give it more salary so that
a man would have more to work for, and make it that he could not be
removed except upon charges; competitive examination.
Q. Making the inspector a competitive examination? A. Competi-
tive examination.
(c
Q. Then raise the salary? A. Raise the system all around.
Q. Well, with the inspectors as they are appointed in the present
way, would it be any improvement to require that they report not
upon diligent inquiry I find the moral character to be good," but to
report actually what inquiries they did make? A. Yes; who they
inquired of.
Q. And whom they inquired of? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would that be a good change? A. Certainly.
Q. There is nothing to prevent your commission making that
change, is there? A. No, sir.
Q. That is open to a change by your own motion? A. Yes; and the
commission are only too happy, if anything could be brought out here
by which it can be remedied, to act upon it.
[Senate, No. 80.]
240
1914
[SENATE,
Q. I understood Commissioner Fitzpatrick and Commissioner Koch
both to testify that they regarded that substantially the present
system, so far as this report on character was concerned, was a farce;
a matter of form, rather, I think, was their word; do you agree with
that opinion? A. It ought not to be.
Q. It ought not to be, but practically is. A. From the way that
the board are at the mercy of the inspectors and the way they report,
as has been shown, without having seen the parties at all, of course,
it is.
Q. It is, is it not? A. There is no doubt about that.
Senator FASSETT.—I think that has been the tendency of Mr. Ivins' ·
examination, to illustrate that general statement by specific instances.
The WITNESS.- Whatever can be improved upon by discussion, the
board are only too happy to take advantage of it.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. The only limitation in the statute, Mr. Commissioner, appears to
be that relative to moral character; if a person has good moral char-
acter, there is nothing to prohibit his getting a license; that is as you
understand it? A. Well, good moral character?
Q. Yes. A. Well, of course, there may be some other — of course,
a man to have a good moral character, of course, certainly he must be
a good man.
Q. In those to whom licenses may be granted, the only persons who
are excluded are those who have not good moral character, is it not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that the one crucial point in the whole business is good moral
character? A. Good moral character.
Q. And that is in the hands of the inspectors? A. That is in the
hands of the inspectors.
Q. If an inspector reports he has made diligent inquiry and finds a
man to have good moral character, although, as a matter of fact, he
knows nothing about his character, he has failed in his duty, has he
not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. The result of which is that you have granted a license to some-
body about whose character you know nothing? A. Certainly upon
the representation of the inspector.
Q. That action then of the inspector might possibly make you
amenable under the statute, might it not, unless you hold him
responsible for it?
Judge BROWN.—I do not think that that is a fair view of the law as
it at present exists, because under the act of 1857 it was more com-
No. 80.]
1915
prehensive; under the old act they were to be satisfied of that fact;
under the present act under which they are acting the recitals of the
statute simply say that the party entitled shall have a good moral
character and the presumption of law is that a man is of good moral
character until the contrary appears, and if there is any investigation
it is for the purpose of advising the commissioners as to the character
and standing of the person making the application for the license.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Mr. Meakim, how many inspectors have you, altogether? A.
Counting general and all?
Q. Yes. A. I should think somewhere around sixty-five.
Q. About sixty-five? A. I should think.
Q. Do these all receive the same salary? A. No; there is forty-nine
receive $1,200; I think there is twelve receive $1,500, and there is one
or two general inspectors that receive $1,800.
Q. All the sixty-five have to pass a civil service examination? A.
civil service examination.
Q. But it is a non-competitive examination? A. We have two com-
petitive examination places in the office, and the rest are not com-
petitive that have to pass an examination.
Q. What are these twelve inspectors that get $1,500? A. Well, that
was handed down to us by our predecessors and, of course, the inspect-
ors were kept right in work.
Q. What kind of work do they do? A. I don't know that they do
any different work from the others.
Q. Do they do outside inspection work? A. Outside inspection;
they are entitled "special inspectors."
Q. Don't they keep statistics in the office? A. Some make inspec-
tions and are detailed as clerks and some make inspections without
being detailed as clerks.
Q. If they do not do any different work from the other forty-nine
inspectors, why do they get $1,500 a year? A. Of course, there are
some of them who, besides making inspections, do detailed work in
the office, which, of course, makes them valuable.
Q. How many of them? A. Four or five.
Q. Those gentlemen that you mention, four or five, are actually
clerks, are they not; keeping books? A. With the exception of being
inspectors and doing an inspecting work, they do act.
Q. Do you mean they do actual inspection when they are called upon?
A. When they are called upon.
1916
[SENATE,
Q. But their regular duties are not in that direction? A. There is
more of their duties in the office than that, assuming they do enough
inspecting to be inspectors.
I
Q. The work which these gentlemen are engaged in doing is of a
nature in preparation for which they generally require a competitive
examination, is it not? A. Well, I do not know much about that; of
course, I only know about the civil service as it pertains to our office;
suppose, in a regular clerkship, without an inspection, they would.
Q. So that when men are made inspectors, as the result of a non-
competitive examination, and detailed to do clerical work where the
civil service law requires a competitive examination shall be passed,
that is pro tanto, is it not, an evasion of the civil service law? A.
They are inspectors but we utilize them in the office.
Judge BROWN.- Senator Fassett, prior to 1888 there was no law
with reference to what would be an aid given to excise commissioners;
in 1888 a law was passed allowing the commissioners to appoint three
clerks, and such other aid as they might require, no matter how it
might be named, and under the present statute, this board- it
appears to be the only board that comes under the State law; we are
a department of the State, not of the city, and the clerks or inspectors,
or whatever they may be named, may be assigned to any duty under
the present board, so that it is not an evasion of the law in that sense.
Senator FASSETT.- Certainly; so that if it were not that these
inspectors were detailed to do clerical work and the board had to have
clerks which would be called clerks, they would not fall under the
classification of schedule "C," would they.
ว
Judge BROWN.-They would not fall under that schedule because
they were not designated as such, and there is no law appointing them
or giving them power of appointment.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. So long then, Mr. Meakim, as the inspectors are designated as
excise inspectors, they can be appointed after a non-competitive exam-
ination? A. Well, they are detailed as the clerks; they are not
appointed as clerks.
Q. They are appointed as excise inspectors? A. As inspectors.
Senator FASSETT. And that is one of the classifications of
schedule "C.”
Judge BROWN.- Three application clerks.
Mr. IVINS.-There are three clerks which have non-competitive
examination.
Judge BROWN.-Yes; and that is all we are allowed to appoint.
No. 80.]
1917
Mr. IVINS.
3
There are three clerks which are non-competitive
examinations, and they are made non-competitive by the State civil
service commission.
Senator FASSETT.-On the application of the board.
Mr. IVINS.
Mr. GALE.
On the application of the board, Mr. Gale?
Yes, sir.
Judge BROWN.- But not of this board?
Mr. IVINS.
But of the board of excise.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. But if these gentlemen who are detailed to do clerical work were
called under name—for instance, were called excise clerks, and so
classified, they would have to submit to a competitive examination,
would they not? A. If they didn't do any inspecting at all.
Q. Never mind what work they do; if they were called clerks? A.
Well, if they were called clerks; but they are inspectors.
Q. Is it not true that employes in the public departments that are
known as clerks, have to submit to a competitive examination? A. Yes.
Judge BROWN.- In some instances.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Mr. Meakim, did you vote to license the Sixth Avenue Hotel ?
A. I wasn't present; I was home sick at the time that was licensed.
Q. Did you ever have an opportunity to protest against the licensing
of the hotel? A. I had not; I intended to originally protest against
that and was taken sick and was away from the office nearly six weeks,
and having lost track, the license was granted in my absence.
Q. Did you vote to license Walsh's place on the corner of Fourth
street and Thompson? A. I don't think I did; I did not.
Q. Vote against it? A. I don't know whether I voted against it or
was not present when it was voted; I didn't vote for it.
Q. Now, you know what the place is; don't you? A. The place is
on the southeast corner of Thompson and Fourth ?
Q. Yes. A. No, sir; I did not.
Q. Did you vote to license Gumbossy's? A. I did not.
Q. Why didn't you vote to license that? A. I don't think I was
present at the time it was voted; I think that was when I was home
sick.
Q. Did you vote to license the Compton House? A. I did not, sir;
I called for a police report on that.
Q. Did you refuse to vote for that? A. I don't think I was present
when the vote was takan; I would have voted against it had I been
present.
1918
[SENATE,
1
1
Q. Did you vote to license the place known as the Mart? A. I did
not, sir.
Q. Did you vote against that? A. I did.
Q. You were present at that time? A. I was present at that time..
What was the reason that you refused to vote for that? A. Well,
I didn't like the general appearance of the—the general character of
the place.
Q. Did you like the character of the applicant? A. The applicant
I did not know much about; I didn't take that into consideration, as I
had made up my mind not to vote for the place at all.
Q. Do you know who the applicant in that case was? A. I— the ·
applicant-
Q. Did you look him up? A. Well, I did not; a man named Bush
was the applicant.
Q. Did you make any inquiries about his character? A. I did not;
but I was not going to vote for the place; I was going to vote against
the place; I thought it was unnecessary to make any.
Q. Did you then know that he had been connected in business with
the rather famous or notorious Billy McGlory? A. I don't think he
was; I don't think Mr. Bush was.
Q. Didn't you ever hear that he had been? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you raise the question of character at all in that case? A.
I did not raise it because I was not going to vote for the place; I
didn't like the place, and I didn't care who opened the place, I wouldn't
vote for it; I thought the place ought not to be licensed.
Q. Was the place open at that time? A. Which time; at the time
I voted?
Q. At the time this last license was issued? A. Yes; I think it was.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Mr. Meakim, your theory seems to be that a place gets a charac-
ter same as a man? A. In my opinion there are places in the city
that have got a character that they oughtn't to be re-licensed.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Did you vote to re-license Theiss'? A. I did not.
Q. Did you vote against it? A. I did.
Q. On that same ground? A. I voted against Theiss' on the ground
that the place had been run down, and I thought the class of people
that went there, that nobody could afford to buy that place out, and
to make it a success, and consequently I had no faith in the transfer
of the license to Mr. Berthold.
No. 80.]
1919
By Mr. JOHNSON:
Q. Knew nothing against the character of the new applicant? A.
No, sir; not at all; nothing; on the other hand, he came very highly
recommended.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. And even though the applicant comes highly recommended and
is to your certain knowledge a man of good reputation, you, in certain
cases, would refuse to license him to sell liquors at a particular place?
A. I would refuse the place.
Q. You think that the place is as important an element in the
licensing as the individual? A. I think when a place has a set of
customers that to my idea no new man can turn away, and a license
has been revoked or refused on that ground, I don't think the place
ought to be licensed.
Q. As an excise commissioner which, in your judgment, would be
the better way; to license the places or to license the individuals ?
A. License them both; I would punish them both; I would license
the place and not permit it to be licensed again, and I should license
the person besides, so that he couldn't hold license three years.
Q. You think if that were done it would make the inspection easier
and more reliable? A. I think the landlords would be more particu-
lar about who they rented their places to, and I think then you could
get at the character of a man because you would know who he was.
Q. How far do you, as an excise commissioner, hold yourself respon-
sible under the law, for the general supervision and surveillance of
the liquor traffic of the city? A. Well, I hold that any complaint.
brought to the board for a breakage of the excise law, the complaint
must be entertained and looked into.
Q. You think that the law imposes any specific or affirmative duty
on your board to pursue a series of continuous inspections or inves-
tigations to see how the licensees are using their license? A. I have
often I have made that suggestion, and when I went away it was
on my mind to bring it up before, when I came back, to make our
inspectors responsible by making them make inspections of all the
licensed places within their jurisdiction, and hold them responsible
for not reporting to the board the change of ownership.
Q. That is one point; now, suppose that a man were to be arrested
by the police four or five or six times for selling to minors, let us say,
and the inspector of that precinct had never found out that that
practice was being carried on; would you, in the same way, believe it
admissible to hold the inspector responsible for that sort of thing.
1
1920
[SENATE,
A. I should hold an inspector responsible within hours of any
dereliction or any breakage of excise law that would come within his
knowledge or ought to come within his knowledge.
Q. If that were his duty and he were to be held so responsible but
he was confined to his particular hours, is there any reason why the
staff should not be sufficiently increased and make it cover all hours,
so that the real ultimate surveilance of the system should be in your
hands? A. I think that is an open question; I think that is a question
that ought to be looked into.
Q. I mean now as a question of administrative policy? A. Of
course, I think if one person had full charge of it all, and hold them
responsible, it would be a great deal better than a divided
responsibility.
Q. What do you think about the desirability of a single-headed
commission as compared with a triple-headed commission? A. In the
excise board?
Q. Yes. A. Well, the trouble with that would be, if a single-
headed commission happened to be a proper person, it was all right;
if it happened to be a person that was very lax, then it would be all
wrong.
Q. Don't you think it would be easier to hold a single lax individual
responsible than to hold three lax individuals responsible? A. As far
as the responsibility goes, it would; but I mean now for the protection
of property, churches and those interests.
Q. Protection of churches, you say? A. Churches; yes, sir.
Q. Now, speaking of that, I understand that you voted against the
change in Rule 4? A. That is a place alongside of a place ?
Q. Yes. A. Well, I don't know as that rule has been done away
with, but the board have a right at any time to suspend any rule, and
any two members can suspend a rule, and while the rule still stands,
any two members of the board can suspend the rule while they are
voting on an application.
Q. Have you ever voted for to license a place next door to another
place? A. I haven't; no, sir.
Q. Have you ever voted to license a place in the neighborhood of a
church or school? A. No, sir; with one exception.
Q. What was that? A. The place of Mr. Slevin, at the corner of
Waverly place and Sixth avenue, and that was voted upon the solici-
tation of Father Salter.
Q. The pastor? A. The pastor of the Catholic church; I refused
to vote for it, and if I had the matter to do over again I shouldn't
even vote for that on the solicitation of the priest; that is the only
1
No. 80.]
1921
case I know of; Mr. Ivins, it is this, to show you how we are at the
mercy of the inspectors; of course, besides the inspector makes the
inspection - he puts on the back the proximity to churches and schools;
an inspector might leave off a church and school, and I, thinking
there was none there, I might vote for that place.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Haven't you a big map of the whole city there? A. We have
regular insurance maps, and he goes to that, and from that he trans-
fers over on the back of our inspections the proximity of churches;
we will say within 300 feet north, east, south and west.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Suppose the inspector were to leave off a church or school?
By Mr. JOHNSON:
Q. Let me ask you a question in regard to that one instance: Was
not the license in that case refused until the protest was withdrawn
and Father A. That place was refused a license until Father
Salter gave his consent; under the rule that I adopted afterwards I
wouldn't even vote for it then, but that is about the only case that I
know of where I have voted near a church.
By Judge BROWN:
Q. That is, new places? A. New places.
Q. It don't apply to old places? A. No; it don't apply to
relicensing.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Suppose a clerk were to fail to mark on the diagram the location
of a school or church, how would you, as a commissioner, ever find it
out unless some third party called your attention to it? A. I
wouldn't, without of my own personal supervision, except-I think
then when the papers are rechecked back, then attention would be
called, because it is always turned to the map to see that this licensed
place is on the map.
Q. Does the chief inspector or the general inspector or the deputy
chief inspector have the duty of checking these matters off? A. I
think Mr. Hoyle has that; don't he, Mr. Gale?
Mr. GALE. Mr. Hoyle checks them off after the license is granted.
A. After the license is granted.
[Senate, No. 80.]
241
字
​1922
[SENATE,
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. That is too late, is it not? A. That is too late to remedy that,
but it wouldn't be too late for the man to lose his place, if my vote
counted.
Q. For the individual clerk to lose his place? A. The individual
clerk.
Q. And if anything of that kind should occur, it would be quite
sufficient the proof of his willingness to deceive you? A. I should
take it as such and I should vote to dismiss him.
Q. And still the marking of a church or school on a diagram is not
nearly so important a thing, is it, as an incorrect report of character?
A. Well, the one on character the man certifies to it under oath,
and on the other thing it may be carelessness for he don't put it down
there.
Q. Then certainly it is not so important? A. Well, it would be in
my mind.
Q. As an incorrect report on character? A. No; but an incorrect
report, if a man makes it, and if he made an incorrect report on
character and it would be brought to my knowledge after the same
way
I should very likely take the same course.
Q. Do you agree with these other commissioners in the believe that
the present system of taking bonds is, as it now stands under the law,
really a useless piece of supererogation? A. I can't say; matters has
been referred to the counsel and suit has been ordered; until the
court decides it can't tell whether it is useless or not.
By Mr. JOHNSON:
Q. You are not a lawyer, Mr. Meakim? A. No, sir.
Q. Don't pretend to give a legal opinion? A. No, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
A.
Q. I ask him if as a practical man, as the thing now stands
The only way we can test those are through the court, and by order
of the board counsel is now testing them.
Senator FASSETT.-I suppose the witness knows whether these bonds
have ever been enforced or collected, or whether they have ever been
of any practical assistance to him or the board, or whether they are
any special benefit to the system, without reference to their legal value
at all.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You are a member of the produce exchange, are you not? A.
Yes, sir.
No. 80.]
1923
Q. You have had considerable experience, have you not, in the
compilation of statistics? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You know that figures will sometimes deceive, do you not? A.
I have found that out to my detriment.
Q. You think that it means anything for you to testify as to the
number of books that are kept in the office, as really showing the
volume of work done there? A. Well, I don't know; the question
was asked and I answered it.
Q. Think it is really important, in any sense? A. Well, I don't
know; it might be and might not.
Q. Depends entirely on what those books contain, would it not?
A. Exactly and what work was done in them.
Mr. IVINS. That is all.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Well, Mr. Meakim, you have now sixty-five inspectors, part of
them working for fifteen, part for eighteen and part for $1,200 a year;
do you know what your salary roll is? A. The salary roll I-will
you let Mr. Gale refresh me on that?
Mr. GALE.-About 10,500 a month.
Q. About $114,000 a year, is it not; how does that compare with
the cost of running the department for the last five or six years? A.
Well, way back the department was run much less than it is run now,
and we are running the department less than our predecessors run it.
Q. Than your immediate predecessors? A. Immediate predecessors.
Q. When did $900 cease to be the annual salary paid to inspectors;
under your predecessors? A. You will have to ask Mr. Gale.
Q. I didn't know but you knew? A. No.
Q. How do you account for this increase in the force of inspectors?
A. Well, there is more ground to cover.
Q. How much more? A. Well, now, I am speaking now if the
inspectors do their work properly, which, of course, I take it for
granted they do until charges are brought against them.
Q. The number of licensed places now is about 8,000? A. The
number is about 8,885, whole city, of every kind.
Q. At the time the inspectors were less in number, and much less,
the number of licenses were about 12,000? A. There is more ground
to cover now; they have to cover more ground.
Q. You mean including the annexed district? A. The annexed
district.
Q. What do you think about the relation of the amount of help you
have to the amount of work you have to be done? A. I think if the
1924
[SENATE,
443
J
work is done properly; I think if the work is done conscientiously,
that I don't think we have any too much help.
Q. You don't keep all your inspectors busy the year round? A.
That is what I am saying; they ought to be kept busy the year round
because the inspectors ought constantly to keep a canvass of the
precinct.
Q. Well, do they do that? A. Well, that, of course, I don't know
whether they do or not.
Q. If the only work of the inspector is to inspect upon application,
then they don't keep busy all the time? A. No; but it is a great deal
like a mercantile house, having plenty of work for the men to do
during the busy season, having nothing for them to do in the lax
season, and yet they want to keep experienced men to have when they
do keep busy.
Q. I was going to ask you right here, among the things that you
recommended to improve the service, was an increase of salary, but it
seems to me that the increase from nine to twelve hundred and the
increase in the number of inspectors has resulted in poorer results to
the city; increased the cost of service and less work to show for it?
A. Well, we have increased on the receipts right along since we have
been there; the receipts this year, I suppose, will be about a million.
and a half.
Q. Who distributes the work to the inspectors geographically? A.
The chief inspector.
Q. And who is he? A. Mr. Thomas Duncan.
Q. You testified a little time ago that there were cases in which you
had interfered to prevent inspectors being assigned to those parts of
the district where they were most influential politically? A. Yes.
Q. Why shouldn't you interfere in every case and have the inspector
transferred? A. Well, my suspicion might not be 'aroused in other
cases, and the transfer might be made without me thinking anything
about it; I would if —
Q. To leave an inspector then detailed to that part of the city where
he votes and has acquaintances and political influence, is to open the
door to temptation to him, is it not? A. If he is to be tempted.
Q. If he is to be tempted at all? A. If he is to be tempted.
Q. And, being human, I suppose every inspector is open to tempta-
tion? A. We have found out about those that have and they have
had to talk.
Q. Well, they have yielded? A. Yes; that shows that they can be
tempted.
Q. It would be a good thing, wouldn't it, if these inspectors were,
No. 80.]
1925
all of them, detailed to those parts of the city where they did not
have their immediate political pull? A. Certainly; and I think any
person who is interested in an inspector will so advise.
Q. These rules of the commissioners, how have they developed? A.
How do you mean?
Q. Where did you get them; what is their evolution? A. They
were made by the board.
Q. Made by this board de novo? A. No; some were rules of the
other board and some were rules of the other board, and then what
we considered improvements.
Q. They are outlines of policy? A. Outlines of policy.
Q. That the exigencies and experience of years have developed into
a code? A. Yes; which we think are for the safety of the property-
owner and church and institutions.
Q. But they have no binding force in law? A. No.
Q. And two of you might overrule them? A. Overrule them.
Q. Why wouldn't it be a good plan to have that crystallized experi-
ence of years enacted into a law? A. I think some of the rules ought
to be; I think the question of proximity to churches, schools and insti-
tutions ought to be made a law.
Q. That is, you think there should be a statutory enactment regu-
lating the distance from a church or school-house within which
distance no saloon should be licensed? A. That is it exactly; not
leave it optional with the board.
Q. Has your board fixed a definite limit? A. I think that each
commissioner acts on his own opinion.
Q. There is then no definite rule which governs the action of
board? A. No.
your
Q. Has it ever governed the action of the board, that you know?
A. I could not say anything about that.
Q. But it would be a good thing to have some such enactment? A.
I think it would be to have an enactment that would be compulsory.
2. Would you be willing to fix the limit which you think would be
a good statutory limit? A. Well, I am rather severe on that, I'm
afraid.
Q. Well, as a result of your experience, I mean? A. Well, I think
300 feet; not less than 300 feet.
Q. That is a little more than a city block, is it not? A. That is a
little more than a city block; it is about half of an avenue block.
Q. Well, have you any suggestions to make where, through legisla-
tion, you think the excise system could be improved? A. Well, there are
1926
[SENATE,
things that I think of; I would sooner take a little time and then send
a communication to the committee.
Q. Would you prefer thinking it over and writing suggestions? A.
I would prefer thinking it over.
Q. Well, will you do it, Mr. Commissioner? A. I will, sir; with
pleasure.
Q. Can you do it within a given number of days? A. Any time; do
it within a week; I think that is a very important question, and off-
hand it wouldn't have the same result as though a person could sit
down and think.
Q. What is the most serious difficulty you have to contend with in
the discharge of your duties? A. In what respect do you mean?
Q. In determining what are and what are not proper places to
license? A. Well, of course, it is having to be guided entirely by the
inspector's report and the responsibility that naturally throws upon
cases of course, it makes a peculiar state all the time for fear that the
commissioners may be imposed upon.
Q. Are you constantly cutting down the number of licenses in the
city? A. We are.
Q. That is the policy of the board? A. Policy of the board.
Q. Is the effect of that policy to increase the pressure for the grant-
ing of licenses in given instances? A. Well, I think it is done so
quietly, I don't think the people in the trade realize that the licenses
are being cut down; they will wake up some day and then that state
of affairs may come.
Q. Would it result to the benefit of the administration of the laws
if the excise department could be removed from politics? A. I think
that is the solution of it.
Q. Would it be possible to do that? A. I don't think so.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-Would it be practical?
The WITNESS. I have my doubts.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Is there anything you can suggest which would tend to lift it
above the operation of practical politicians upon it? A. That is
something that would take thought.
Judge BROWN.-Abolish politicians would be the only way.
Senator FASSETT.-You will have to abolish the human race to do
that.
The WITNESS.-I am afraid as long as politics lasts in this country
the excise board more or less will be governed by politics; I am only
No. 80.]
1927
speaking now of what would be a good thing for all interests if it
could be taken out of politics.
Q. What do you mean by taking it out of politics; by making it
non-partisan? A. Having it non-partisan, part partisan, or people in
who have no affiliation with politics in any form but simply go in
there to carry out the law.
Q. In other words, if it could be made so that you could decide
upon an application for license and discharge all your duties without
reference to the political affiliations of parties making application; is
that what you mean? A. That is what I mean, exactly.
Q. And as matters stand to-day, political affiliations of applicants,
both for office and for licenses enter as a large factor into your dis-
charge of your duties? A. Not mine; no.
Q. No; I mean as a board. A. Well, I don't know; I can't
I am speaking of the commissioners
I
now,
Q. I don't want you to misunderstand my question; I don't mean to
embarrass you; I mean in the practical discharge of your duties don't
you find that the question of political affiliations is constantly appear-
ing in reference to an application for license or applicant for office?
A. Of course, it would be clearer sailing for all sides if that didn't
enter into it, but of course, more or less it does enter into it.
By Judge Brown:
Q. Has the question of politics ever entered into the consideration
of the boards in granting or refusing a license? A. No, sir; never.
Q. It has never been suggested by this present board? A. No, sir.
Q. Then it is a mere abstract opinion of yours that if the board was
divided it might work smoother; is that it? A. There would be no
chance of that entering in, if they were so inclined.
Q. Well, under the present administration it never has entered into
it? A. Never has; no.
Q. All classes of persons have been licensed? A. Yes.
Q. No matter what their faith or political creed might be? A. The
pros and cons are not entered into if the qualifications of the party
are all right and the surroundings are all right.
Q. It is a question of place and man? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is the only consideration this board has ever given to an
applicant for license? A. Yes, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Of course, you mean by that, Mr. Meakim, that in your board
meetings you do not discuss whether the man is a Republican or
1928
[SENATE,
county man or Democrat? A. No; the question is discussed whether
a man is entitled to the license or whether he is not.
Q. And that is determined by the report of the inspector very
largely; is it not? A. Certainly.
Q. And these inspectors are, with one possible exception, all Demo-
crats; are they not? A. I suppose they are; they ought to be if they
are not.
Q. And those sixty persons you have put in there are mostly
appointed on the recommendation of Tammany society, I understand
you to testify? A. Yes, sir; the leaders of the Tammany organization.
Q. If there was any favor to be shown with regard to making a
report upon an application, these people have it in their power to show
a favor; have they not? A. The inspector?
Q. Yes? A. As I have said, we are at the mercy of the inspectors.
By Judge BROWN:
Q. The Senator asked you whether the question of politics entered
into the board meetings; there might be a suggestion from that as to
whether they are ever considered outside of the board meetings as to
applicants for licenses, their political faith; would that determine
whether they were entitled to license? A. No.
Q. Inside or outside of the board, so far as you have any knowledge?
A. No, sir.
Q. And none of your brother commissioners have suggested any-
thing of that kind with reference to it? A. No, sir; never spoke of it.
By Mr. JOHNSON:
Q. Did you ever know of a case where an inspector discriminated
because of an applicant's politics? A. Never heard of it.
By Mr. LEVENTRITT:
Q. I want to call your attention, commissioner, to the statement
you made with reference to Mr. Delaney, who, you stated, was
appointed at the instance of Mr. Fish; are you positive that you saw
Mayor Grant with reference to that matter at all? A. I certainly did.
Q. You did? A. Well, incidentally.
Q. Did you inquire of Mayor Grant concerning Mr. Delaney? A.
No, sir.
Q. Did not? A. No, sir.
Q. Are you positive that the mayor knows Mr. Delaney? A. I
don't think the mayor does.
Q. Don't think he does; are you positive that he had any connection
whatsoever with the application that was made on behalf of Mr.
No. 80.]
1929
Delaney, or with the favorable consideration of that application by
the board of exercise? A. No, sir.
Q. Do not? A. No, sir.
Q. So, as far as you know, Mayor Grant had nothing at all to do
with the matter; is not that the fact? A. Only from incidental con-
versation with him.
Q. You inquired of him of your own motion? A. Of my own motion.
Q. Of your own motion? A. No; Mr. Fish said: "You can see the
mayor on the subject; " I don't think the mayor knows Mr. Delaney;
wouldn't know him if he saw him.
Q. The mayor wouldn't know Mr. Delaney if he saw him? A. No,
sir.
Q. Are you positive that Mr. Fish told you that you might inquire
of the mayor if you saw fit? A. I am pretty positive.
Q. Did he ask you to inquire of the mayor or leave it to your good
judgment as to whether you should or not? A. Left it to my good
judgment.
Q. Do you remember your conversation with the mayor after that
suggestion on the part of Mr. Fish? A. I think the conversation was
kind of this way
that Mr. Fish had recommended Mr. Delaney, and
asked him if he knew anything about it, and he said: "Well, if Mr.
Fish will give you good man, a man that you think will do well in the
board, I should appoint him."
Q. He didn't indorse Mr. Delaney or anybody, did he? A. He
didn't know Mr. Delaney.
By Mr. JOHNSON:
Q. I want to ask you just a few questions, Mr. President; is not the
time of the board and the individual members of it entirely taken up
by the discharge of its present duties? A. I can speak of myself and
also my brother inspectors; my average time of getting there is half-
past 8 in the morning, and my average time of going home is any-
where from 4 to 5.
Q. Would it be in any wise possible, in view of the present duties
which you now discharge, either for yourself or for your brother com-
missioners to check up the reports of those inspectors of these 8,800
applicants for saloon licenses as to the questions of character? A. As
I said before, we would grant about fifty licenses if we did that.
Q. So that it is absolutely impossible, in view of your other duties,
for you to check up the reports of these inspectors, or to investigate
the character? A. In other words we are at the mercy of the
inspectors; that is the sum and substance of it.
[Senate, No. 80.]
242
1930
[SENATE,
·
By Mr. LEVENTRITT:
Q. Have the commissioners in the performance of their official duties
been required to remain at the office of the board after 4 o'clock in the
afternoon? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that a matter of frequent occurrence? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Engaged in the transaction of what kind of business after that
time generally? A. The signing of bonds and the signing of the
licenses so that they would be ready for the people in the morning.
Q. Could you suggest any means by which you could possibly avoid
the assistance of the inspectors? A. No.
Q. There is no way, considering the large territory covered, and
the large number of licenses issued, by which the commissioners
themselves could make these investigations? A. The commissioners
could not.
Q. None at all? A. No.
Q. It is a matter of physical impossibility? A. Certainly; they
would want a horse and wagon and then they couldn't do it.
Q. And consequently they must necessarily be dependent upon
others? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you have been thus far dependent upon the reports of
these inspectors as they have submitted to you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And accepting them as having been faithful returns of investiga-
tions made by them, you acted upon them accordingly; is that it? A.
Until we found out the contrary.
Q. And have you, up to the present time, found out to the con-
trary? A. I think there have been one or two inspections there; I
have ordered reinspections where they haven't found out satisfactorily;
but at the same time I think the inspector was honest in his inspection;
I think he felt that he had made a proper inspection.
The instances have been very rare, have they not? A. I don't
remember but one or two.
Q. That is, of inspections made among a large number of people,
and considering the number of inspections made among so large a
number of people, and considering the great number of inspectors in
the office, is it your opinion that those inspectors are up to a fair
average of intelligence? A. Yes; I think they are, for the examina-
tion they go through and the salary they receive; I think they are
about up to the average.
Q. They don't have applications from men of very great intelligence
for positions of that kind? A. Not for that salary.
Q. And positions of that kind are not very desirable? A. I should
not think so; I wouldn't want it.
No. 80.]
1931
By Mr. JOHNSON:
Q. In other words, you are obliged, as everybody else in business
is, to depend upon the honesty of your employes in a great many
instances? A. Just as I said before.
Q. If we didn't all of us do that, business would stop? A. Yes.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. How many applications have you considered from the first of
May up to this time? A. I have been away a month.
Q. Can you tell generally? A. Yes, sir; in the course of a year I
suppose we consider may be 10,000 or 11,000, with the rejections and
the transfers.
Mr. LEVENTRITT —I would suggest that Mr. Gale said about 4,700
since the first of May.
The WITNESS. About 4,700 since the first of May.
Q. You have to do more work on an application you reject than
upon one you approve? A. Certainly; of course; and often we set
it down for a hearing, and have people there and all that; one we
approve we simply renew it.
Q. It is very much more work? A. Yes, sir.
Q. It is physically impossible for you personally to verify the
reports of the inspectors in regard to the moral character of the
applicants, is it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. It is a physical impossibility, in each case it would be — it
would be physically impossible? A. It could not; we wouldn't grant
any licenses if we had to go around and verify what the inspectors did.
Q. Consequently you have to depend upon their report? A. Yes.
Q. Would it be of any assistance to you if accompanying the appli-
cation there were a petition of two or more citizens, residents of the
districts where the applicant resided, certifying to certain facts in
regard to their character and their former occupations, and so on?
A. Well, in some cases it would be all right, and in some cases there
are localities where they get a dozen citizens to certify; they would
all certify to the same thing.
Ex-Judge BROWN. That was the law at one time.
The WITNESS. And of course that would help the commissioners
more; that would throw more of the responsibility off the
commissioners.
Q. Wouldn't it be of some help to them? A. Yes; it would.
Q. You would then get reports as to the previous occupations of
these parties? A. Yes, sir.
* 1932
[SENATE,
Q. Has any Republican organization ever recommended to your
board any person for employment? A. The Republican organization?
Q. Yes. A. Yes, sir; they have.
Q. In many instances? A. One.
Q. What organization is that? A. Julius Simon is the man; I sup-
pose Mr. O'Brien was in good standing then in the organization; I
don't know how it was later on.
By Senator FASSETT:
Was that Johnny O'Brien's organization? A. When he was in
the organization, before he started out for himself.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. You appointed him? A. Yes, sir; and he was a very good man,
too.
Q. Do
you remember his name? A. Julius Simon.
Q. And that was the only instance where a Republican organization
has ever recommended to your board a man for your employment?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then you had no occasion to refuse to appoint? A. No.
Q. Has any citizen outside of Tammany, any individual person
recommended appointments to you? A. I think there was one at the
beginning of the administration; I think Mr. Walter Stanton recom-
mended a gentleman; but the gentleman was not appointed.
Q. That is the only instance in your recollection? A. That is the
only time I remember a citizen recommending an appointment.
Q. Then you have not had occasion to decline to appoint on the
recommendation of citizens? A. No.
Q. That is a very good reason then for not appointing them? A.
Yes.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. The citizens recognize Tammany's monopoly, don't they? A. I
suppose they don't recommend appointment because they don't think
it is of any use.
By Mr. LEVENTRITT:
Q. Didn't Rev. Howard Crosby recommend the retention of
Mr. Gildersleeve? A. Yes, sir; they didn't ask about the retentions,
but about the appointments.
Q. His retention was recommended by Mr. Crosby? A. Yes; that
was a retention; but they spoke about the appointments.
No. 80.]
1933
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. The work of Inspector Hirsch is wholly outside of the office, is it
not, after he receives his instructions from the secretary? A. Yes,
sir; except when he makes his report back; the receiving and the
report back is all the work he has to do.
Q. That is the result of his inspection? A. Certainly.
Q. Would it be possible for you, as a member of the board or for
the whole board, to inspect the work of Inspector Hirsch? A. No; it
is just exactly as with the report of the other inspectors; if Inspector
Hirsch makes a report back with a clean bill of sale that there is nothing
against that place, unless the commissioners go and make an inspec-
tion themselves on it, they must accept that as all right without they
find out to the contrary, and if they find out to the contrary, punish
him for making a false report.
Q. And I understand there has been no complaint made or entered
by Inspector Hirsch; no complaint? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever, before to-day, see the testimony of Inspector
Hirsch? A. I don't believe I did; when it was up last spring I was
sick a greater part of the time, and consequently did not keep a close
account of what occurred.
Q. I understand you to say that in granting application the politics
of the applicant do not enter into the consideration at all? A. Not
at all; we don't know his politics.
Q. You make no inquiries as to his politics? A. No; we don't know
anything about it.
Q. And it is not an element in reaching your conclusion? A. Not
at all; it is whether he is of good moral character, and whether the
surroundings will permit of granting a license for the place.
Senator FASSETT.— That is all.
That is all. If you will furnish us with that sug-
gestion you refer to, we would like to have it.
Mr. IVINS. That is all with Mr. Meakim. Judge Brown will now
take the stand.
EDWARD BROWN, counsel for the excise board, being duly sworn,
testified as follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. How long do we understand you to say you have been counsel
for this board? A. Since May 7, 1889.
Q. As counsel for the board, it has been your duty to familiarize
yourself with the laws? A. Yes, sir; I have endeavored to do so, to
the best of my ability.
1934
[SENATE,
Q. Will you now tell the committee what you believe to be the
particular features of the law; which are either unintelligible or
uncertain, or insufficient? A. There is a very serious question as to
what might be understood under a section of the law with reference
to the sale of liquor and election days; the general belief is that all
places must be closed and kept closed between the hours of 1 and 5
A. M., and during Sundays and election days; notwithstanding the
express terms of the statutes as to those hours, the law permits the
sale, under the decision of the General Term of the Supreme Court.
By Mr. JOHNSON:
Q. Just one moment; will the committee need Commissioner Fitz-
patrick any more?
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- We want some information on this point.
There was a suggestion some two or three days ago that the interest
in the German Bank would be quite a considerable sum, if you exacted
that on your deposit. Have you taken any pains to inquire in regard
to that matter?
Commissioner FITZPATRICK.-Yes, sir; I have had the monthly
receipts made up, the total, and an average made of about $58,000 a
month. That would be the average. At one per cent, that would be
$580, and at two per cent, for the year, it would be $1,160.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- At two
At two per cent.
Commissioner FITZPATRICK.- At two per cent, so that it would hardly
amount to the $10,000 suggested by Mr. Ivins. There is another
question as to that, which I have not questioned Judge Brown about.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Did you make that inquiry at the bank as
to that?
Commissioner FITZPATRICK.— No; I was backward in saying any-
thing to the bank about it. I didn't know of the existence of any law
that required the interest to be deposited in the treasury, and I never
made inquiry, because they might attribute it to my selfish motive,
that I was looking for interest on the money myself.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.— But the average you stated, that came
from the bank?
Commissioner FITZPATRICK.- Yes, sir.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-
If you received two per cent, that would
amount to about $1,160 a year.
Commissioner FITZPATRICK.— Yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT. On daily balances.
Commissioner FITZPATRICK.- But they wouldn't give that way.
They would ask the average of the month, and give it to you on the
average of the month.
No. 80.1
1935
Senator FASSETT. That is done on daily balances.
Mr. IVINS. That is done on daily balances in the city.
Mr. JOHNSON. The average is the same.
Mr. IvINS.—It would result in the same thing. It is on daily
balances, but it would actually not amount to over between $1,100
and $1,500. When I said $10,000 the other day, it was a hypothetical
question, and I confess that in making my figures very rapidly, I got
my dot in the wrong place.
Commissioner FITZPATRICK. There was another question which
occurred to me yesterday, in thinking that matter over. The interest
accruing on that money, which comes from the excise board, there is
a specific provision in the law as to what disposition should be made.
of it by the board of estimate and apportionment. Now, could that
money be added to the city treasury, or must it go back in the excise
fund?
Ex-Judge BROWN.- None of this money goes into the city treasury,
except as custodian of the fund.
Mr. IVINS.-It would be for the corporation counsel to pass
upon that later on.
Commissioner FITZPATRICK,
Do you want me any more to-day?
Senator FASSETT.— I think not.
The examination of ex-Judge Brown was then continued as
follows:
By Ex-Judge BROWN:
Q. Under the act of 1873, there was a prohibitory statute as to
keeping licensed places open, and prohibiting the sale of liquor as a
beverage on election days and Sundays; that was for a long time
supposed to prevent hotel keepers from entertaining guests; but the
Supreme Court of this department has decided that there is nothing
in the law which prevents hotel keepers from selling on election days
and Sundays with meals to their guests, or other.
By Mr. JOHNSON:
Q. The consequence they are constantly eating at every restaurant?
A. In 1885, the law was again changed, and there was no dis-
tinction made between hotel keepers, innkeepers and others
and the statute as it stands to-day permits licenses to be issued to any
persons having a good moral character, whether they propose to keep
a hotel, inn or tavern, or otherwise; there is a conflict in the statutes
in respect to that, as to whether that would apply generally to any
person who might keep his place open and sell liquors, who might
give meals and sell liquors at the same time during Sundays and on
1936
[SENATE,
election day; that is a disputed question, and it is popularly believed
that it does not; dealers are punished because they do keep open,
even in cases where meals are served, where they do not keep a hotel,
or have a hotel license; with reference to the administration or super-
vision of the commissioners over liquor dealers, as I stated the other
day, it is a question more of construction than of express statute;
there is no provision in the statute requiring the commissioners of
excise to supervise or control the liquor business after the license has
been issued; it can only be gathered from the use of the words "may
entertain complaints" in the statute; the practice, and that recognized
by the courts, is, where complaints really had been made by citizens
or others, where violations of the law had been committed and pro-
ceedings initiated before the commissioners - there is no provision in
the law or in the amount of moneys provided for the execution of the
law or for the punishment of persons who violate it, but with
reference for those licensed penalties are licensed for violations of the
law that do obtain for violations who do not apply for licenses; the
statute prohibits that sale of liquor in small quantities, unless a person
has a license; if they violate that law they may be arrested, and upon
conviction, they are fined; there is nothing in the law which would
prohibit them or prevent them from obtaining a license afterwards.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. To go back a minute, if there is anything whatever which would
prohibit them from getting an appropriation from the board of esti-
mate and apportionment to enable them to do all this permissible
work, if they saw fit to do it? A. I believe that that would be a
burden which should not be thrown upon the commissioners.
Q. That is not the question; the question is, whether there is any-
thing in the law which prohibits them or prevents them from getting
an appropriation from the board of estimate and apportionment out
of the means at their command to enable them to do all this permissible
work, if they saw fit to do it? A. Nothing in the law, except this,
that it might be inferred that they had not the right to supervise or
control the sale of liquors, and that they would not be entitled to any
fund for the enforcement of the law; that would be a matter of
interpretation.
Q. That is for the board of estimate and apportionment? A. That
is for the board of estimate and apportionment.
Q. Go on with the other points? A. The other points referred to
are as to the question whether the provisions for the revocation
of licenses have applications now under the present condition of the
i
31
No. 80.]
1937
law; under the law of 1857, a party was not entitled to a license who
had been convicted of violation of the law for three years after that
conviction; it required, though, the return of that conviction to the
county courts, and various methods by which that was brought to the
attention of the justices of the county courts, and upon the rehearing,
the question of revocation would come up, and if they determined to
revoke, then the party would not be entitled to a license for three
years thereafter; that was all omitted in the later enactments, and it
is a question now whether that does really apply or not; it would
require, indeed, a thorough analysis of the relations of the various
statutes, one into the other, to point out all the deficiencies and defects
in the law as it at present exists; the policy of the enactments seems
to have been to cover an expedient, or cover a condition of things
applying to a particular portion of the State, without reference to its
application to other portions, and in these enactments the prior law
was either omitted or ill considered at the time of their adoption, and
that brings about these various conflicts; with reference to a licensee
who violates the law, if the statutory penalties can be enforced against
him, there are four modes and manners of punishment, all of which
may be enforced against a person who obtains a license and through
ignorance or willfully violates the law; that does not apply to persons
who sell liquor without a license; this dual manner of trial is a defect
in the law, I would suggest; a man may be arrested, tried and
acquitted before the courts for a violation of the law, yet the commis-
sioners would have the right after that trial to summon him before
them under the present condition of things and retry him and revoke
the license and impose penalties.
Q. Would not conviction vacate the license? A. I said if acquitted;
there is nothing in the law to prevent them doing so.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. The conviction is supposed to vacate the license? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
*
居
​Q. Is there anything in the law which prevents the commissioners
from treating every arrest by a regularly authorized police officer as
equivalent to a complaint and sending for the police officer and treat-
ing it as an ordinary complaint, and then revoking the license if they
want to on the trial? A. Yes; that it is in anticipation of a trial in a
regularly constituted court and under the protection of the rules of
evidence and the laws as to violations.
Q. Is there anything in the law that prevents their doing so? A.
Nothing in the world.
[Senate, No. 80.]
243
1938
[SENATE,
Q. Don't you think if they were so, to send for him, and the pen-
alty of the revocation of a license were to be enforced, that the law
would be more easily enforced, generally, than it is now, when we
simply look to the conviction which is followed by a fine of twenty-five'
dollars or $100? A. No; I think that the uncertainty of the law,
and the oppression arising from the law itself has rather a tendency
to invoke violations of it than otherwise; I think that every person is
entitled to the protection of the courts and the rules of law there
established or observed in the trial, and then if a conviction follows,
the revocation follows that.
By Mr. JOHNSON:
Q. Carrying that through a little farther, has it ever occurred to you
to consider the question as to whether or not a man who pays for a
license does not acquire a right of property in the money that he has
paid that can not be taken away from him; that can not be confiscated
except by process of law, and that this court that is provided for
revocation is not a court of record with that power? A. No, sir; I do
not think so, because the courts of this State have declared this regu-
lation or the sale of liquors in small quantities within their constitu-
tional powers; but there is a principle by which parties who pay in
and receive a license under the present law are entitled to the con-
tinuance for one year; that applies only in this city, Brooklyn and
Rochester; in other parts of the State licenses may be granted for
shorter periods or various periods of the year; upon a revocation of
a license there is no provision in the law for a return of any portion
of the license fee.
Q. That is what I am calling your attention to? A. That may be
proper.
Q. I mean whether they have a right to take away the privilege and
still keep the money? A. Yes, because it is a breach of their contract
with the State that they would observe the law when they obtained.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. It has been held that it is a penalty that they agreed to pay?
A. That they agreed to pay.
Q. There is another element in the law with reference to the con-
tinuance of the license for a year? A. A dealer obtains the license;
if, for any reason, he is not able to continue to carry on the business
at the place designated for the year, there is no power, control or
right, on the part of the commissioners, to consider that reason, and
he must retain the license in his possession, so far as relicensing the
No. 80.].
1939
place is concerned, to continue for the full period of a year, although
eight or ten months may have elapsed; many complaints have arisen
and great losses in some instances have occurred from that fact alone;
a person is either dispossessed or a place burns down, or something
of that kind, and he can't re-enter that place, and that place can not
receive a license unless the party obtaining a license prior surrenders
it or waits until the expiration of the year; some remedy ought to be
found for that; my own idea about it would be that this present law
is so incongruous that you can't patch it any farther; the more patches
you put on it the worse it becomes.
Q. Can you concede a more incongruous and unintelligible and
conflicting system than we have got here to-day? A. I do not know
of any.
Q. It is about as badly mixed as it can be? A. It couldn't be worse;
the language is incomprehensible to many; it is to me in many
instances, as to what the law actually does mean, and every question
arising under it requires the adjudication of the courts to guide per-
sons dealing, either consumers or those who are interested in the liquor
traffic, for or against it; it is unsatisfactory to all; my idea would be.
that the whole be repealed and one adopted in such plain language
that it would not require either counsels or courts to understand it,
and more economy would be obtained in that way than by any other
method that has been suggested here during this investigation.
Q. That is a purely unselfish suggestion on your part? A.
A purely unselfish suggestion, and I am the most interested person as
counsel.
By Senator Fassett:
Q. Did you ever hear of any law as clear as that? A. Yes; this
could be made perfectly plain.
Q. I would like to know one law that does not require a lawyer and
a judge to explain it? A. I could make an explanation in this connec-
tion; the word "beverage" requires a judicial interpretation; if the
community were told that the hotel people could within the law itself
sell liquor with meals, sell intoxicating liquor, then every man who
could read would know what that meant.
Q. No; there would be a question at once, as to who was a hotel
keeper, and who was his guest? A. No; the hotel keeper is well defined.
By Mr. JOHNSON:
Q. It would be a question as to what might constitute a meal; a
bowl of crackers and milk might be considered a meal? A. Yes; that
might be a meal.
}
1940
[SENATE,
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Don't you see you are in trouble at once?
The WITNESS- Mr. Johnson, have you read that case of Vilas?
Mr. JOHNSTON.- No; I have not.
The WITNESS. It is very plain there; there the hotel keepers may
sell liquors with a meal; they don't define a meal or what constitutes
it; if that was in the statute book we could better understand it than
what is meant as a beverage.
By Mr. LEVENTRITT:
Q. You have been connected with this board as counsel since this
board went into office or from about that time? A. Yes.
Q. In view of the conflicting nature of the law as explained in your
testimony, how has the law, as it stands, been administered by the
board? A. As well as it is possible to administer it, from my
observation.
Senator FASSETT.-That is asking the witness to give an estimate on.
his own work; isn't it?
Mr. LEVENTRITT.-No; he is merely a person connected with the
board.
Senator FASSETT. But it is practically asking the witness to
give an estimate on his own work.
Mr. LEVENTRITT [to the witness.]-I suppose modesty would lead
you to admit the law branch of the board, but I would refer to the
other.
Senator FASSETT.— I think that is asking the witness for an estimate
of his own character.
Mr. LEVENTRITT.- No; he is not one of the commissioners; he has
been present at the board and has seen the modus operandi of the
business.
Senator FASSETT.- I suppose you ought to ask him, as a preliminary
to that, how many boards he has been counsel for. I have no objec-
tion to Judge Brown making any such answer as he desires; but I
don't see that there is any value to the testimony growing out of the
nature of the case.
The WITNESS. If it is of no value, there is no use in putting it on
record.
Mr. LEVENTRITT.—I mean as developed by the character of their
duties, the time devoted to the performance of their duties, and the
manner in which the department is conducted.
No. 80.]
1941
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Let me ask you first how many hours a day do you spend there?
A. I am there every day nearly.
Q. For how long? A. Until about noon time.
Q. What time do you get there? A. About 9 o'clock.
Q. What time do they get there? A. About that hour; not later
than half-past 9 usually.
Q. So that you are able to have your eye on them for two hours
and a half in each day? A. Certainly; and after that, if any ques-
tions arise as to the construction of the law, I deliberate upon that
elsewhere.
Q. Then you are not in a position to tell exactly the entire value of
the day's work? A. Not at all, nor of the interior administration, the
clerical work.
Q. Have you any, more suggestions to make with regard to the
amendments? . A. I have; I don't think it is good policy to add any
.more power to the commissioner; to give them any more power.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. You mean judicial power? A. I mean judicial power; I think
they could be deprived of it rather than have it extended, and that
the commissioners should be charged solely with the granting of
licenses, and that the punishment for violations of the law should be
left to the courts; a conflict of authority of judicial power rather
tends to discredit the law than to strengthen the enforcement of the
law, and if the responsibility is put upon one branch of the adminis-
tration, it is easier to trace that responsibility and fix it than where it
is dual; they should not have the power to revoke licenses only where
they have been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, and a convic-
tion should count to a revocation of a license; as to licensing places
permanently without regard to the person, I think that that would
be an extremely dangerous undertaking.
Q. Before you go into that any further let me ask you some more
questions about this matter of revocation; how long were you a judge
of the city court? A. Five years and a half.
Q. You are thoroughly familiar with its work? A. Of the city
court?
Q. Yes. A. Yes, sir.
Q. And with its calendars? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You still practice in those courts, don't you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that one of the courts that is known in the city as an over-
worked court, or is it not a court with comparatively a good deal of
1942
[SENATE,
time to spare? A. Some time to spare; there is plenty of work there
at all times.
Q. Is there any reason, so far as the volume of work in that court
is concerned, why the judges of that court, and if there are not enough,
sufficient additional judges, should not be invested as a special court
with summary power to act on all of these licensed cases? A. If the
force were increased there would be no good reason why that or any
other court should not have the power.
Q. Don't you think that the best way, if you were going to decrease
the judicial power of your board, would be to give summary power to
one or another of the courts in some way to try these cases and dis-
pose of them? A. Within the rules of evidence and the protection of
the law?
""
Q. Of course; that is involved in the term "courts? A. Yes, sir;
some plan of that kind would be, in my opinion, the better plan for
the determination of these cases.
Q. You are familiar with the fact, are you not, that the vast majority
of all arrests and of all complaints do not result in trial in this city?
A. I am aware of that fact, and I believe that if the law were well
understood, and the co-operation of all who are interested in it were
obtained, there would not be so much difficulty in enforcing it; that
is my firm belief; there is another point I want to bring out, and that
is as to licensing places; I don't think that that would be good policy
in this State, or in this city particularly, because it would vest in an
owner of a building, a larger right than he is possessed of now, and
it would give him a permanent right to license, rather than the right
that now exists which is determinable by the Legislature and merely a
personal right so long as the party using it observes the law; I think
that is entirely the better plan, better than licensing places, because
conditions change, and a party holding a license over the places might
not want to change if it became very valuable for other purposes.
Q. It has never been suggested that because a place had been
licensed once there is any obligation upon anyone to license it again?
A. There was a suggestion here as to a remedy for the present defects,
that the place should be licensed without regard to the person, and
that continued as permanent.
Q. I didn't understand that the suggestion was that it should be
permanent?
Senator FASSETT.-
That was Commissioner Koch's suggestion?
The WITNESS.— That suggestion was made. I think it would be a
very dangerous practice in this city; there is another thing connected
with the licensing of stores which I think requires attention, and in
No. 80.]
1913
connection with the selling to minors; the licensing to stores to
sell in quantities not to be drunk on the premises gives more oppor-
tunities to violate the law against selling to minors than the licensing
of saloons; usually the saloons are open and minors can be observed
going in there, while the storekeepers have opportunities of conceal-
ing their traffic that do not exist in saloons; and for the protection of
the minor, as well as the dealer, and of the parents, I think that the
person who sends a minor to obtain liquor at a liquor store should be
equally amenable to the law with the person who says, who is simply
put upon an inquiry if the party appears to be under a certain age;
the parent of the child must know its age when he sends him, and
there the responsibility ought to be divided between the liquor dealer
and the person who sends the minor; I think that ought to receive
the investigation and the consideration of this committee, and I think
it would be an advantage to the community at large if something more
than the present statute existed.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Do you think that a good license law which would meet with the
requirements in this city would apply to the rest of the State?
A.
No, sir; I think that where there is a large aggregation of persons,
such as we have here, and with our surroundings, it requires a differ-
ent law entirely, and the interests of those here might be considered
separate and apart from those in the other part of the State.
Q. You think that a good law for New York city would not neces-
sarily be a good law for Buffalo? A. It might not; with large cities
like that it might be considered so.
Q. There are elements then in the life of a rural population that
would render a law that would be good enough for them and meet all
the exigencies there an improper law for New York city? A. It might
not work as well as in New York city.
Q. Would the mere fact of a large population centered in one place
operate to make it proper to make a distinction in the license fees?
A. It should, because the volume of busines is greater.
Q. You think it would not be unjust to have a distinction made
between cities of the first class and country towns? A. I shouldn't
think so, because it would depend upon the volume of trade.
By Mr. JOHNSON:
Q. In other words, does it not cost less money to get drunk in the
country than in the towns, because the liquor costs less? A. There
are two other matters which I desire to call to the attention of
1944
[SENATE,
the committee, and that is as to the bond question; I think that
they should be abrogated entirely; they serve no good purpose;
the expense of trying to enforce them would be greater than any
benefit gained, and there is a tendency for men to assume to be
possessed of more wealth than they actually are in order to be
qualified to go on the bonds; the conditions under which they
are given now are somewhat ambiguous, and nothing is obtained by
requiring them; by the amendment to the law of 1886, it would
appear that the Legislature intended that these licenses should be
freely granted, because they enacted that if the commissioners failed
to grant a license under certain conditions they could be compelled
to do it; that puts the burden upon the commissioners of showing
that their action has been entirely right in every respect, and calls
for another definition as to what the meaning is of the word "arbi-
trarily," or "for good or valid reasons," when there are no reasons
nor no rules fixed by statute nor by the law.
Q. What do you think of the Mandamus Act? A. That is what I
am speaking about.
Q. It ought to be repealed then you say? A. No; I don't recom-
mend it; I called the attention of the committee to that fact; and the
manner in which this legislation has been passed with reference to the
excise law; in that act alone three of the most potent remedies known
to the law had been jumbled together, mandamus, certiorari and the
order of the court, and to tell what it means requires more ability
than I am possessed of; the ordinary purpose of a mandamus is to
compel inferior tribunals to perform their duty; certiorari is to
review what they have done, and the inherent power of the court
there is no limit to; so we have that jumble in the last act of the
Legislature upon the excise law, and it is impossible to know just
exactly just what it does mean or the extent to which it can be utilized.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Its effect certainly is to take away the responsibility from the
board of excise in the last instance, and vest it in the courts, is it not?
A. I doubt it, for this reason, the board of excise must not act arbi-
trarily; no public officer can afford to act arbitrarily, and it is only
where they act arbitrarily that the courts have jurisdiction to inter-
fere; yet in one instance the court has become the board of excise
and issued a license after taking testimony which never had been
taken before the board of excise, and submitting such testimony to a
jury.
Q. What case was that? A. That was the Krause case, and that is
1
No. 80.]
1945
in the Court of Appeals now; and it is in fact a question whether the
courts become a board of excise or whether the excise commissioners
administer the law.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Neither of the commissioners nor yourself have recommended
among desirable changes anything with reference to the fees? A. The
amount.
Q. Yes; the amount; what would be the effect of increasing the
license fees and entering upon a system of high license? A. I have
never considered it from that standpoint; not in the administration of
it; I am speaking generally of the effect of the law, and by observation
as far as it has presented itself.
Q. You have not any opinion then to express on that subject? A.
No, sir; not as to the question of high license or low license; that is
a matter of legislative policy that the legislators are better qualified
to determine than I am.
Q. You have been engaged in the practical administration as
counsel; have you any suggestion to make as to the effect on the
conduct of the traffic in this city as to a high license, as compared
with the present fees? A. I think that the probable effect would be
to concentrate the business in the hands of a few rather than the
many; as to whether it would reduce the quantity consumed, I
doubt it.
Q. Or the manner in which it was distributed ? A. Distributed to
the consumers, do you mean.
Q. Yes; the kind of men who are in control, and the kind of places?
A. No; because the means of distribution would be found, and those
who are engaged largely in it, and who could afford to pay a high
license, would find means of distribution equally well with a person
who is now able to go into the business under the present conditions.
Q. Do you think that it would be apt to improve the general char-
acter of the places? A. I think that a plain license law, with a strict
enforcement of it, is the best remedy that can be found, with an
impartial enforcement of it under all circumstances; and in speaking
in that way, I mean one that will be acceptable to all persons citizens,
if you can get such a law.
Q. And you don't think that increasing the amount of money that
it would cost a man to get his privilege of sale, would tend to elevate
the character of the applicant, or of the places? A. In some cases it
might; that is a question that I am not prepared to commit myself
upon on this investigation.
[Senate, No. 80.]
244
}
1946
[SENATE,
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. The statute you referred to would be one that would regulate
the traffic? A. Regulate the traffic and the enforcement of the law
impartially.
Q. If the existing law in this city and throughout the State were
enforced, would there not be better results than we are now reaching?
A. I unhesitatingly say that there would; but you can't enforce this
law impartially.
Q. Are you aware that the commissioners of excise in this city exact
a much higher license than they do in any other city in the State ?
A. I don't know as to any other city in the State; but I know some
portions of the country, because the statute provides for it; in towns
it is less than in cities of a certain class; it is a higher rate in cities
of a certain class than in towns.
Q. But where they are allowed to exact a higher license in the
country, they do not now do it? A. I am not aware of that, because
I am not acquainted with the administration there.
Q. Isn't it possible to prescribe by statute the form of a bond to be
taken by the excise commissioners, which if the conditions are broken
can be enforced, and the amount collected? A. Of what benefit is
that?
Q. I don't ask that; is it possible? A. It is possible; certainly.
Q. The difficulty now is, in the conditions, or the form of the bond?
A. In the condition of the bond, and its application under the present
law.
Q. You think it would be possible for the Legislature to prescribe
the form of a bond and conditions in the bond that could be legally
enforced? A. Undoubtedly; there is no question about that, because
they do in many other cases.
Q. Wouldn't that, if that bond were prescribed and the bondsmen
knew that that bond could be legally enforced, and those bonds were
enforced-wouldn't that have a salutary effect over hotel keepers and
saloon keepers? A. It would to an extent, but not equal to what an
enforement of the observance of the law would do and the depriva-
tion of a license, if the law were not observed; I think that that is the
most potent remedy that is on the statute book; but I doubt whether
it is applicable under the present law; I couldn't begin to tell you all
its incongruities.
Q. Would it be legal to have both results follow? A. The bond?
Q. Yes. A. There is no doubt about it; the Legislature can pre-
scribe any rule it pleases.
No. 80.]
1947
Q. Then you could revoke the license and also enforce the penalty ?
A. Undoubtedly.
Q. That would certainly have a salutary effect? A. It might if you
intended to prohibit entirely; but the question is, is there a tendency
to extend.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. To prohibit violations? A. Yes, sir; to prohibit violations, that
is what I meant.
Q. That is a desirable thing to do, isn't it? A. Undoubtedly, but
the enforcement of the law itself is the better remedy.
Q. When you have a law that is incongruous and impossible to
decipher, it is very difficult to enforce it? A. But you make the
promise that you have a plain law that will be enforced, and an impar-
tial law.
By Senator McNaughton:
Q. I would like to have you answer the question proposed by Mr.
Leventritt in regard to the manner in which the present board of
excise of this city performed their duties so far as comes under your
observation? A. I believe, so far as comes under my observation,
that no body of commissioners or body of officers could enforce the
law
any better or administer the law any better than they did; my
opportunities for observation have been sitting in their room at the
times of consultation, reference to me of questions when there is
doubt, for adjudication, and the apparent care with which they made
examination of applications; they tried 369 complaints and protests
last year; it would be the same as if a judge tried that number of
cases upon the bench, and that would be a large average for him to
try during the year, and no judge is asked to do that amount of work;
and all the safeguards that can be thrown around the complainants
and applicants are thrown around them; it nearly consumes their
whole time, such is the extent and magnitude of this business.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Notwithstanding the incongruity of the law, the difficulty
of the administration, the insufficiency of the inspections, the possible
illegality of most of the bonds and the impossibility of enforcing the
law by getting convictions on arrest, great pains appear, nevertheless,
to be taken to keep the statistical position accurate and to show the
number of cases tried per annum and the number of books kept in
their office? A. I speak now of their report.
Q. It is the report I am speaking about too? A. Yes, sir.
1948
[SENATE,
Q. The statistical position on its face, as a mere matter of bones
without any flesh on it, appears to be all right? A. I think it has a
body as well as the bones.
Mr. JOHNSON.— The judge says they do as much work and as well as
any body of commissioners could.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. You were appointed the counsel to the board by whom? A. By
the commissioners.
Q. And subject to removal at their pleasure? A. At any moment;
that is my opinion.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. You have read over with some care, of course, the rules of the
board of excise as they are printed in their reports? A. Yes.
Q. Has not it occurred to you that those can be revised and
improved very much? A. They might; but the courts here have
decided that they are not bound to observe any rules.
Q. They are not bound, but they are supposed to be for the informa-
tion of persons having business to do with the office? A. They are,
as well as can be framed, as a line of policy under the present condi-
tion of things.
Senator FASSETT.-That is all, judge.
Mr. IVINS.— That certainly up to the present closes the excise board.
I am going to try, if the committee sits to-morrow, to secure the state-
ment of Dr. Howard Crosby, and he is an expert in these matters who
has paid a great deal of attention to them, and he has watched the
operations of several excise boards in the past year and has paid a
great deal of attention to the reformation in the law, and I propose
to call him as an expert in some of these matters. After that I have
no further witnesses to call in the matter of the board of excise. So
far as the board of excise themselves are concerned, this closes that
part of that investigation.
Senator FASSETT.— I think it will be a very desirable thing to have
before the committee some of the distinguished gentlemen who had
made this matter a specialty for a number of years. This city has
quite a number of such. If counsel would bring such men as
Mr. Crosby and others.
Mr. IVINS.-Such men as Mr. Crosby and ex-Judge Rollins and
others who have made a specialty of this matter. I think that their
opinion should be attended to this record. I think that it would be
of the utmost advantage in drafting remedial laws.
No. 80.]
1949
Senator MCNAUGHTON. Is that Howard Crosby who was one of the
revisers?
Mr. IVINS.
Yes, sir; he was one of the revisers, just as Judge Rol-
lins was one of the revisers.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Their opinions didn't seem to have very
much weight.
Senator FASsett. Not with the Governor.
Mr. IVINS.No. I think it became apparent that, although a man
might have opinions with regard to high license and low license, the
opinions of liquor dealers and of people who control political influence
will determine very largely his opinion in regard to high license.
Mr. JOHNSON. The comptroller is of political opinion, I will admit,
you have a right to speak for. You are an expert.
Adjourned to to-morrow morning at half-past 10 o'clock.
NEW YORK, October 9, 1890.
Present Senators Fassett, Stewart and McNaughton.
HOWARD CROSBY, called as a witness, being duly sworn, testified as
follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Dr. Crosby, what is your profession? A. Clergyman.
Q. Are you a resident of the city? A. I am.
Q. How long have you been a resident of the city? A. All my life.
Q. Have you made any study, special or otherwise, of the operation
of the excise laws and the administration of the excise laws of this
city? A. I have given special attention to that.
Q. Will you please state to the committee what you have done
generally in that regard to qualify you as an expert to discuss the
situation of excise matters in the city? A. I have been for thirteen
years president of the society for the prevention of crime, which has
had as its special object the enforcement of the excise laws, which
position has brought me into contact constantly with the excise board
and with their operation; I was also appointed by the Legislature on
the committee to examine into the whole question of the excise laws,
and, if considered necessary, to frame a new law which would meet all
cases; that committee was in session some seven or eight months, and
had brought before it all matters connected with excise both in this city
and in all the cities of the State, and brought in a report afterwards
to the Legislature, the report including the proposed law; these are
the sources of my information in regard to the matter of excise.
1950
[SENATE,
Q. Now, having so stated the sources of your information, will you
state to the committee the results of your study of the operation of
the excise laws here? A. In this city?
Q. Yes. A. The difficulty to my own mind from these observations
that I have made during thirteen years, the difficulty in my own mind
in this city in regard to the excise laws is, that they throw too much
discretion upon the excise commissioners, and are not specific enough
in the details of safeguards, consequently excise commissioners are
apt to consider themselves as appointed simply for the advancement
of the liquor trade, and not for the benefit of the city, and they use
their discretion therefore in a very loose way.
Q. I was going to ask if you know of any specific instance of that
loose exercise of discretion? A. For example-I speak now not of
this particular excise board now in the city, for I have had less
to do with them than any of their predecessors, but I speak in
general of the excise board in this city as I have seen it for
thirteen years past, with the exception of the excise board which
preceded the present, which was a very
a very exceptional board and
to be counted in a different category altogether from those
that preceded it and also the present one; the general example
I would give, is this, that when a petitioner for a license is shown
to be of immoral character, notwithstanding all the clear evidence
in this regard, the board falls back on its own discretion and rejects
all the testimony that has been given against the man; the law allows
that; particular instances I could not give from my memory, but the
books of the society of which I am president would afford many
instances.
Q. Is that the society of which Mr. Whitney is an officer also? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. What neighborhood do you live in? A. I live in Nineteenth
street close by Irving place.
Q. You recall no specific instance where persons held by the neigh-
bors to be improper to be licensed, or persons of an immoral character
have been licensed? A. I could not recall from memory such
specifically.
Q. Do you know of any of the licenses that have been granted for
places on Fourteenth street, within the last six or eight years, where
that rule applied? A. I can speak from memory without the book
and remember that there was a great opposition on our part to the
licensing of the place known as Thiess' place; the license, however,
was given.
Q. What did you mean, Dr. Crosby, by the distinction which you
No. 80.]
1951
·
made in testifying between the board immediately preceding the
present board and all other boards? A. The board that immediately
preceded the present board grew up most admirable rules which
clearly signified that they considered themselves as appointed to
watch over the peace and welfare of the city primarily, and not to
favor any special interest like that of the liquor interest; in conse-
quence of these rules, there was a large diminution in the number of
the licenses granted in the city, and these rules, such for example as
not allowing more than two places on one corner, were rigidly
observed, as they are not observed under the present board, and were
not observed in the boards that preceded.
Q. Are you sure that they are not observed under the present
board as far as the three corners are concerned? A. I can give one
instance where I have interfered, and in spite of my interference the
third place was licensed.
Q. What place was that? A. On third avenue; I think on the corner
of Twenty-sixth street; I may be mistaken as to the corner; the north-
east corner I heard was to have a liquor store in it and a license was
to be asked for; I sent to the commisssoners a note, not being able to
go personally, and stated that there were already two liquor stores on
that corner and seven liquor stores within 200 feet from the corner;
in spite of that protest of mine the license was granted and the place
is now running.
Q. So that the license, so far as concerns that particular place, was
equivalent to a revocation of the rule? A. It was a breaking of their
own rule.
Q. The commissioners have testified here that their own rules in
these cases do not bind them; that they are simply a declaration of
policy from which a majority of the board has the right and the power
to depart at any time; do you know whether that was the theory of
the old board? A. It was not the theory of the old board so far as
its president was concerned, who frequently told me of their determ-
ination to obey their old rules.
Q. Further than that you don't know, however? A. Further than
that I do not know.
Q. As one of the commissioners appointed by the Governor under
the statute to suggest revision of the excise laws of the State, did you
make a special study of the laws themselves as affecting this city?
A. I did.
Q. Now, will you advise this committee as to what, in your judgment,
are the most serious defects of the law here, and will you give them
the benefit of such suggestions as you may wish to make, concerning
1952
[SENATE,
•
proposed amendments? A. My first suggestion would be that there
should be a limitation to the number of saloons; as long as there is no
such limitation, the evils connected with the saloon business, which is
recognized by law, as I might call it, a hazardous business, a dangerous
business to some extent, unless there is some such limitation made
there will be no reduction, but always an increase in the number
unless an excise board has, if you may excuse the expression, very
remarkable backbone, for the influences brought to bear will make
them almost grant licenses where impossible obstacles do not hinder;
hence, I think that we ought to have in our law some form of limita-
tion; in my own mind, the limitation of one place to 500 in
the population is a wholesome idea; another feature, I think, a law
should be passed in regard to the relation of the police to its
enforcement, giving the police such power and putting the police
under such penalty as that the open breach and defiance of the law,
which now exists, could not possibly obtain any longer; that is the
most flagrant of all the abuses of the present day; I may be allowed to
state that my own knowledge of this abuse is not only personal
observation, but also from an interview I had from five prominent liquor
dealers in this city, who declared to me that they always intended to
break the law, the law of keeping open on Sunday, that it was their
best day, and that they would not, on any account, give up the profits.
they had on that day, although it was against the law; and when I
told them, asked them if they did not think it was wrong to thus break
the law, I was astonished at the answer made by one of the parties,
"Oh, Dr. Crosby, that is but a statute law, it is not a moral law.”
Q. Was there anything so confidential in your talk with these liquor
dealers as to raise an objection in your mind as to the propriety of
your saying who they were? A. I don't think there is, or was; they
did not ask the interview to be confidential; I remember the names of
three, I think, of the five.
Q. Well, will you name them? A. But I do not think I could
identify them now; one's name was Cavanaugh, one's name was Kane,
and one's name was I thought I had it, it is a German name, but I
can not now recall it.
Q. Do you know where Mr. Cavanaugh and Mr. Kane's places are?
A. I do not; I did not at the time.
t
Q. Are there any other suggestions you can make in regard to the
system that will be of assistance to the committee? A. I believe that
if those two points were met by law, that of the discretion of the
excise board and of the other that I mentioned, the regulation
of the police connection with the breaches of the law where
No. 80.]
1953
there is great effect now, the police either not being able to
or not wanting to enforce the law, I believe if those two
points were well taken hold of by a law, our principal troubles would
be ended in the matter; that first change which would take away
from the discretion, would stop all this bogus bond business, and
strengthen all the safeguards which by the laws have been inserted
in the laws, but action in which has been left strangely by the law to
the discretion of the board.
Mr. IVINS.- Judge Brown, are there any questions you wish to ask
witness ?
Mr. BROWN.- Yes.
By Mr. BROWN :
Q. Doctor, what opportunities have you had of observing the
administration of the law by the present board? A. I have with the
present board had very little indeed to do.
Q. How often have you visited the offices of the present board? A.
I have not once been near them.
Q. Upon what do you base your observation that this present
board are less efficient than the former board? A. Because I have
seen the places multiply under their administration.
Q. Are you willing to state it as a fact that there has been an
increase of saloon licenses under the present board as compared with
the last board? A. I have gone over the figures presented by the
board carefully, and judging from their figures I concluded there had
been an increase.
Q. What was your standard of comparison? A. My standard of
comparison was the amount of licenses that were out on the 1st day
January, 1889.
Q. You limited the question as to the increase of saloons that the
present board having increased the number of saloon licenses? A.
That was my impression.
Q. Now, as a matter of fact, the commissioners who have been
examined before this committee have testified that there has been a
decrease in saloon licenses since their administration; would you say,
in the face of that testimony, that your present testimony is correct?
A. I have heard that statement made by them, and in conversation with
the present president of the excise board he made that statement in
contradiction of mine; I examined all the evidences which were given
by him to me at the time, and did not see reason to change my
opinion.
[Senate, No. 80.]
245
1954
[SENATE,
1
R
What evidence did he furnish you? A. He gave me the record
of the licenses of the present board; I do not remember exactly our
course of remark; he was at my house and we conversed freely about
it, and I know only that when we had completed our conversation I
was not persuaded by his argument.
Q. And did you make comparisons at the time with the licenses
issued by the previous board? A. I did.
Q. Have you them present? A. I hadn't them present at that
interview; no.
Q. Did you retain the data or matter given to you by the president
of the present board? A. Yes; for they were printed matter.
Q. And they have been offered in evidence here? A. I don't know;
I was not aware of it.
Senator FASSETT.-May I make a suggestion right here. Dr. Crosby,
is it not possible that you have in mind that the number of drinking
places have increased, while the number of saloon licenses, so called,
may have been diminished; is that not possibly the point of difference?
The WITNESS.— That is very possible; I only had reference to the
drinking places the saloons.
Mr. BROWN.
You used the words "saloon licenses" in your testi-
mony; that the number has been increased.
Mr. IVINS.-I think the doctor said that more saloons had been
licensed.
The WITNESS. I said that more saloons had been licensed.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. What did you mean by saloons; did you mean to use the word
"saloon" in the strict technical sense as one class of places as con-
tradistinguished from all other classes of places for which excise
licenses are issued; did you mean so to use it? A. Yes; the saloons;
the drinking places.
Q. The board of excise licenses a hotel? A. Yes.
Q. It grants a beer license, it grants a saloon license, but the hotel,
the place that sells beer, and the saloon license, are all drinking
places; now, when you used the term "saloon," did you mean to
include all of the places, or did you mean to confine yourself exclu-
sively to the one item of the technical saloon license as one classifica-
tion of that board; that is what the whole controversy is now about?
A. I did not think I must speak with reserve here, but I do not think
that the hotel licenses were recognized in our conversation and in our
computation; I am not fresh from those figures; I can only, therefore,
state the general impression that was made upon me and the conclu-
sion that I came to.
No. 80.]
1955
By Mr. BROWN:
Q. Can you state with any degree of accuracy the number of licenses
issued by this board in excess of the number issued by the prior
board of all kinds and classes? A. Well, as I recollect the figures
it is perhaps foolish for me to trust to my memory, but I will state
frankly as I recollect the figures given to me on the 1st of January,
1889, by the former board; there were 6,811 licenses; that, I think,
was the exact number; I am not positive, but I think it was; my cal-
culations that were made afterwards at the time referred to showed
me, as I thought, an increase of a few hundred.
Q. Are you aware of a rule existing in the present board that they
will not issue a license to a new place except upon the surrender of a
current license from some person who had the right to conduct busi-
ness under that? A. I am aware of the rule.
Q. Are you aware that it has ever been broken by the present com-
missioners? A. I am not aware of it.
Q. Would it be possible for them to increase the number if that
rule were enforced? A. It would not be.
Q. Isn't that a pretty fair protection to maintaining the present
number of saloon licenses, at least? A. Certainly, if kept.
Q. Would you say now, in view of that act, and the maintenance of
that rule, that these commissioners had increased the number of
licenses in New York? A. I can only give my firm impression that
they have done so; I can not tell why or how.
Q. Are you aware, doctor, that during the period of the board
which you have characterized as being exceptional, many dealers were
carrying on a business in New York without a license under the
impression that they had the right to do so? A. I have no doubt that
that is always so.
Q. Were you aware of that fact under the former board, that it
existed to a large degree under the former board? A. I never was
aware of the fact under any board, but I presume so.
Q. Were you aware of the fact that there were a large number of
persons engaged in selling ale and beer in bottles, delivering to the
houses around the city of New York, without a license? A. I never
was aware of it; I have no doubt that there was.
Q. You have made particular inquiries under the other board to
find out the manner of administering their duties, have you not, given
the other board more attention than this? A. I gave the other board
more attention than this; certainly I did.
Q. And in the course of your investigations with the other board,
was the question of dealers delivering ale and beer in bottles to houses
1956
[SENATE,
around the city of New York inquired into or spoken of? A. It never
was.
Q. Are you aware that this present board have insisted upon it that
all those dealers should obtain licenses or should cease business? A.
I was not aware of it.
Q. Are you aware that many of the excursion boats around the
harbor of New York were conducting business without a license, and
selling liquors under the old board? A. I have no doubt of it.
Q. Are you aware that this present board insisted upon them
obtaining a license or ceasing business? A. I had heard that was so.
Q. Would that be one of the means of increasing the number of
licenses as you speak of now? A. Certainly not.
Q. It would not do it; if it was insisted that these men should obtain
licenses that would not be an increase? A. Of course not; if they
enforced that law.
Q. Isn't that some data from which you would come to the conclu-
sion that an increase of licenses were obtained under the present
board, the enforcement of the law? A. I would not draw my conclu-
sions from such data, of course.
Q. In your examination of the present law, doctor, did you consider
the mandamus act of 1886? A. Oh, yes.
Q. What effect would that have upon the commissioners' exercise of
discretion in granting licenses? A. I do not think it would virtually
have much effect, because the courts would always confirm what the
excise commissioners had done, unless there was a clear case of
injustice.
·
Q. What would you designate as a clear case of injustice? A. Well-
Q. If a man applied for a license upon a third corner, he was a
man of good moral character, possessed the qualifications to keep
the business, and there were no objections to the surroundings of
the location where the business was to be carried on, and the com-
missioners refused to grant him a license, would you consider that as
an injustice? A. No.
Q. Why? A. Because they were following a reasonable law or
rule.
Q. There is no limit upon the number of licenses that the commis-
sioners may grant in this city, is there? A. No.
Q. Would it not be an arbitrary refusal to grant a license in the
instance I speak of? A. To refuse?
Q. Yes. A. To refuse to grant?
Q. To refuse to grant. A. It would only be under the discretion
granted by the law to them.
No. 80.1
1957
Q. Then why do you not consider this mandamus act as an exten-
sion of the power of the commissioners to grant licenses rather than
a restriction upon it? A. I think it is simply an act to prevent
injustice.
Q. That is a splendid idea, doctor, without any illustration of it;
but from your standpoint now, what would be an act of injustice on
the part of the commissioners to refuse a man a license? A. It would
be difficult for me on the spur of the moment to propound a case.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Doctor, do you remember a case on which the court did act to
compel them to issue a license, the only one case in which the courts
interfered? A. On the corner of Fourteenth street?
Q. I do not remember where it was, I only remember there is one
case, and if you remembered the circumstances it might be what you
think an act of injustice? A. On the corner of Fourteenth street.
By Mr. BROWN:
Q. Did you ever recommend any persons to obtain licenses from
this board or the preceeding board? A. Never.
Q. During this thirteen years in which you have been engaged in
observing the workings of the excise laws? A. Never.
Q. Were you ever solicited to do so? A. Yes.
Q. By whom? A. Mr. Hams solicited me to withdraw my opposi-
tion, which would have been equivalent to indorsing his application
on the corner of Seventeenth street and Fourth avenue; that is one
and I presume there have been fifty, but I can not remember all their
names.
Q. Now, was there ever a case in which you acted in an effort
affirmatively to obtain a license? A. Never.
Q. Are you as satisfied of that as anything you have stated about
the board to-day, or about this excise question to-day? A. I am
perfectly satisfied that I never asked for a license or indorsed an
application for a license.
Q. Or recommended anyone for a license? A. Or recommended
anyone for a license.
Q. You have testified that this discretion of the present board has
been very loosely used; can you give us an instance except as you
say where the third corner was licensed, in which that discretion has
been used? A. That is the only specific case I have in my memory.
Q. You charge a loose discretion from that case alone? A.
One single case by a board of that kind would make me consider
a board of that kind a very loose board.
1958
[SENATE,
n
Q. In the course of your examinations have yɔu ever taken ›››
to examine the decisions in regard to the duties of the board having
reference to these rules that you speak of? A. I suppose I have in
the course of my examination into the whole matter of excise; I do not
recall many particular examination of that kind.
Q. Have you during that examination ever came across a case in
which the courts have decided that the commissioners are not bound
by these rules, and if the applicant is a fit and proper person to grant
a license to, the license should be granted? A. I have not seen any
such decision.
Q. Then your examination has not been exhaustive upon the legal
question? A. I am not a lawyer, sir.
Q. But you have given a good deal of attention to this, its legal
phases as well as its moral phases, have you not? A. As far as my
untutored mind could go.
Q. We will accept that; you helped to frame the bill that was pre-
sented to the last Legislature, did you not? A. I did.
Q. Were there any legal questions presented or discussed during
the time that that was under consideration? A. A great many.
Q. And reference made to the legal effect of each provision of the
statute as it was presented? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And were these various decisions considered with reference to
the framing of that law? A. They were.
Q. But you never came across this case that I have mentioned
before? A. The peculiar legal matters that came before the commis-
sion were assigned to a committee of lawyers, of which there were
four, and of whom I was not one.
Q. And what part of it did you suggest? A. What might be con-
sidered the parts having special reference to law and order - I mean
to say to the order of the city peace and order of the city.
Q. Well, what provision of that law did you suggest which you
believed would insure peace and order for the city? A. It would be
impossible for me to take out of that law any particular item that I
suggested; I suggested many, and I joined with others in suggesting
many, but it would be an utter impossibility for me to take up the
particular points of which I was the suggestor.
Q. Can you recall even a suggestion made by you which was incor-
porated in this proposed law? . A. I could not on the spur of the
moment.
Q. Were you advised that you were to be examined before this com-
mission to-day? A. I was not advised until yesterday.
No. 80.]
1959
Q. At what time yesterday? A. I forget the hour; I think it was
toward evening; yes; it was between 5 and 6 o'clock last evening.
Q. Did you take any occasion to refresh your memory as to the.
operations of this law, or the effect of the law that you proposed?
A. I did not; I have not had a moment's time.
Q. Going back again to the present commissioners; doctor, did you
recommend any person to be retained in the employ of the board?
A. I did.
Q. Who was that gentleman? A. Charles E. Gildersleeve.
Q. Is he retained there now? A. I think he is.
r
Q. And you think he was a very efficient and proper person to be
retained by the board? A. I think he is a man of the highest
character.
Q. And you would feel very certain that anything that would come
under his notice in the way of complaints, or otherwise, would be
properly presented for prosecution? A. I do.
Q. Do you know what position he occupies in the present board?
A. I think it is a sort of -I don't know what the name is under
chief inspector.
Q. His duties are to investigate complaints for violation of the law;
that is the position he now holds in the present commission? A. I
did not know the exact character of the position.
Q. And you have faith enough in the man to believe that he would
faithfully perform the duty assigned to him? A. I have no doubt he
would faithfully perform any duty he undertook.
Q. And you would be satisfied that Mr. Gildersleeve, in making a
report, would not be influenced by person or party in his actions?
A. Certainly not.
Q. Did the president of the present board ever advise with you
with reference to the administration of the excise law in this city?
A. He has had several conversations with me in regard to it; I hardly
think in the way of getting my advice.
Q. Opinions? A. There have been more statements on his part,
what he intended to do and what he was doing.
Q. And did they meet your approval, the suggestions he made? A.
His own views seemed oftentimes to be exceedingly good, and I
approved of them.
Q. Did they differ in any particular from the views expressed by
the president of the former board in the administration of the law?
A. What he has stated to me did not differ, but what the president of
the former board stated to me in regard to general matters are far
more complete than anything the present president did.
1960
[SENATE,
Q. And what was the difference between what the prior president
did under the former commission and the present president under
this commission? A. The former president, the president of the
excise board previous to this one, very frequently asserted that he
believed the excise board was appointed to restrain and restrict;
such a statement I have never heard from the president of the present
board, only of his intention to observe the rules of the board, for
which I commended him.
Q. Any other points of difference? A. I do not remember any
other special points.
Q. Those were the only points of difference suggested by the
president of the former board, and the president of the present board,
that you can now recall? A. Yes; that includes a great deal.
Q. Were the rules different under the former board from what they
are under the present board? A. I don't know; I have heard that
they kept the same rules.
Q. Have you ever known an instance under the former board in
which the rules were not observed? A. I do not remember any.
Q. Have you ever made an effort to find out whether they had been
observed or otherwise under the former board? A. I do not think I
ever have.
Q. Therefore you can not tell, as a matter of fact, whether the
former board have ignored any of their rules adopted by them? A.
Oh, I could not testify as to that.
Q. Now, can you specifically state any point of difference of adminis-
tration under the law as it exists under the present and under the
former board in which the present board differs from the former,
except the conclusions you have given us, any specific act? A. No; I
have nothing further; I must say, if you will allow me, that the society
which I represent has on its records what, of course, I personally can
not remember and could not personally vouch for.
Q. Well, the records are not here, and you can not vouch for them,
so they are not to be considered? A. No.
Q. You said in your examination by General Ivins that it was
necessary for the commissioners to have backbone to enforce this law;
what do we understand by that expression, doctor? A. I mean that
when men come to me, if I am an officer, and try to bring political
influence to bear upon me, I ought to have sufficient courage to say
to them "no."
Q. Can you instance a case in which the present commissioners
have been influenced by politics? A. I have not accused them of it.
No. 80.]
1961
Q. But the inference to be drawn is that it is so, because they have
not backbone, is that it? A. I have not accused them of not having
backbone, I merely stated as a general thing that a law ought to be so
framed that the execution of it would not be trusted to a commission
that might not have backbone; I made no charges against anybody.
Q. And that is not to be applied to this present board? A. No; I
apply it to none.
By Mr. BROWN:
Q. Would it be possible to leave any administration, under our form
of government, out of politics? A. Politics has two meanings; there
are good politics and bad politics.
Q. Are you correct in the statement that politics has two meanings
a good and bad? A. Yes.
Q. What is the meaning of the word politician or politics? A. A
man who attends to affairs connected with the State.
Q. Does that not apply to all officers who may be charged with the
enforcement of the laws of the State? A. Yes.
Q. And if commissioners were appointed or elected for the purpose
of administering the excise law, under whatever form, they would
still be politicians; would they not? A. In the good sense.
Q. In the good sense, or in any sense? A. Well, in the bad sense
means tricky.
Q. The bad sense, doctor, is not presumed; we all must assume that
the laws are faithfully executed until the contrary appears, and you
have not given us an instance to-day in which the politicians who now
fill the excise board have failed to fulfill the law, as far as your testi-
mony has presented itself? A. We can all sometimes smell an evil
where we can not see it.
Q. Do you think this present committee or your own evidence has
found the effluvia of bad politics in this administration. A. I think
the effluvia has not been agreeable.
Q. In what instances and where did it spring from? A. Well, there
is a general feeling throughout the community, I think.
Q. Will you condemn a man on general principles; that he ought
not to exist? A. Well, I think I would; some men.
Q. If you would, what would be the necessity of framing a law to
guide them in the administration of the excise law, if they are to be
condemned or governed by general principles of the thought of an
individual? A. Well, I don't like to enter into a psychological discus-
sion unless it is necessary.
[Senate, No. 80.]
246
די
1962
[SENATE,
}
Q. Well, it seems to be entirely of that character that we have had
here to-day, because I have not found any facts upon which to base
a conclusion of maladministration.
By Mr. LEVENTRITT:
Q. Will you just read that statement in the report of the present
commission, and see whether you take exception to that, or whether
that does not indicate a decrease in the number of drinking places?
[Handing pamphlet to witness.] A. Yes; I had noticed that before;
I went through a series of calculations at the time; the details are
not now with me, but I differed from that, and instead of making it a
decrease of seventy-eight I made it an increase of 200 or 300, but I
have not got my calculations with me.
Q. You observe through, from the report of the present commission
made to the mayor at the close of last year, they claim that the
decrease in the number of drinking places in this city was seventy-
eight; do you not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, that is a result of a mere ordinary mathematical calcula-
tion, concerning which there can scarcely be a difference of opinion;
is it not? A. I should think so.
Q. How does it come, then, that having an official report indicating
a decrease of seventy-eight, you nevertheless venture to state that in
your opinion the number increased? A. I think the discrepancy
may exist, though I have not now the data to be sure of it, from a
different view of the different classes; in my present unprepared
condition, I can not verify my opinion on the matter.
By Mr. FASSETг:
Q. Counsel seems to have been somewhat disappointed that you
could not recall a long list of specific instances of bad administration
under the present board; you have not followed closely the testimony
given before the committee? A. I have not.
Q. You do not recall the testimony given in reference to Gom-
bossy's place, and Thiess' place and the Slide and the Sixth Avenue
Hotel and other such places? A. No, sir.
Q. And you do not recall the reports that we made on the inspection
in reference to them? A. I have heard none of them.
Q. And do not recall the evidence given by the commissioners them-
selves as to the helplessness of the commissioners in their dependence
on the report of the inspectors? A. No.
Q. You did not have that in mind? A. No.
Q. If I understood you correctly you recommend as good features
No. 80.]
1963
1
to embody in remedial legislation a limit in the number of saloons?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. A limit to the discretion of excise commissioners? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Stricter police regulations? A. Yes, sir.
Q. More severe penalties for breaches of the law? A. Yes; decidedly.
Q. That is, substitute imprisonment for fine? A. Yes.
Q. And revocation of a license for fine? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You did not say anything, doctor, as I understood you, about
whether you would change the rate or degree of the license fee? A. I
think the change of the license fee is comparatively a small matter
if those other matters be thoroughly attended to in the law.
Q. That is simply fundamentally a question of revenue, then?
A. Yes.
•
Q. Would it have any effect at all, things remaining as they are;
would the mere increasing of the license fee have any effect in
improving the administration, do you think? A. I think it would
certainly reduce the number, and therefore enable the police, if the
police were faithful, to keep better guard against the injuries done
oftentimes by such places.
Q. That is, if the cost of getting a license were increased, you
would think the naturally more conservative spirit would control?
A. I think so; I think that they would be more careful to observe the
law and that there would be less danger to the public peace.
Q. In giving a limit that you consider a proper limit, you place it
as one saloon or one drinking place to every 500 inhabitants, would
that be ample, think you? A. I think it would be a grand step to
take, and if it proved satisfactory to the peace of the city, it would be
a sufficient step; if it proved advantageous, but still with an invitation
to make the number less, I think then it would be a good step towards
the second step.
Q. And what would the second step, doctor, be—to make it one to
1,000 or one to 600? A. One to 600, one to 700, and so on until we
got to a position where the peace and order of the city would be
secured.
Q. Doctor, you do not advocate the practicability of the abolition
of the traffic? A. Not in the slightest degree; I have no sympathy
with that idea.
Q. Your efforts move in the direction then of restriction and control?
A. Entirely.
Q. Of control? A. Control; law and order.
Q. The mere number of places then you think is subordinate to the
manner of controlling and regulating the thing? A. I do; but I
1964
[SENATE,
think the number of places is closely connected with the power to
control.
Q. But assuming that the regulation of the traffic was complete,
that inspection did determine and secure absolute good character in
the dispensers, or those engaged in the traffic, then the number of
places would be a question of subordinate interest? A. I think so.
Q. Now, to come back again to your limit of 500; there are some-
thing over 8,000 saloons and drinking places, according to the report?
Mr. BROWN.-May I suggest to the Senator that that 8,000 includes
all classes of places; places where beer is bottled and sold, and all
other places.
Senator FASSETT.- Yes; wherever a man can quench his thirst by
getting a bottle of beer. In round numbers there are about 8,000,
and according to your scheme of one to 500, the population should be
4,000,000, and in round numbers we have 2,000,000; is it your judg-
ment that there are about twice too many saloons? A. Fully twice
too many.
Q. Fully twice too many? A. I would back that up by saying that
in walking through Third avenue this morning, I noticed on many
blocks three saloons, on some four, and I think on one five; that is
the basis of my remark, that I think half the number would not be a
sufficient reduction for the wants of the city.
Q. But this opinion is always to be taken in connection with your
view that the chief point is thorough and efficient regulation and
control? A. That is it; that is it.
Q. It is within the power, is it not, as you have read the law, of any
board of commissioners under the present law, to secure just this
limitation you speak of? A. I think it is; but I think it is too much
to expect of human nature to do it.
Q. Because you think the pressure for places is too great? A. Yes.
Q. Doctor, have you thought of any better method of determining
the facts as to the good character of an applicant than the one now in
vogue? A. Well, the one now in vogue, as I understand it, is the
correct one, if it were only prosecuted to the end; if everything that
is connected with the applicant were really looked into, and searched
into, I think that would suffice, and I think the neighborhood of the
place should be very thoroughly canvassed in regard to a new
position.
Q. I understand your judgment to be then, Doctor, that really the
trouble with the present situation is that of administration? A. It is.
Q. Would it be possible, think you, to devise any system of itself
so perfect, that its effects could not be utterly destroyed by bad
No. 80.]
1965
administration? A. I think the bad administration could be pre-
vented by a law with sufficient rules of enforcement, especially in the
matter of penalties.
Q. Well, then, in the last analysis it comes down to this, does it not,
that good government in the excise department, as in other depart-
ments, is primarily a question of good character? A. I think so.
Q. And that is the one point to endeavor to determine in an appli-
cant and in an officer? A. I think the laws should be framed in such
a way as to meet that case much better than they do now.
Q. Had you in your mind crystallized any definite suggestion as to
the method by which those effects could be produced? A. I think
that the law proposed by the commission appointed by the Governor
under the statute was a law eminently fitted to meet precisely the
cases referred to, and to make the excise system a thorough one.
Q. Then to sum up, you substantially recommend as embodying
your best judgment, the conferees' bill? A. Yes; the commission bill.
Q. The modified commission bill or the original one? A. The
original one.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Did that bill of which you speak apply to all cities in the State
alike; was it a general bill, or did it take into consideration the
difference in conditions between New York city and other cities and
towns in the State? A. It made a difference.
Q. The bill itself made a difference? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. BROWN:
Q. In answer to a question by Senator Fassett, you said that the
penalties for violation of the law should be increased; are you aware
of the penalties which now could be inflicted under the present law
upon a license for violating the law? A. Yes; that could be.
Q. What are they? A. They can be fined, if convicted, or
imprisoned.
Q. Anything else? A. They can lose their license.
Q. Anything else? A. I don't think of anything else.
Q. If they have given a bond, can not the penalties on the bond be
recovered? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is an additional penalty? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you also aware that there is a statutory penalty? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. That is four penalties? A. Yes.
1966
[SENATE,
Q. Which a licensee under the present law incurs, if he violates the
law through ignorance, willfully, or by a misconception of the
law? A. Yes.
Q. How would you propose to increase those penalties? A. I
would have the laws enforced, and, moreover, for a second offense I
would have the man sent where his hair would be shaved and his
striped breeches would be put on.
Q. Under the present law a violator of the excise law can be put in
prison, if the court should so adjudge; can he not? A. Certainly;
what I want is a law to make them do it.
Q. It is a misdemeanor? A. It is a misdemeanor.
Q. It is a misdemeanor under the present law?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And if enforced they can be sent to jail A. Yes, sir.
Q. How much more jail could they have? A. I would have a law
which would compel the sending to jail for the second offense.
Q. A life sentence, doctor? A. Oh, no.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. I understood your recommendation to be that the fine part of
the penalty should be abolished and that a punishment for any breach.
of the law should be by imprisonments? A. I should be perfectly
willing to let a man have one chance with a small fine, but I think the
second offense should always be punished with the greatest severity.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Who composed the committee of which you speak, appointed to
revise the excise laws? A. Ex-Surrogate Rollins was a member of it,
Mr. Tollman was another, Mr. Kruse, from Cattaraugus, was another,
Mr. Smart was another and Mr. Max Stern was another; I think I have
given them all and yet I am not certain.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Was not Judge O'Brien a member of it? A. Oh, Judge O'Brien;
yes, sir.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Was the report unanimous? A. No; I think there was only one
dissenting voice, and that was Mr. Kruse who made a report of his
own, and I think Mr. O'Brien added to his signature a difference of
opinion in regard to some little matter.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Do you recollect the point upon which Mr. Kruse differed with
the commission? A. I think Mr. Kruse differed altogether with
No. 80.]
1967
the commission from the very bottom; he seemed to my mind to favor
nothing that was not absolute prohibition.
By Senator McNaughton:
Q. Your report was accompanied by a bill submitted to the Legis-
lature? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What became of that bill? A. That bill was taken into commit-
tee and manipulated and altered and then put forward, and vetoed by
the Governor.
Q. But it was changed substantially, was it not? A. It was changed
I think on two or three important points; it was not the bill I signed.
Q. Did you approve of the change made by the legislative com-
mittee? A. I did not.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Do you not think there is a fair ground for difference of opinion
on that subject, however? A. Oh, certainly.
Q. And that it is quite possible that the bill as amended in the
Legislature might have been even a better bill than that which you
formulated? A. It might have been, as matter of opinion, either
would have been admirable.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Where were the points of difference between the two bills, or
don't you recollect? A. I don't hardly remember.
Q. One was on the civil damage question, was it not? A. I think
not; I may be mistaken, I would not like to say.
Q. And was not one on the question of licensing steamboats and
cars, some trivial point? A. I would not like to commit myself; I don't
remember really; they have gone out of my mind.
By Senator McNaughton:
Q. When was that report submitted to the Legislature? A. If I
recollect right it must have been in January, 1889.
Q. Well, in the course of your testimony this morning you have
referred to a bill of last winter, have you not? A. No; I did not
refer to the bill of last winter.
Q. You only referred to the bill that accompanied your report? A.
Yes; the commission bill.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Was not this essentially the difference between the commission
bill and the bill as it came out of the legislative committee, viz.: That
it was contended that there were certain things in your bill which
1968
[SENATE,
might have a tendency, sooner or later, to raise the question or at least
involve the doubt as to whether licensees might not acquire some-
thing like a vested interest in the business? A. Yes; that was one
point.
Q. And that everything of that kind that was in your bill was
stricken out of the hands of the committee? A. I recollect well that
that was one point; there were one or two others.
Q. Was not that really the most important point of difference? A.
I suppose to a legal mind that was a very important point.
Q. That point was eliminated from the bill as sent by your com-
mission? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And as the bill came out of the committee, no such questions as
that could ever have arisen? A. No, sir.
Q. And to that extent do you think that was an improvement or not?
A. Well, it requires a legal mind to make a decision there; I could not
express an opinion.
Q. I mean in this particular: Do you think it is an improvement or
not to absolutely remove any doubt from the law on the point of the
possibility of a vested interest in the business? A. Well, I may show
myself a very poor hand at the law, but I say my sympathy was on
the side of the vested rights.
Q. It was? A. Yes, sir.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Well, doctor, you have continued your observation on the liquor
traffic and excise business since you have submitted your report? A.
Yes, sir; I have.
Q. Is there anything in your mind now that you would advise the
committee to add to that report, or would you change the report if
you were to submit it at the incoming Legislature? A. I personally
should like to submit just that very same bill again.
Q. And the same recommendations? A. The same recommendations.
Q. Can you give the committee an instance where proof was given
to the present excise board of the bad character of the applicant
where a license was granted by the excise board? A. No; I know of
no specific case; I only said the thing might occur under certain
circumstances.
Q. Do you know of any particular in which the rules adopted by
the present excise board differed from those which were adopted by
the previous board? A. I do not; I have reason to think they are
the same.
Q. When was your interview with President Meakim? A. I have
had several interviews with him since he entered the excise board.
No. 80.]
1969
Q. I mean the one where you and he compared notes as to the num-
ber of licenses? A. I would not be able to say at which one that par-
ticular thing occurred; I do not recollect; he has met me frequently;
I say frequently, several times since May, 1889, and talked over mat-
ters; I can not remember when this was.
Q. Have you the data at your home upon which you based the
opinion that there are more licenses granted by the present board
than by the previous board? A. I think I could find my data and
my calculation.
Q. Will you please furnish that to the counsel of the committee?
A. I will try and find it and furnish it; it must have been before
the summer vacation, and it may be difficult to get at the
I will try my best to do it.
papers, but
Q. There will be ample time? A. I will try my best to do it.
Q. It might be very valuable, because there seems to be a direct
difference of opinion between yourself and the commissioners? A.
There is.
Mr. BROWN. The official reports can be furnished to the committee.
Q. The point of difference between the administration of the
prior board, the board that immediately preceded this, and this board
was that that board had a tendency to restrict the number of licenses;
is that the idea? A. That was the statement of its president to me
very frequently.
Q. And the present board has a tendency to increase the number of
licenses; is that the point of difference in your mind? A. Yes; that
is what I have been led to think.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Do you know whether the preceding board was in harmony with
the president? A. It fluctuated; one of the members of the board
never was in harmony with the president; the other was half the time.
Q. Do you know how it is with the present board? A. No; I know
nothing from personal observation of the present board.
By Senator McNaughton:
Q. Has your society made any protests to the present excise board
in regard to revoking or against the granting of licenses, or petitioned
that licenses granted by them should be revoked, in any instance?
A. I have no doubt many cases have been, but committees to which I
do not belong have had charge of that matter; I know nothing, as
president of the society, in regard to details.
Mr. IVINS.- Mr. Chairman, that concludes the excise matter for the
present, and it certainly will not be resumed, if at all, for some time,
[Senate, No. 80.]
247
!
-1970
[SENATE,
and then possibly only for the purpose of making good certain lacunæ
in the formal evidence.
Senator FASSETT.- Well, I suppose we can assure Mr. Leventritt
and Mr. Brown that the question of the excise commission will not be
taken up without due notice to them.
Mr. IVINS.- Under no circumstances.
Senator FASSETT.-The committee would feel very loth to go on in
their absence.
Judge BROWN.— And in the meantime we may hand in the reports
of the various boards as to the number of licenses, if we desire.
Senator FASSETT.- Anything in the way of official testimony.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-Judge Brown, if you would group together
in a table the licenses granted each year for three or four or five years.
Judge BROWN.- I will have it done, sir.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- And, Mr. Brown, in that connection give the
number of employes each year, and the amount paid for salaries each
year, with the amount received for licenses.
Judge BROWN.—Yes.
Senator FASSETT. We have all that, I think.
Judge BROWN.-- You haven't it grouped.
Mr. IVINS. Before taking up the matter of the county clerk's office,
I want to call the attention of the committee to the main features,.
from an administrative and financial point of view, of the legal status
of the office. As the result of some investigation and some agitation
here, there was a law passed in the year 1884, known as chapter 299›
of the Laws of 1884.
Senator FASSETT.-That was one of the laws recommended by one:
of the so-called Roosevelt committees ?
Mr. IvINS.— Which was one of the so-called Roosevelt committee:
laws, which essentially modified the theory of the payment for services
rendered in that office. Theretofore the office had been, as other
county clerk's offices in the State, were fee offices to this extent, that…
there was no official salary paid directly out of the city treasury, but
that the county clerk paid himself and reimbursed himself for his
expenses and charges and the employment of his subordinates by the
income of the office from fees.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.— And those fees were fixed by statute.
•
Mr. IVINS. Those fees were fixed by statute. This law as passed,
provided by section 1, that all the provisions of law now in force
regulating the salary, fees, perquisites and emoluments of the city
and county clerk of New York, now in office, shall remain in full
force and effect until the expiration of his present term of office.
No. 80.]
1971
That, consequently, made the law applicable to the term of office, as I
recollect it, of Mr. Flack and the term of office of the present incumbent.
Section 2 provided that hereafter the salary of the county clerk should
be at the rate of $15,000 per annum as his compensation. Section 3
provided that all fees collected should be accounted for and paid over.
Senator FASSETT. To the chamberlain or the comptroller?
Mr. IVINS. That reads as follows: I do not think you will need
take those quotations that I make here, Mr. Stenographer. Just
simply refer to the section [Mr. Ivins reads section referred to]. And
I call particular attention to the statement, "all the fees, perquisites
and emoluments, including fees for searches," and I call your atten-
tion to the words, "or which he may receive for any and all official
services." Section 3 regulated the fees to be charged in certain cases.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- What are you reading from?
Mr. IvINS.—I am reading from the statute, chapter 299 of the Laws
of 1884. Section 5- and that I call your particular attention to,
because there was a subsequent law which bears upon that pro-
vided: [Reads.] He was required to give an official bond. Section
7 provided for the manner in which the fees should be accounted for,
the account of fees kept, and what those accounts must show.
Section 7 required the transcript of such account should be made
and filed with the comptroller, in form as prescribed by the comp-
troller. Section 9 provided the penalty for not accounting for and
paying over all the fees, the penalties applying both to failure to
account as well as failure to pay over. And then section 10 was the
repealing act and section 11 the enacting.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.— Mr. Ivins, as I understand it, the county
clerk of this county died recently.
Mr. IVINS.-The last elected incumbent of the office died within the
past month.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Yes. Well, you do not intend to have the
investigation refer to the conduct of his office?
.
Mr. IVINS. So far as Mr. Reilly is concerned, I intend to conduct
no investigation at the present time, referring in any way to his indi-
vidual or personal acts; but inasmuch as it is necessary to investigate
the conduct of the office generally, it will be necessary to investigate
it at one time or at another. It is immaterial whether it be done now
or whether it be done hereafter entirely, particularly in view of the
fact that I do not forsee that anything can arise in this investigation,
so far as I have any knowledge, that can, in any way, reflect upon Mr.
Reilly's personal character.
*
1972
[SENATE,
:
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Would it not be better to have that investi-
gation postponed to some future time, his death being so recent; the
affairs of the office must be-
Mr. IVINS. The investigation, as I propose to make it, is not an
investigation of Mr. Reilly's personal administration of the office. It
is an investigation of the system prevailing in that office. It was
supposed at the time that this
Senator FASSETT.— And that can be illustrated by the administration
of his predecessors.
Mr. IVINS. Can be illustrated by the administration of his predeces-
sors, and by our accountant from the record of the account books,
showing the volume of work done in the office during the present term.
In other words, a transcript of the accounts themselves will bring
out many of the marked features of the system. The thing which has
particularly attracted my attention to this office is the fact that it was
known at the time that the law of 1884 was passed that that was to its
incumbent one of the most lucrative offices in the State of New York.
The theory, as I understood it then, and as I understood it from the
members of that committee themselves, and from others who advo-
cated this legislation, was that if that were made a salaried office, in
the first place, it would not be so important a political prize as it had
theretofore been; and, in the second place, it would return large sums
of money to the city treasury, while at the same time bring a proper
compensation to the incumbent in the office. Now, as a matter of
fact, for a while the office showed a profit to the city as incident to the
change in the law. As it is to-day, the figures of the accountant, as I
will prove, will demonstrate the fact that the city is financially no
better off because of that enactment of the law of 1884; but, as a mat-
ter of fact, is very considerably worse off, because the office, instead of
being self-supporting, has now become a decided burden. And it is
for this investigation to discover, if possible, why this is the case; and
the examination of the administrative details of the office, the volumé
of work done in the office, the manner in which the work is done, the
manner in which the appropriations are made, and the manner in
which the appropriations are expended, will bring out those facts;
and if the Legislature erred and this office has become burdensome to
the city, it is a matter of the most importance to inquire why and how
the error can be remedied; or, assuming that it be no error, then how
the burden can be taken off the city, and those were the points which
were, in my mind and of which I spoke, not so much in detail, when it
was decided by the committee, at its executive session, to take this
matter up, and because of which I have gone on prosecuting my
No. 80.1
1973
inquiries, and getting my documentary evidence and the evidence of
the accountant in proper form.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Has the Governor appointed a clerk in place
of Mr. Reilly?
Mr. IVINS.-The Governor has not; but by the ipso facto, at least ex
vi termini of the statute, the deputy is the county clerk until that
vacancy is filled, with all the powers of the county clerk, in every
regard.
Senator FASSETT.- Mr. Ivins, is there anything in that statute with
reference to these expedited fees?
Mr. IVINS. That is the next statute to which I want to refer. The
law which I have read was chapter 299 of the Laws of 1884; the next
statute which was passed, as bearing upon these particular matters,
was chapter 235 of the Laws of 1886. That is an amendment to the
law of 1884, as section 1 recites. Under the law of 1884 it had pro-
vided for searching all other matters of record; that is, all other than
that, dockets of judgments and decrees, and transcripts of decrees;
he may be required to search for five cents per annum for them
respectively; for returning in his search any judgment or other matter
of lien, five cents each. As to the effect of the volume of fees received
that law made, it will be necessary to look to the accounts.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.—The receipts would be less.
Mr. IVINS. The receipts would certainly be less; could not possibly
be more, as incident to the operation of the statute. They might be
more, notwithstanding the decrease, as incident to the increase of
business.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Exactly.
Mr. IVINS.—But as incident to the operation of the statute alone
they could not possibly be more, and as incident to that they must
certainly be less, the main item of change being the reduction from
fifteen cents to ten cents in the matter of searching of dockets, for
judgment of decrees and transcripts of decrees. So much for the
matter of the regulation of the amounts of fees to be charged.
"Section five of said act is hereby amended so as to read as follows:
It shall be the duty of the said clerk, on the receipt of any order
directing searches of his office to be made, to cause the same to be
made without delay, and to certify the correctness of his return
within ten days of the receipt of the requisition therefor." That is
practically identical with the first part of the old section 5, except
that the time was extended from five days to ten within which
to make the return. "And he shall be held legally liable for all
damages," etc. He was under the old section. [Reads remainder of
A
1974
[SENATE,
+
&
act.] Now, that is the law, as I understand it; and if we are in error
in that regard, the present occupant of the office can, of course, set
us right.
Senator MCNAUGHTON. Has the present occupant been notified of
this examination to-day?
ނ
Mr. IVINS. He is here. Oh, yes; Mr. Scully is here. Not only
that, but in the absence of Mr. Flack, whom we have been unable to
secure service on. That is possibly due to the fact that the subpœna-
server went out only yesterday, and Mr. Flack appears not to be in
the city. Mr. Gilroy, Mr. Flack's deputy while in that office, is also
in the court-room.
HENRY M. TATE, recalled, testified as follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Mr. Tate, have you made a thorough and exhaustive examination
of the books and papers of the county clerk's office? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And as touching what particular matters? A. First, as to the
pay-roll of the county clerk's office for 1890; that I have prepared,
based upon the salaries paid for the month of March, 1890, as shown
by the pay-rolls in the comptroller's office.
Mr. IVINS. Let me interrupt you at that point to say that I will put
in, in the reports of the comptroller, which will all be part of the
evidence here, for the last six years, the aggregate of the pay-rolls,
because there is no necessity for having them in detail as to persons,
the aggregate pay-rolls running back through the entire period to
1884, which is our point of beginning.
Senator MCNAUGHTON. And the number of persons employed.
Mr. IVINS.— The number of persons employed.
The WITNESS.- Then I have also added to that this pay-roll is the
pay-roll, what I think may be called the pay-roll of the employes in
general of the county clerk's office; that is, those who are employed
directly upon what may be called county clerk's work, with the excep-
tion, this includes the salaries of the law clerk and the equity clerk.
Their names appear upon the pay-roll.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. In making up this pay-roll, you have assumed that the wages
paid for the month of March were duplicated twelve times a year?
A. Yes, sir.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Is that assumption correct; have you examined it? A. No, sir;
it is not absolutely.
No. 80.]
1975
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. It is not correct to cents? A. No, sir; it does not follow that
every man upon this pay-roll received the full monthly salary, because
he may not have worked the full month, but this is prepared upon
the basis of the salary that he received for that month, as representing
the salary he would have received for the year, if he worked during
the whole year.
Q. And as upon the basis of the estimates and appropriations for
that purpose? A. Yes, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Is there any reason why the month of March is an unfair month;
that is, would it show too small an average or too high an average?
A. I think it is. that the average - it is very close to the average;
I can tell you why I took the month of March; this part of the work
was prepared in the spring, at a time when I thought you probably
would take up the county clerk's office on the completion of the
excise board, and I didn't know how soon it would be completed.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. It was taken while the committee was at work, and when it might
be necessary to take this up, and that was the actual month at that
time? A. March was the latest month, and I have not changed it,
because the pay-roll has not materially changed.
}
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Would not vary then materially one way or the other? A. No, sir.
Q. No matter what month you took the transcript in? A. No, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. The only variance would be this, would it not; that in one month
there might be more absences because of illness or because of excuses
or something of that kind, and, consequently, in one month there
might be not quite so much service by days put in as another? A.
Yes; there is a possibility that some new clerk may hàve been
appointed; it is possible that some one may have resigned.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. I suppose there are months when there are more clerks employed
in that office than others, the business being greater? A. I think not.
Mr. IVINS. That certainly would not be the case with the month of
March, would it, Mr. Gilroy?
Mr. GILROY.- Not likely.
1976
[SENATE,
Mr. IVINS.-So that the month of March is a fair average?
Mr. GILROY.-Fair average.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Now go right on with your statement? A. Perhaps I can tell
you exactly the pay-roll for each month, if you wish it, from the 1st.
of January, 1890, right down to date.
Senator FASSETT.-It is not your idea to have Mr. Tate go all over
this in detail now?
་
Mr. IVINS.- No. Just simply state what his purpose is and then I
will base some questions on this for the purpose of bringing out
specific points I want to have your attention called to in the first
instance. The rest you will get in reading it in the record.
The WITNESS.-Besides the names of the persons who might be
called the regular employes of the county clerk's office, and who
appear upon the pay-rolls of the county clerk's office, I have added
also the names of two employes whose names appear upon the pay-
roll of the clerks of the Supreme Court; namely the law and the
equity clerk, because they are practically assigned to duties in the
county clerk's office, and in that respect would be regarded as part of
the working force of the office. Then I have prepared a statement
showing the sources from which fees have been received by the county
clerk from the 1st of January, 1886, down to the 1st of January, 1890.
That is in this report. In another report I have extended it down to
date. Then I have also prepared a statement showing the amount
paid to the various employes of the county clerk's office, including, as
before, the law and the equity clerks, from the beginning of January,
1886, down to the 1st of January, 1889, and I also have prepared a
supplementary report showing the salaries paid from the 1st of
January, 1890, down to date; that is, to the 1st of October, 1890.
Then I have also prepared statements showing what the total receipts
for fees from the county clerk's office were, not including the extra
searches, the trial and stenographers' fees; the expenditures for
salaries for each year, showing the gain or loss to the office as between
the salaries paid and the fees received. I think that, in general,
embraces the contents of the first paper submitted to me by Mr. Ivins.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. This would show that in 1886, the receipts of the office, over and
above the cost of administration, were about in round numbers,
$32,000? A. Yes, sir; that included the extra searches.
Q. And in 1889 the receipts of the office were, as over against the
expenditures of administration show a loss of $38,000? A. Yes.
>
No. 80.]
1977
Q. So that would make an apparent difference of about $60,000 ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Between 1886 and 1889? A. Yes.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-How do the receipts compare?
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Now, the receipts in 1886 seem to have approximated $129,000?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the receipts in 1889 seem to have approximated $58,000?
A. Fifty-nine.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Seventy thousand less? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. I think it would be well to study a little in detail; in 1886, for
instance, it appears from this that the searches, the form of return of
which, he says, see Exhibit 1; what items does Exhibit 1 refer to, and
what items are covered in the class of searches which you have
itemized at the head of your column? A. Exhibit 1 represents
searches.
Q. Does it represent all searches? A. No, sir; regular searches,
not the extra searches which are expedited.
Q. But it means all searches except those which are expedited ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Does that item as you have stated it here, comparatively, from
the years 1886 to 1889, include the expedition fees as well as fees in
all other cases? A. Exhibit 1 is a form of return made by the county
clerk for searches; that exhibit, as returned to the comptroller does
include the extra searches; in my statement I have separated the
regular searches and the extra searches so that in point of fact the
entire exhibit is in the report; but the extra searches are not
included — but I have separated the two, so that the regular searches
and the extra searches both make up Exhibit 1.
Q. In 1886, it appears from this that the returns of the office for
regular searches were $87,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In round figures? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And for extra searches they were $13,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In 1887 the returns from extra searches were $88,000? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Showing an increase over 1886; and from extra searches were
$17,000, showing a further increase over 1886? A. Yes, sir.
Q. But in 1888 the returns from regular searches declined to
$40,000? A. Yes, sir.
[Senate, No. 80.]
248
1978
[SENATE,
Q. Which was somewhat less than one-half? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Of the amount received in the years 1886 and 1887; and the
returns from extra searches were $11,000, which was a very material
decrease from the year 1887? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In 1889 the returns from regular searches were $20,000? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Or one-half of what they had been in 1888 ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And only one-quarter of what they had been in 1887? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. And the returns from extra searches were $5,000, or somewhat
less than one-half of what they had been for the same item for the
previous year? A. Yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT.
By Mr. IVINS:
And one-third of what they had been in 1887.
Q. One-third of what they had been in 1887? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, from certified and exemplified copies of returns to the Court
of Appeals it had averaged about $6,751 right through until last year,
when there was an increase to $7,751? A. Yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT.- That is an increase of about $1,000.
Mr. IVINS.- An increase of a thousand, and $800 over 1888 and of
a thousand dollars over 1887 and 1886.
Q. From certificates of official character qualifying notaries and
other officials, filing and recording miscellaneous papers, the returns
had been $16,591.86; about the same in 1887; had increased about a
thousand dollars in 1888, but in 1889 had fallen off to $14,901? A.
Yes, sir; but I think that the occasion of that falling off will appear in
another title, of fees received, which will appear later on, there being
none credited to that account for 1886 and 1887, and only a small
portion in 1888.
Q. Now, there was practically the same amount returned in all four
years from judgment-rolls, certificates and other papers? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is an average of about 3,000 and a hundred dollars? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. From equity judgments and filing and recording miscellaneous
papers, about the same amount was received in three years, the four
years? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Although in 1889, as compared with 2,854 received in 1886, there
was only $2,374 received in 1889? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Or proportionately quite a decrease; from transcripts filed, liens
filed, lis pendens filed and recorded, etc., for form of return as per Exhibit
6, there are no entries in the first of these two years; there is an entry
No. 80.]
1979
of $327 in the third year and an item of $4,717 in the fourth year?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The result of all of which is this
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. What is the cause of that? A. I don't know; I think—I don't
know positively, but my impression is that these were fees which were
returned formerly under some other title.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. The result of which is that, as against $129,817, total receipts for
1886, there were but $59,163 received in 1889? A. Yes, sir.
Q. The law was the same touching all four of these years. A.
So far as I know.
Q. And touching the receipts of fees charged during all of these
years? A. So far as I know.
Q. You not having taken in this statement any account of the fees
received under the law of 1884 and up to 1886 prior to the change?
A. No, sir.
Q. So far as appears by the books or records of the office, have you
been able to see or discover any explanation of this decrease? A. I
can not say that I have from any records of the office.
Q. From an investigation of the records of the office, however, and
what you have been able to discover there, has anything been suggested
to you as explaining this decrease? A. In a general way the decrease
would be explained by the fact that the searching is now done by out-
side companies, such as the title and guaranty companies, and that
amount of business has been taken away from the county clerk's office.
Q. That is probably, is it not, the most important element? A. It
is the most important element.
Q. I notice you say, in addition to these amounts there was also
paid into the treasury, through the medium of the county clerk, during
the above-mentioned years, as follows: From clerks of the Supreme
Court, for trial and extract fees and from stenographer's fees, in the
year 1886, $8,440.57, and a slight increase each year up to 1889, when
it was $9,296? A. I have made that statement because those fees are
received through the agency of the county clerk's office, but it is not
fair that those should be credited as against the fees he has received
because the salaries of the stenographers, etc., are not charged as
against those fees.
Q. These were simply passed into his accounts and passed out of
his accounts again, because he happens to be the county clerk? A.
Yes, sir.
1980
[SENATE,
Q. And the officer through whom it must be done? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, that covers the revenues of the office? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, as to the expenditures of the office your statement would
seem to show that the total expenditures of the office for 1886 were
$98,161; for 1887, $108,357; for 1888, $106,235, and for 1889, $97,000?
A. That is including the amounts paid for extra searches.
Q. Yes; they are the total expenditures of the office for all classes
of payments to subordinates, salaries of the clerk himself, etc.? A.
Yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT.
And for extra help.
Mr. IVINS.— And for extra help.
Q. Deducting the amount paid for extra searches, however, you
find that the payments were $86,984 in 1886, and $93,268 in 1889, for
instance? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, what does this part of that statement mean; receipts 1886;
receipts not including extra searches; trial and stenographers' fees,
$116,465; expenditures for salaries, not including amount paid for
extra searches, $86,984.55, making a gain of $29,480.54; by saying
making a gain" there, you mean that that is the profit on the
account? A. Yes, sir.
·
Senator FASSETT.- That is the net income to the city.
Q. That is the net income to the city? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Receipts for extra searches were $13,352.70? A. Yes, sir.
Q. With the expense to add, $11,177.07? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And on that item there was an income or revenue to the city of
$2,175? A. Yes, sir.
Q. The income or revenue to the city was net, from the general
searches, and all expenditures for salaries, $24,628, in 1887? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And net from extra searches, $2,176.57? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which was a slight decrease of the net income to the city as
compared with 1886? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In 1888 the two items corresponding were $26,103 and $1,393?
A. In 1888 is a loss; that is a loss-loss of $26,103, less the gain for
extra searches.
Q. In 1888 the receipts you say were $70,309? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the expenditures $96,413? A. Yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT.-Making a loss to the city on that item of $26,103 ?
The WITNESS.— Yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT.—Making a difference between 1887 and 1888 of
somewhere about $50,000.
Mr. IvINS.— Over $50,000 difference to the city — difference between
a credit balance of about $25,000 and a debit balance of about $25,000.
No. 80.]
1981
Q. Although it did make a gain on the item of extra searches by
about $1,093 that year as compared with $2,076 the year before?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was your attention called to the coincidence that the amount
paid over as the payment earned on the extra searches in 1886 was
$2,075 and in 1887 $2,176 ? A. Yes, sir; I noticed that fact.
Q. Do you find any way of accounting for it; do you think it is
entirely accidental? A. I think it can be accounted for.
Q. In 1889 it appears from your return that the loss was $39,432 on
the general account, but with a profit on the extra searches of $1,149?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. As against $1,393 of the year before? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. IVINS. This paper is to be marked Exhibit “A,” and wants to
be put in before the beginning, or at least just at the beginning of
Mr. Tate's evidence, and transcribed there. [Paper marked Exhibit
"A" of this date.]
Q. You have brought that account down, have you not, to date?
A. Yes, sir.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Has the county clerk an abstract copy of
Mr. Tate's figures?
Mr. IVINS.- No, sir.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.—I think it would be well for you to furnish
him one.
Mr. IVINS.-Well, if the stenographers will put in typewriting their
minutes, also prepare a copy of that statement and a copy of the tes-
timony as well, if the committee desires it, it can go to the present
county clerk.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.— I think it would be well to furnish it to him.
Mr. GILROY.-If you will just let me glance at it, that will do.
Q. Is this your supplemental statement, bringing it down from
January first to October first of the present year? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that completes the accounting, as far as it is practicable to
do, at the present time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I mean the part of the accounting corresponding to that state-
ment which we have already had in? A. Yes, sir. [Paper marked
Exhibit "B" of this date.]
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. This supplemental statement shows an increasing ratio of loss.
to the city in the conduct of the office, does it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. The increase since the loss began
growing larger, has it not? A. Yes, sir.
the loss has been continually
1982
[SENATE,
Senator FASSETT.
About fifty per cent a year.
Mr. IVINS.- Falling off about fifty per cent per annum, and instead
of a profit of some $26,000 in 1887, we now have in this present year a
loss of, as estimated, something about $38,000 or $39,000. Then that
would correspond with last year's loss, making an actual difference in
of about $65,000 at the present time.
Q. Now, have you made any figures to show what the profits of the
office were in 1884, at least under the law of 1884, but prior to the
passage of the law of 1886? A. In 1884 these fees were received by
the county clerk, weren't they?
Senator FASSETT. As his personal property, and no public record
of the same, was there?
The WITNESS.—I have no records, that I know of, showing what fees
were received by the county clerk.
Mr. IVINS. Mr. Gilroy has already been sworn, as the committee
will recollect. When did Mr. Flack take office?
Mr. GILROY.- On the 1st of January, 1886.
The WITNESS.-I have covered from that period.
Senator FASSETT.- The law of 1884 took effect January 1, 1886.
Mr. IVINS.- Eighteen hundred and eighty-six, and virtually took
effect in its amended form when it did take effect?
The WITNESS.— Yes, sir; Mr. Keenan was the former county clerk.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. You stated that searches was one of the most important ele-
ments; you mean by that the largest source of income? A. Yes, sir;
they were the largest source of income, as shown by my tabulated
statements; now they seem to be smaller.
Q. You give as a reason that those searches go to the title insurance
companies? A. Yes, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Well, Mr. Tate, as the result of your examination, have you any
reason to suppose that that accounts for the entire diminution of
business? A. I think so; I see no reason why I can give any other
reason for its diminution.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. There are only two ways, aren't there, for it to have fallen off —
three ways, we will say; one is by the legal reduction in the amount
of fees to be charged, and we don't know that any such reduction has
been made; the second will be about the failure to properly charge
and collect the legal fees? A. Yes, sir; that could be.
No. 80.]
1983
!
Q. And the third would be an actual decrease in the volume of
business? A. Yes, sir.
And the only thing that you have any knowledge of is the
decrease in the volume of business? A. That is all I have any
knowledge of.
Q. There is nothing in the books of the department, so far as you
have been able to discover, which shows any failure to properly
collect and account for fees? A. I know of none.
Q. But you have not audited back the work and checked it off for
the purpose of seeing whether that had been done? A. No, sir; I
have not.
Q. That would be a most laborious and impracticable task, would it
not, under the present system? A. Yes, sir.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Mr. Ivins, under the existing statute, does
the county clerk guarantee the correctness of the searches which he
makes?
Mr. IVINS.-Yes. He shall be legally liable for any damages resulting
from errors or mistakes in the searches by him; that is the provision.
Q. Now, your attention was called to the matter of the preservation
of public records? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you make an examination of the expenditures as incident to
that? A. I did.
Q. Is this the result of the examination [showing paper]? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. And the figures as shown there are accurate as compared with
the books? A. Yes.
[Paper referred to marked Exhibit C, October 9, 1890.]
Mr. IVINS. Now, I call the committee's attention to the fact that
this work is done under chapter 57, of the Laws of 1883.
Q. Now, this work is done under chapter 57, of the Laws of 1883,
I see? A. Eighteen hundred and eighty-three.
Q. The expenditures for copying, comparing map work and doing
binding from July, 1883, to October 1, 1890, have been, you say, as
follows: for 1883, recording clerks, two to three, $100 per month,
$1,630; bookbinder, one, $100 per month, $600, making an aggregate
for that year, $2,230? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In 1884 you reported it to have been $14,943.27? A, Yes, sir.
Q. The recording clerks have been increased in number from three
to eleven? A. They range from three to eleven on the pay-rolls.
Q. And that item of $12,251, as compared to the item of $1,630 in
the previous year-
1984
[SENATE,
!
Senator FASSETT.
Have you any figures to show the difference in
the amount of work actually done?
Mr. IVINS.-Yes; that will come out, I think.
Q. In 1885 you report $15,764? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In 1886, $16,700? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In 1887, $18,062? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In 1888, $18,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in 1889, $17,000, and in 1890, $13,037; that is, to the date of
this report? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Making a total expended during this time for the preservation
of public records of $116,178.84; deducting the amount paid during
this period to bookbinders, $11,400, making a total for recording,
comparing and map work of $104,778? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that that is a statement of the cost to the city and county
from 1883 to date, for work in the preservation of the records? A.
Outside of bookbinders.
Q. In the county clerk's office? A. The 116,000 represents the
entire expense; the 1,400 represents the copying, comparing and map
work, not including bookbinders.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Out of $116,000, in other words, the bookbinders got $11,000?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is done for the purpose of estimating the cost of the work as
compared with the volume of the work, the actual expenditures for
the preservation of the rocords in that office being $116,000 during
this time? A. Yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT.— Then add a quarter of 13,000 to 13,000, and you
get about what the rate is for this year, and it brings it a little over
$16,000, not far from the sum that was expended last year?
Mr. IVINS.-Yes.
By Mr. IVINS:
"
Q. Now, these recording clerks and others are entered in the list of
the expenditures of the office as shown on the item of outgo? A.
Do you mean by the statement which has been already submitted?
Q. Yes. A. No, sir.
Q. This is additional to that? A. This is additional.
Q. So that in addition to the loss of about $65,000, which the office
is now sustaining, as shown by your prior statement, there has been
during the last eight years an expense which would go to loss account
of $116,000? A. Yes, sir.
No. 80.]
D
1985
Q. Now, if this item be for this present year what it was for the last
year, $17,000, that would have to be added to the item, say $65,000, as
shown by your last report, in that way making an actual net cost to
the city of that office of eighty-two or three thousand dollars per
annum, would it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that the office which was expected to show a revenue to the
city is now, because of all of these reasons, not only not self-support-
ing, but showing a loss of some $82,000? A. I think if you will refer to
the statement that in 1883, 1884 and 1885 the city had to pay the cost
of these recording clerks and the bookbinders.
Mr. IvINS.— They did at that `time because the appropriations for
that were made specifically under the law by the board of estimate
and apportionment as a special matter?
The WITNESS. Yes, sir.
Senator MCNAUGHTON. Have there been more books rebound
within four or five or six or seven years past than before that?
Mr. IVINS.- I think we will reach that in a minute if we take the
exact amount of work that has been done.
Q. I notice you report 140 volumes of equity judgments have been
completed and thirteen volumes partly finished? A. Yes.
Q. That is the total work? A. So I am informed.
Q. Now, you may be able to answer Senator McNaughton's question:
Do you know how much of that work was done in 1883, 1884 and
1885, as compared with what is being done now? A. I think I can
reach that point, although I haven't made up the figures; I don't know
of any way by which I can say how much was done in any one year
prior to 1885; these books are marked upon the back with the number
of the year in which they were completed either begun or completed;
none of the books bear any marks showing what year the work was
begun or completed until 1885, so that we would have to credit as against
1883, 1884 and 1885 all the books which are marked 1885, then 1886,
'7, '8, etc.; I think I can make that up, assuming that the work was
absolutely done in those years, but the comparing of those books may
have been in subsequent years, so that so much of that expense would
be charged to a subsequent year; but I can get, so far as the marks
upon the backs of the books are any indication of the work done in
those years if you wish me to.
Q. Will you do it? A. Certainly I will do it.
Q. You say that the total number of pages covered during this
period has been 84,336? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is actual transcribing? A. That is actual transcribing.
Senate, No. 80.]
249
-1986
[SENATE,
Q. Considerable of the work remains to be done, so far as compar-
ing these transcriptions with the original books and documents? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Only eighteen volumes, you say, bear the certificate of the
county clerk, that he has compared them with the original record on
file in the office, and that the same is a true copy thereof, and of the
whole of said original? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that out of 153 volumes -
ones.
A. One hundred forty finished
Q. That is right; out of the 140 finished volumes, only eighteen
have been certified to by the county clerk, and really have been
properly finished; those have been compared? A. Yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT.-So that only eighteen have the official approval,
and can be used in making official searches? A. Yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT.- Or can be used in court?
Mr. IVINS.-´Or can be used in court.
Q. So that for this work which has cost $116,000, and which covers
140 volumes, and which has been running on for the last eight years,
only eighteen volumes actually bear the certificate, and can be used
as legal evidence? A. Yes, sir.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Does the law require the clerk to certify?
Mr. IVINS.-I will read the statute.
Q. All of these certificates were given by Mr. Reilly, who has just
died? A. Yes, sir.
Q. There were no certificates prior to his time at all? A. No, sir.
Q. He is the only one, consequently, who had ever really completed
a single volume of this work on that basis? A. Yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT.— Made it officially available. The cost per page,
as far as the work has progressed, is one dollar twenty-four cents.
Q. That you find to be the actual cost, on an actual calculation, do
you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. One dollar twenty-four cents per page? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You are yourself a professional accountant; as a man drafting
documents and copying documents, you know about how much work
a good, able-bodied, competent clerk ought to be able to do in a day
in the way of transcribing, do you; you know the cost of one of the
clerks in your office to whom you are paying a salary; how many
pages of this work do you think the average competent clerk could
do per diem, doing an honest, fair day's work each day? A. I want
to make this statement; there are some of the documents there which
can not be copied with rapidity; they are old; they are worn, and the
writing is of a very early date, and, of course, it would take longer
time to copy such records.
No. 80.]
1987
Q. Is that a large or small proportion of the records? A. I can
not say; I should think that the work upon which they have been
engaged, was in copying the earlier records, and not the later ones;
so that in that respect it would be a little difficult for me to say how
much they ought to do; but take ordinary copying, I-
Q. Leaving apart the question of the time; suppose the transcribing
was itself a perfectly easy thing; that is, that the record to be read
was perfectly legible and just as legible as one of the modern records
would be; how many pages a day do you think could be transcribed
by a clerk? A. I should think a man could very easily do from eight
to ten pages.
Q. In a day of how many hours; eight hours? A. I should say in
eight hours; when I say eight hours - from 9 to 5-I mean, of
course, that includes a lunch time for the clerk.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. This copying and recopying has to be done with strict accuracy,
has it not? A. Certainly.
Q. Not only in regard to punctuation, letters and figures, but you
copy also an error in spelling; they do, don't they in other words,
they make it an exact transcript of the original book? A. I suppose
the object is that it shall be an exact transcript; whether they do fol-
low errors in spelling or not, of course, I don't know; but, of course,
it should be an exact copy.
Q. That, of course, is implied, that they will make it an exact tran-
script? A. Yes, sir; that is my understanding.
Q. In every particular? A. That is my understanding.
Mr. IVINS. Now, the statute which you referred to, Senator
McNaughton, is as follows: "Whenever by reason of age, exposure,"
etc. [reads]; so that the certification is there provided for as one of
the things antecedent to use under the revised statutes.
Senator MCNAUGHTON. And the county clerk is to be the judge of
the necessity of recopying?
Mr. IVINS.-Recopying; yes, "and the officers making the tran-
scripts "[reads].
Senator FASSETT.- The judge of the mutilation and obliteration is
the clerk himself?
Mr. GILROY.—I would like to explain that.
Mr. IVINS.- Go ahead.
Mr. GILROY.—The course pursued is this: the county clerk goes
through the records and ascertains what records require to be copied
and transcribed; he makes a schedule of those records and he sub-
mits them to the Supreme Court; the judge of the Supreme Court,
1988
[SENATE,
whom they are submitted, if in his judgment they are proper, approves
of it, and this approval, together with that certificate, is sent to the
board of estimate and appropriation for the necessary appropriation;
the pay-rolls before being paid, have also to be approved by a judge
of the Supreme Court, after the work is done.
´Senator FASSETT.— That is the practice; the law does not require
the first submission to the judge.
Mr. GILROY.-The law practically does, because the Supreme Court
wouldn't certify to the expense unless they first have the privilege of
certifying to the papers that should be copied. Furthermore, I
believe the statute has been changed this year in that regard, so that
the Supreme Court is left out.
Mr. IVINS. So that the Supreme Court has no longer to certify?
Mr. GILROY.—No longer has to certify.
Mr. IVINS. So that the payment is now made on the certificate of
the county clerk.
Senator FASSETT. You say there: "The following is a list of the
clerks and bookbinders whose services are charged to the preservation
of public records." There is one item you have made 11,400—
Mr. IvINS.- I was going back to that because I wanted to get that
in this form.
Q. "The following is a list of the clerks and bookbinders whose
services are charged to the preservation of public records in the
county clerk's office for the month of September, 1890;" you took
that simply as a typical month? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the month during which you were actually working? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. They appear there to be one chief temporary recording clerk at
$125 per month; one bookbinder at a hundred dollars per month;
one bookbinder at seventy-five dollars per month and twelve tempo-
rary recording clerks at a hundred dollars per month, making a total
expenditure for account of this particular pay-roll, of $1,500 per month;
at least for the month of September, 1890; I call the committee's
attention to this other statement which completes this particular
report; as I have already stated $11,400 has also been paid to the
bookbinders and charged to the preservation of old records; on
inquiry, I was told that the work performed consisted of putting addi-
tional leaves into some of the books so that the document could be
completed in one volume, and in cases where it was necessary to sub-
stitute a corrected page, in cases where errors had been made; it was
also stated that the binders were engaged in other work for the county
clerks, in general; that completes that statement? A. Yes, sir.
No. 80.]
1989
J
Mr. IVINS. I call the attentior of the committee to some facts which
will not be controverted, can be testified to formally by anyone, if
necessary, but can stand on the record, I think: Pay-rolls of the judges,
clerks, stenographers, attendants of the Supreme Court are prepared
by the county clerk. That you have discovered by reference to pay-
rolls?
The WITNESS.— Yes, sir.
Q. The stenographers, librarian, crier and attendants are appointed
by the courts; the county clerk appoints the following clerks under
section 1112 of the Consolidation Act, their salaries being fixed by the
act? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is, a law clerk, $3,500 per annum; an equity clerk, clerk of
General Term, clerk of Special Term, part one; clerk of chambers
clerk of Circuit, part one, part two, part three and two recording
clerks? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You say there were also three other clerkships which you were
informed were credited to the Supreme Court under the provisions of
the code? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Namely: Clerk to the Special Term, part two, at $2,000 per annum;
clerk to the Circuit, part four, $2,000 per annum; clerk of chambers
records, $1,200 per annum? A. Yes, sir.
Q. All of these thirteen clerks were appointed prior to the term of
Edward J. Reilly? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Except the clerk of chambers, Ambrose O. McCall, and recording
clerk, John S. Hill? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. IVINS.—That will do for the present, Mr. Tate. Mr. Gilroy will
take the stand.
THOMAS F. GILROY, being recalled, further testified as follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You were deputy county clerk under Mr. Flack? A. I was.
Q. And you held that office for the term of three years? A. I did.
Q. From the 1st of January, 1886? A. Yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT.- Was this his first experience in the office?
Q. And covering 1886, 1887 and 1888? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was your first experience in the office? A. I think in
1868, 1869 and 1870, or thereabouts, I was clerk in the Supreme Court,
part 3, who held office under the then county clerk.
Q. The county clerk is the clerk of the Supreme Court; is he not?
A. The statute; yes, sir.
Q. Is he the clerk of the Supreme Court and the Common Pleas
also? A. No; he has nothing to do with those courts except as
county clerk to file such judgments as may come down upon them.
1990
[SENATE,
Q. As clerk of the Supreme Court he has the appointment of cer-
tain subordinate clerks or officers who serve in the Supreme Court?
A. He has.
Q. For instance, the law clerk, equity clerk, clerk of General Term
the clerk of Special Term, chambers clerk and the third circuit, and
two recording, are the appointees of the county clerk? A. They are;
let me state that while they do not all serve in the Supreme Court
locally, they do work connected with the Supreme Court, as for
instance, the law clerk and the equity clerk have their offices in the
county clerk's office, but all their labors are in connection of judg-
ments of the Supreme Court and orders of the court.
Q. Under that theory of the law they are appointed by the county
clerk? A. They are.
Q. Under the practice of the law they are appointed by the county
clerk as well? A. Under the theory of the law and under the
practice; both.
Q. Is it not the fact that, in reality, the county clerk, inasmuch as
these people are the servants of the court, appoints to these particu-
lar offices the persons designated by the court itself, as a rule? A. It
is not.
Q. It is not? A. Not to my knowledge; my knowledge is just the
other way.
Senator FASSETT.- How is that?
Mr. IVINS.— I asked Mr. Gilroy whether or not the courts them-
selves, who were to avail of the services of these people, virtually
designated to the county clerk the persons whom they desired to have
appointed.
The WITNESS. It is not so.
Mr. IVINS.-Is Mr. Tate still here ?
Mr. GILROY.-He is right behind you.
Mr. IVINS.-Let me ask you, Mr. Tate, these officers spoken of here,
are they also included in your statements of the expenses of the
office?
Mr. TATE.— No; they are not, with the exception of the law and the
equity clerk.
Mr. IVINS. These others have to be added.
Mr. TATE. Yes, sir.
Mr. IVINS.
Then I call the attention of the committee to the fact
that there would have to be added to that approximate net loss
through the office as administered of about $80,000—
Mr. GILROY Will you let me make a statement on that point.
Mr. IVINS.-Yes, sir.
No. 80.]
1991
Mr. GILROY.-The appropriation made by the board of estimate and
apportionment for the purposes mentioned in that schedule is included
in the appropriation made for the Supreme Court, and not for the
county clerk's office.
Mr. IvINS.— That elucidates it perfectly; so that it covered on an
entirely different account.
Mr. GILROY.- It couldn't have been in any way included in it.
Q. You heard the testimony of Mr. Tate with regard to the decrease
in the income of the office? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you, as far as lies in your power, as incident to your
experience in the office, explain to the committee why that is, and
why the office has now become a burden to the city? A. There is
only one reason for it, and that is the organization and creation of the
title guaranty companies, which have entirely taken away the revenue
of the city for searches; although I have not made an examination, I
think it will be found upon examination that the income from other
sources is about the same?
Q. What do you mean about that? A. From other sources from
other items in the schedule mentioned by Mr. Tate.
Q. That appears so on the face of Mr. Tate's statement? A. I have
not examined that to find out, but I think it would be so found if it
was examined.
Q. It does so appear from the statement itself? A. Yes, sir; and
there is not anything whatever that the falling off in the revenue is
occasioned by the fact that the title companies have come into
existence; I would like to make a statement in this connection
although I wouldn't be considering as volunteering anything.
Q. Make any suggestion you please? A. Before 1886, the fees for
searches were the property of the county clerks, whereas under the
Reform Act of 1885, those fees were directed to be turned into the
city treasury and the expenses of the searches were to be paid by the
city.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. That is the city took all the income and paid all the expenses?
A. Yes, sir; and paid all the expenses; the act of 1885; also I think
reduced the time for the return of searches to ten days; when that
law went into effect on the 10th of January, 1886, for the first time
great difficulty was found in making the returns of all the searches
within the required time; the number of searchers was not adequate
to it, and as there was no extra compensation to be paid the search-
ers, the extra fees having been abolished under the Reform Act of
1884, the searchers refused to work after hours, they receiving but an
1992
[SENATE,
annual compensation from the city, and it was found absolutely
impossible to return the searches in the time required by law at the
demand of the attorneys doing business with the office; thereupon the
lawyers themselves, the lawyers of New York city, went to the Legis-
lature and asked for the passage of some act which should give
them relief; their demand resulted in the passage of the Expedi-
tion Act, which was read by Mr. Ivins.
Q. That was the law of 1886? A. That was the law of 1886; it was
passed long after the Reform Act of 1884, and it was passed in obedience
to the demand of the lawyers that they couldn't pass titles; up to
that time we did everything we could to endeavor to get the searches
out in time; but it was found to be utterly impossible until this act was
passed; when this act was passed there was no difficulty found; it
reduced the volume of searches required to be returned in ten days
by requiring them to be returned in shorter time, and we are able to
take them out of the great volume of searches and have them
returned, by overwork.
Q. You say this volume of searches, of regular searches, has been
taken by the title guaranty company? A. Nearly all of it; they do
most all of it; I can't state is being done now, but in the last year of
my term in office I found that nearly all the searches put in by the
title companies, and they were very numerous, were searches for
very short periods.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Why is it then that the amount paid in the county clerk's office
does not seem to suffer a corresponding diminution? A. Let me say
this to you without answering your question; the revenue is only
affected in that quarter; and why a diminution has not taken place
I am not able to answer.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Do the title insurance companies do their work at less prices
than the county clerk's office? A. I don't know what their schedule
of prices are, but they seem to get most of the work; they are very
nearly all composed of lawyers, and, of course, real estate lawyers will
go where they understand such matters.
Q. At whose suggestion was the law of 1884 passed? A. I am not
able to say; it was passed, I think, on the recommendation of a report
of the committee on cities, of which Mr. Theodore Roosevelt was
chairman.
Q. That is the law of 1886, was passed upon that recommendation?
A. It was passed on the demand of the lawyers in order to give them
the relief they required in order to get their titles passed.
No. 80.]
1993
Q. The lawyers who did business in the county clerk's office? A.
Yes, sir; the county clerk neither recommended it nor asked for it.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Do you remember how many clerks you had employed as search-
ers, in 1886? A. I think there were nine; I am not positive, but my best
impression is that there were nine.
Q. Was that number adequate to do the business? A. By doing
overwork; yes, sir.
Q. And in 1887 and 1888, do you recollect how many there were ?
A. I think that number would have been adequate to do the work by
working overwork.
Q. And in 1887 and 1888, do you recollect how many you did actu-
ally employ? A. My impression is that we decreased the salaries, or
removed one or two of the searchers in 1888 for some error in the
returns, and we then decreased the salaries of those who were
appointed to succeed them, and in that way, I think, we employed a
number of searchers.
Q. The searchers, so-called, were the only clerks who did search,
were they not? A. That is all; one moment more; when we went
into office, another great difficulty arose; the searchers then in office
had been there some fifteen or twenty years, and probably had an idea
that they ought to have a monopoly of the searching.
Q. They possessed special records of the searches? A. They did,
and they carried them entirely out of the office, and left us entirely
destitute of a scrap of paper on which searches could be conducted.
Q. Those old searchers subsequently became, either directly or
indirectly, interested in the new title companies? A. I think they
did, and the city was obliged to buy from them, for something like
$30,000, the data on which the searches could be conducted; later on,
I will give you a reason in reference to this point why the certificates
were not put upon those books properly.
Q. Give it to us now? A. The reason was that I didn't wish that
the city should again suffer loss by having the books or papers carried
away; I therefore made a rule that no memoranda should be made
except during the hours of 9 and 4, when the searchers are employed
for the city, and for which they are paid by the city, so that they
wouldn't be able to make any memoranda in connection with the
books after 4 o'clock.
Q. On the theory that their work, then, would belong to the city?
A. Yes.
Q. They having taken the position that the old work that they sold
had been done by themselves in their own way, in their own time, and
[Senate, No. 80.]
250
1994
[SENATE,
that it belonged to them? A. Yes, sir; and as fast as that work was
done we paid to comparing clerks, one on the temporary pay-roll and
one on the regular county clerk's pay-roll, to compare and check that
work; and, of course, the work of the old records had to be kept in
boxes; while that was being done I have in my mind a memorandum
in my hand of the work that was done during that period.
By Senator Fassett:
Q. I discover here that Mr. Tate's exhibit says that under the present
county clerk there are eight searchers employed? A. I think the
present county clerk made a reduction because of the reduction in the
volume of business.
Q. And in 1886, you think, there were but nine? A. Nine or ten.
Q. This year they are doing $10,000 worth of work; last year,
$20,000; and in 1886, about $100,000? [Question not answered.]
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Now, you may refer to your memoranda? A. Do you want to
ask any question?
Q. I want to ask some more questions; but we might just as well
take it in the order you have it, because it is pertinent to these
points? A. The work that was done during those periods, and for
the purposes that I have just stated was, two libers of equity suits
which averaged about 800 pages apiece, and maps; and in the first
place let me state, that when I went into office I found that during
the term of office of my predecessor a great many of the books and
maps had not been completed, and he took those up and completed
them first for the years 1883, 1884, and 1885; we copied seventy-five
books containing from 500 to 800 pages each; those I believe were not
certified to; we copied thirty-six volumes of judgments and equity
suits, which were in the safe books, and those I think were certified;
we copied books of avowals, what they call books of avowals, those
were short indexes which could be referred to at once, in order to find
the entry of a judgment or execution; they averaged about seventy-
five pages each; those had to be compared and checked over; we also
had to compare and check them twice for fear of mistakes; there were
28,000 names of families in the indexes of judgments and avowals,
nearly 100 volumes, that were copied, checked and compared; there
were 22,000 names of indexes of equity suits, in which the same thing
was done during that period of time; there were transcripts of judg-
ments and decrees in the judgment docket-books e, f, g, h, i, j, k, and 1,
about seven or eight volumes that were compared and certified; there
were books of receivers, and supplementary proceedings from 1862 to
;
No. 80.]
1995
}
1877, and from 1877 to 1884, which were copied, compared and
certified.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. These are now the public documents which under this law you
were having recopied and preserved? A. Yes, sir; and which form-
erly were claimed to belong to the other parties.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Go on with your statement? A. Insolvent assignments from
1840 to 1887, were compared, copied and certified; foreclosures by
advertising — this was only one volume from 1882 to 1887 were
copied, compared and certified; general assignments from 1860 to
1884, were copied, compared and certified; I think there were three
or four volumes of those.
Q. Was that work all done by the so-called clerks specially employed
for the preservation of old records? A. Nearly all of it.
Q. What part of it was not done by them? A. There were seventy-
five volumes; did you ask what part of this was not done by them?
Q. Yes? A. Some of the searchers, when they were not employed
in doing anything else, were employed at that; there were certain
seasons of the year, when the work of the office is not as brisk as at
others; for instance when the courts are not in session, there is not so
much work to be done during the months of July, August and
September, there is a lull in the real estate market, and the
searches do not come in as numerously as they would in the
spring, winter or fall months, and during that time when the
searchers had nothing to do, whenever we could spare a searcher,
we could put him at comparing, certifying and copying; I intend
this explanation as a reason why the seventy-five volumes that have
been referred to where not compared and certified when under the
law they could be compared and certified at any time; we simply did
what we thought was the best under all the circumstances.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. As a matter of fact, were they compared without certification ?
A. No; they were not compared at all, those volumes.
Q. Could they be used? A. They couldn't be used in court but
the records are still downstairs.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. And the original records could be called for? A. At any time.
Q. And would supply sufficient proof? A. Yes, sir; I want to say
right here that Mr. Tate is entirely right; the records were in a very
1996
[SENATE,
dilapidated condition and sometimes it required the greatest possible
care to decipher what they contained.
·
Q. Mr. Tate's figures appear to differ from your figures? A. In
what respect?
Q. Your figures appear to show a larger volume of work done than
his? A. My figures have been taken within two day.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Mr. Tate says that he understands from your testimony that
there is a larger volume of work done than would appear from his
report? A. I do not understand what he understands from it but I
am telling what the fact is.
Mr. TATE.—I may have misunderstood Mr. Gilroy's testimony.
Senator FASSETT.— I understand the testimony of Mr. Gilroy to be
about the same thing in different form?
The WITNESS.- That is about it, I guess.
Mr. IVINS. He spoke about 32,000 names and the avowal indexes.
They are both small books.
Mr. GILROY.-You understand what they are.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You were speaking only of your own term? A. Only of my own
term; I know nothing about anything else.
Mr. TATE.—I say that the only books which were shown to me as
being chargeable to the work done by the clerks who were engaged
upon the preservation of the old records were the 153 volumes which
I have spoken of in my report.
The WITNESS.-They are probably included in the volume that I
speak of. I speak of but seventy-five volumes of the really old
records; what may be called old records, equity judgments and others.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Let me ask this question; were any of these clerks who were
paid, and whose pay was charged to this sum for the preservation of
old records, actually employed in any other work in the office? A.
No; I regard these as old records that I speak of; Mr. Ivins will
understand this, that the books in the safe in the inner office, which
contained the indexes to the judgment and which are generally
the medium of conducting all the searches were handled so
frequently after this passage of the act in 1885, or after the act
went into operation in 1886, that the edges began to be torn off
of them and they became dilapidated, and in order to protect and
preserve them it was absolutely necessary that something should
No. 80.]
1997
be done, and we had to have them copied; those are the books, I think,
that you have probably found in the big safe in the inner room in the
searchers' department.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. As we understand it, under the law of 1884, the searches were
required to be made within five days in any case? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which, however, didn't go into effect until 1886? A. No.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Within ten days? A. No; within five days; the original law,
yes; I think the law was subsequently amended so as to make it read
ten days; the original law was five days.
Q. Between the time when the law was originally passed and the
time when the law went into effect it was amended so that the term
was extended from five to ten days? A. Exactly; that is it.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. That is not entirely right because there was a period of several
months; January, February, March and April, during which the
returns were to have been made in five,days? A. No; I think you
will find on examining the statutes between the passage of the original
act of 1884 and some acts subsequent thereto, or before the act of
1884 went into effect there was some amendment which required that
the searches be returned in ten days.
Q. While that is possible I have not been able to find any such law,
and I think you are in error? A. May be I am; I wouldn't be positive.
Mr. IVINS.-The statute of 1884 was passed, not to go into effect
until the 1st of January, 1886. It went into effect on the 1st of
January, 1866, but for some reason or another, or because of a number
of reasons, whether it was intrinsic to the county clerk's office or
extrinsic to it, and due to the members of the bar or what not, there
were some friction delay and so forth. That resulted in the passage
of the law of 1886, which was passed on the twenty-ninth of April of
that year. Consequently through that winter and spring they had
been operating under the provisions of the law of 1884, because that
law was not amended between the time of its passage and the time it
went into operation. It was amended four months after it went into
operation. After it was supposed that its operation had shown the
necessity of amendment.
Mr. GILROY
That is different from
That is different from my recollection.
Senator MCNAUGHTON—While we are on that subject, I think there
is some misapprehension in regard to the legislation of last winter in
1998
[SENATE,
connection of the preservation of records. Here is the act [handing
book to Mr. Ivins]. In other words the act of last winter does not
change the law which was in force before that. A justice of the
Supreme Court of the First Judicial District must certify that the
records are required to be preserved or recopied.
Mr. IVINS: The difference is this, that now the judges have to cer-
tify that it is necessary to do the work, whereas they did not use to
have so to certify.
The WITNESS. -But they did all the same.
Mr. IVINS. The law, as originally passed, didn't require them to
certify in the first instance, but required to certify to the payments,
and that carried with it the power that they claimed.
The WITNESS.—The power that they claimed; yes, sir.
Σ
Mr. IVINS.-Now, the act leaves out the certification of the payment,
but vests in them the certification as to the necessity for doing the
work; it has shifted it right around.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-They have primarily to certify that the
work is necessary to be done, and now the board of apportionment
and estimate fixes the amount to be paid.
Mr. IVINS. The board of, estimate and apportionment fixes the
amount to be paid. The board of estimate and apportionment has
always done that. The board of estimate and apportionment has to
make appropriations in any event sufficient to cover what they esti-
mate to be the expense of this work generally.
Senator FASSETT.- Mr. Gilroy can probably give you the reason of
that change in the law.
Mr. IVINS.-I was going to ask him who was the moving party in
that, and why it was done.
The WITNESS.-In 1888 ?
Mr. IVINS.- No; during the year 1889.
The WITNESS. We were content with it during 1887 and 1888, and
I don't know what discontent prevailed after that.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.—I remember the discussion in the commit-
tee of cities on that point, and it was to this effect, that the justices
of the Supreme Court hadn't any time to go over the work in the
county clerk's office and certify whether it was necessary or not, but
whether the board of estimate and apportionment was, the proper
board to examine into that work and certify whether it should be
paid for; that was the moving reason.
Mr. IVINS. The law does not require that the board should do
that. Nevertheless the law requires that the board of estimate and
apportionment shall only make the appropriation necessary to meet the
No. 80.]
1999
expenses incurred in the performance of the work, and upon the cer-
tificate of the county clerk having charge of the same the payment is
to be made. The difference is, that under the old law the
Supreme Court was the auditing officer and had to audit the accu-
racy of those accounts, and the Supreme Court said: "We can't audit
this bill unless it was necessary that the work should have been
done;" and, consequently, after having once made up its mind that
the work ought to be done as incident to the necessity of auditing
later on, the work was done and then the account was audited. In
other words, the accounts of the county clerk were in this regard
audited by the Supreme Court to the board of estimate and appor-
tionment, who made the appropriation necessary to meet the bill when
it matured. Now the board of estimate and apportionment makes
those appropriations as it did before, the Supreme Court now certi-
fies to the necessity of doing the work, which was only inferentially
involved under the old system, and it no longer audits the bill. In
other words, the county clerk audits his own bill.
The WITNESS.-The object of that really was this, as I have been
informed, it was very difficult during the summer to get a Supreme
Court judge that would audit the bills, or to find them; they were
somewhere else generally, and the object of changing the law so that
the men might get their pay promptly.
Mr. IVINS. The auditors in the comptroller's office audit accounts
generally, but this is taken out of the general system by the require-
ment that it shall be paid on the certificate of the county clerk; so
that the county clerk is really the only auditor in the case, and prob-
ably in this regard that is one of the few exceptions in the city govern-
ment where an officer making his requisitions for money also audits
his own requisition.
Senator MCNAUGHTON. The work being done in his own office.
Mr. IVINS. The work being done in his own office; but he is
removed from all check or surveillance in that regard, in which
particular respect he is unlike any other officer in the city government.
Q. Now to come back to the matter of extra service, to come back
to the point that we were at when we shifted here, for the first four
months of 1886, the rule seems to have prevailed as provided by the
law of 1884, that is that it was the duty of the clerk to cause the
searches to be made without delay, and to certify the correctness of
his return within five days from the receipt of the requisition; after
the expiration of four months that five days was extended to ten
days; in other words he was given ten days more in which to do the
work? A. Five days more.
2000
[SENATE,
-
Q. Five days more in which to do the work than he had had there
before, notwithstanding which fact provision was made for the pay-
ment of an extra fee for expedition, although the time fixed by law
was extended? A. Do you know what the time fixed by law was
prior to the Reform Act going into effect?
Q. Prior to 1884? A. Prior to 1886.
Q. It was five days, wasn't it? A. Fifteen.
Q. Well here is the law? A. I am speaking of the law under which
they acted.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Before the Reform Law became operative — up to that time?
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You mean up to actual administrative year of 1886? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Under the laws applying to that particular year of 1885? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. It is fifteen days? A. Yes, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. That is under the fee system, the clerk had fifteen days? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. It might be put in this form that the clerk had fifteen days up
to the 1st of January, 1886? A. That is my recollection?
Q. And from the 1st of January, 1886, up to the 29th of April, 1886,
he had five days? A. That is not my recollection.
Q. After the passage of the law of April 29, 1886, he had ten days?
A. Yes.
Q. And that law which fixed ten days also made provisions for the
extra searches? A. Correct.
Q. In making those extra searches, who did any work as incident to
the expedition and requiring extra pay, which extra pay came out of
the receipts for the extra searches, other than the searchers them-
selves? A. There was considerable difficulty about the manner of
administering that extra search law when it was passed, and after
some time experimenting with it it was found that it would be neces-
sary to keep an entirely separate and distinct account of extra search-
ing, not only for the city but for the searchers themselves; it was
agreed that fifty per cent of the amount of the extra search should be
paid to the searchers who actually made the search; it was found
necessary then to get somebody for whom no appropriation was made
by the board of estimate and apportionment, to keep those accounts
and to make the returns of the city; we communicated to the corpo-
No. 80.]
2001
ration counsel, the present of the Supreme Court, O'Brien, upon the
subject as to whether or not anybody in the employ of the city could
be paid out of the fees accruing for extra searching, for services per-
formed in the carrying on of extra searches under the act; he wrote
a letter stating that the county clerk could employ anybody he chose
for that purpose; it was deemed advisable to employ somebody who
had some knowledge of the office, and who had some knowledge of
the manner in which searches were conducted; I think there was a
messenger or janitor who remained there at night, and locked the
office up and came there in the morning and opened it for the extra
searches whom remained overtime, and who came there in the office
before the office hours commenced.
Q. Who was that - Michael Whalen? A. I think he was one, and
I think there was another one, if I am not mistaken.
Q. A man named Maroney? A. Maroney was there for a time and
myself; I was employed in the capacity, and Mr. Flack's son William
L. was employed as bookkeeper; I think my duty was to mark the
extra searches, keep an accurate account of those, to give them
around, to see that they were returned within the proper period, and
estimating the amount of cost on them.
Q. That was William L. Flack; was it? A. William L. Flack; the
amounts paid to those people were paid out of the fund for extra
searches; but inasmuch as that fund was not a guaranteed fund and
was not a stable fund, that could be relied upon to turn in so much
money every month or every year; they were paid percentages; I
think that the searchers were paid fifty per cent of the extra fee; I
think that Mr. Flack's son was paid twenty per cent of the extra fee;
I was paid ten per cent of the extra fee; if I don't mistake it, and
there was some twelve and a half per cent left, which was returned to
the city treasury.
Q. So that it was calculated in advance that eighty-seven and a half
per cent of the income from that source should be distributed among
the searchers, Mr. Flack, yourself and others? A. Yes.
Q. And that twelve and a half per cent should be turned into the
city treasury? A. That was left to be paid in; I don't know whether
Mr. Tate, in making his report upon the revenue from extra searches
to date, understood that; this was only the extra compensation for
searching; the regular fee for searching has nothing at all to do with
this calculation.
Q. We understand that perfectly? A. The city got its regular fee
independent of any other consideration, and, in addition, got what
was left after defraying the expense of extra searching.
[Senate, No. 80.]
251
2002
[SENATE,
1
Senator FASSETT. Mr. Gilroy's memory is pretty good about that.
To go into that parenthetically for a moment, the five days was
extended to twenty days by the statute of 1885.
The WITNESS.— Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. So that during that particular four months, from the 1st of
January, 1886, to the 29th of April, 1886, it was twenty days? A. I
think so; I was not quite certain as to the time, but I knew the exten-
sion had been made, because it was a physical impossibility to comply
with the law.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- The statute now makes the county clerk
lively.
Mr. IvINS.— All the statutes did that.
Q. That was the statute of 1885? A. Yes, sir; of course this was
five years ago, and my mind is not very clear on the subject of the
statutes.
Senator FASSETT. You are quite correct, Mr. Gilroy, about that.
Mr. IVINS — Your recollection proves to be much clearer than mine.
Q. The statute reads, "which additional fees are to be included in
the accounts of fees provided for by the seventh section of this act;
was the aggregate of these fees accounted for? A. Yes, sir; there
was a supplemental return filed with the return every month in the
comptroller's office, containing an accurate account of all the expen-
ditures under that extra searching act, and then the check of the
county clerk was drawn and paid into the city treasury for the
balance remaining after the expenses of conducting the extra searches
had been paid; that was done under the opinion of Corporation.
Counsel O'Brien, which, I think, is on file now in the county clerk's
office.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Do I understand that you paid the searchers fifty per cent of all
that was received from that source? A. Of the extra searching only.
Q. They got fifty per cent of all the extra searching? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. William Flack got twenty per cent of all the extra search-
ing? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you got ten per cent of all the extra searching? A. Yes;
those figures, I believe, are correct.
Q. And the city got twelve and a half per cent? A. That is it,
exactly.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. The business then was not conducted on the basis of keeping
account of the actual receipts and expenditures, but on the basis of a
No. 80.]
2003
predetermined plan that that would be right and fair and a proper
compensation, that the city shall have twelve and a half per cent and
you should have the balance; I mean that the county clerk's subordi-
nates should have the balance of eighty-seven and a half per cent.
A. No; it was fixed in that way simply because we couldn't determine
exactly what compensation to pay anybody; the fund was not a
stable fund, and we never could rely upon its amounting to anything,
and as a matter of fact, you will find that in 1888 it fell down so low
that it amounted to very little.
Q. In 1888? A. Yes, sir; the last year of my time; in 1889 it was
about 11,000 and the next year about 5,000; the method of keeping
the accounts was submitted to Comptroller Loew, who determined
the method of keeping those accounts and making those returns; it
was at his suggestion and that of the corporation counsel.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. What bearing does that volume of work have upon the amount
of pay, if there was only half as much work to be done, there was
only half as much work to be paid for, isn't that it? A. We could not
determine to give to the searchers twenty-five dollars, or fifty dollars,
or seventy-five dollars, or $100 a month additional, nor we couldn't
agree to pay the janitor fifty dollars, sixty or seventy dollars addi-
tional, because the amount received from extra searches might not
cover that amount, and we were therefore obliged to give them a
percentage of what came in.
Q. I understand that, and that you were advised by the corporation
counsel was entirely permissible under the law; do you so understand
it? A. Yes, sir; and that method of making the accounts was pro-
vided and designated by the comptroller, as the law required.
蓄
​Q. That method prevailed still when you went out of office? A. I
believe it did up to the last time that I was in the office; I want to say
here that I don't think I have stood in the office twice since I
left it.
Q. When did Mr. William L. Flack do the work connected with
this business; did he do it during the regular official office hours?
A. Sometimes, and sometimes later in the day.
酆
​Q. And when did you do yours as cashier? A. I generally did it
after office hours; all my work in connection with that business was
generally done after office hours.
Q. I find that during this time there was paid to the searchers on
this account, that is during those three years, $19,544; there was paid
to a clerk, $1,185; there was paid to William L. Flack, bookkeeper,
2004'
[SENATE,
$8,339; was Mr. Flack also an employe of the office in other matters?
A. No.
Q. He was not on the pay-rolls at all? A. No.
Q. Thomas F. Gilroy, cashier and superintendent, $4,168.01? A.
That is for three years.
Q. You were at the same time, however, the deputy county clerk?
A. I was.
Q. Receiving a salary from the board of estimate and apportion-
ment? A. I was.
Q. Frank A. Maroney, was he in the employ of the office? A. He
was not in the employ of the office in any other capacity.
Q. Mr. Almack and Mr. Michael Whalen, janitors, were they? A. I
am not sure; I think that Mr, Whalen was.
Q. He received $1,089 during this time? A. Yes, sir.
By Senator Fassett:
Q. They received an expediting fee too? A. Not any expediting
fee; they received a compensation for coming down early in the
morning and opening the office, and returning late at night and clos-
ing it.
Q. And the sum paid to them seems to be reasonably small, not
over $133 a year? A. Not more than that; I think it was five or six
per cent that they got.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. A little less than a dollar a day? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you, as having occupied that office, and being familiar with
its work, and having your attention called to the operation of the
office under a new system as compared with its operation under the
old system where the county clerk was responsible and got the fees,
and the city, however, bore no financial burden, whereas now the
county clerk has a fixed salary, and the city has a financial burden -
A. Is he responsible now?
Q. He is responsible for the accuracy of his searches? A. Do you
think he is ?
A
Q. The statute appears to say so; I have not investigated it with
thoroughness and care from that point of view? A. I have some
doubts upon it; I can't give any opinion on that subject while so
important a consideration remains undetermined, as to the responsi-
bility of the county clerk.
Q. Then give the opinion from the point of view of either hypothe-
sis? A. If the county clerk is responsible now as he was under the
old law, for his searches, I don't think that the change is an injury to
No. 80.]
2005
the city, for the reason that while the city pays more money out for
the support of the county clerk's office, and received less, the burden.
upon the general taxpayers is reduced; I think a larger view of those
subjects must be taken than the mere effect it has upon a public office
or a public officer.
Q. Do you think, if the county clerk to-day restored to his old
position as a feed officer, that he could so conduct his office as to
make the equivalent of his present salary, or even more? A. As a
feed officer?
Q. Yes? A. Yes, sir; I think he could.
Q. As a feed officer? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then it appears that if the county clerk were a feed officer,
there would be no loss account, but a profit account? A. To whom?
Q. To the account itself? A. Do you mean to say that if the
county clerk was a feed officer, and received the fees that come into
the office now?
Q. If the county clerk were to-day a feed officer, and had nothing
whatever to do with the city treasury, but collected his own fees as
he used to do prior to 1884, and paid his own expenses out of
those fees, as he used to do prior to 1884, do you think that
he would make the equivalent of his present salary? A. I am
not acquainted sufficiently with the volume of the business
in the office now to determine that fact; but let me say now
that prior to 1884 the city was not exempt from the entire burden of
a county clerk's office; the whole of it, except the searchers' depart-
ment before was borne by the city; there were no salaries paid by the
county clerk to anybody except the searchers' department before 1884,
or before the reform act went into effect, and I think you will find
that the appropriation of 1885, made by the board of estimate and
apportionment was probably not more than $20,000 less than the
appropriation for 1886, when the reform act went into effect.
Q. The appropriation was about $20,000 less then? A. Probably.
Q. Have you any knowledge as to how much less the appropriation
of 1885 was than the appropriation of this year? A No; I say that
the appropriation of 1885 was probably $20,000 less than that of 1886;
I can't tell what the appropriation this year for the county clerk's
office is.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. That is, the immediate effect of this law was to save the city
something in the way of appropriation of about $20,000? A. It
saved the city directly in that way; it saved the city a great deal
2006
[SENATE,
more than appears from the testimony given here to-day; the city
received $125,000 from the county clerk's office the first year of the
reform law; the year before that, while it received but a very small
amount of fees from the county clerk's office, it was obliged to
bear nearly all the burden of the county clerk's office, and the only
additional burden put upon the city by the reform act of 1884 was a
burden of supporting the searchers and the searchers' department.
Q. So that the immediate effect of this law of 1886 was quite as
advantageous to the city treasury? A. Very much so, and I am not
quite satisfied, and I am not quite dissatisfied that it is so now, except,
of course, that there has been a great reduction; of course, I am
taking taxpayers into question.
Q. Never mind about the taxpayers for the present; the county
clerk's office fees are paid by the men who actually get the service are
they not? A. Yes, sir.
ť
Q. They get their money's worth when their searches are made?
A. Yes, sir; presuming that the appropriation of 1886 is $90,000, and
that the appropriation for 1885 was but $60,000, the city is now bear-
ing an additional burden of but $30,000.
Mr. IVINS. Assuming those facts, Mr. Gilroy is quite right now.
It is necessary for us to go a step further than we have done in the
work of the accountant, and to go back to the year 1885, and then to
equate these accounts by showing what part of the burden was borne
by the city prior to 1885, and then we have got the apparent net loss
as shown from the accounts to-day, and then we can determine the
exact net profit, or net loss, as shown incidentally to the change in
the law.
Mr. GILROY. Yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT.-Say for the years 1884 and 1885?
Mr. GILROY.-I remember in the year 1886, I undertook to make a
schedule of the actual benefit derived by the city from the passage of
the law, and I think that the actual benefit amounted in dollars
and cents to something between $60,000 and $70,000; that is taking
into account that the city had to bear those burdens before.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. The fact that apparently under the statute a county clerk is
liable for an error, does that tend, or is inclined to incite him to
obtain less work in the searching department-in other words, sup-
pose he did nothing at all in the searcher's department? A. His
liabilities would be less, of course.
€
No. 80.]
2007
1
Q. In other words, by an error in one search, he might be mulcted
in damages to the amount of his whole salary? A. Yes, sir; some
lawyers' with whom I have conversed down in the office, while I was
deputy county clerk, are of the opinion that that clause of the law is
inoperative, and that the county clerk is not liable inasmuch as he is
a servant of the city, and the city is liable for the acts of its servants.
Mr. IVINS. That is a very serious question. It has been passed,
incidentally, once or twice in the Court of Appeals. It has been
raised in regard to the chamberlain's office and in regard to the comp-
troller's office.
Mr. GILROY. In that view, you see my answer would be of a very
different character, if the city had this additional responsibility thrown
upon it. Then the reform law was not reform. If, on the other hand,
the county clerk is still responsible, I believe the reform act to be a
good one.
Q. You are of the opinion that point ought to be cleared up by
legislation, if it can be? A. I am, indeed, if it can be done, which I
doubt.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. It requires a particular kind of skill to make good searchers
does it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And great intelligence? A. Yes, sir; not only great intelligence,
but great patience and expertness; a man must have a very thorough
knowledge to do it, and it would be a very dangerous thing for any-
body who is responsible for the accuracy of the seach to put an
inexperienced man in there.
Q. And the fees are now arbitrarily fixed by law? A. They always
were.
Q. The title insurance companies are not regulated by law as to
their fees? A. I think not; of course it is to their interest to make
their fees less than is required by law; otherwise they wouldn't get
any business.
Mr. IVINS.-- If the committee has no further questions to ask Mr.
Gilroy, I have no further questions to ask.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. There is only this one question that I didn't quite get; where
there is a deficit and the amount of the deficit has to be made up out
of the city treasury, that is distributed among all the taxpayers of
the city, whether they do any business with the officer or not? A. I
presume it is, although not perhaps directly; Mr. Ivins will be able
2008
[SENATE,
to give you more information on the subject than I can; the taxes are
increased or reduced, as I understand, by the amount of the general
fund, but I don't understand that it falls on the taxpayers directly.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. So far as it falls upon one taxpayer, it falls in the same ratio
upon others? A. Yes, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. And under the old system the man who got the work done
paid for it? A. Yes.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. That is, all the taxpayers bear the burden equally in the tax levy,
the amount raised by the levy? A. Yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT.-I think it is quite important that the accountant
should investigate this expense during 1884 and 1885.
Mr. IVINS.-I have requested him to do that and he will bring the
matter in.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. You have no doubt about this, that by legislation that would be
settled? A. The liability of the clerk?
Q. Yes; that could be corrected by legislation? A. I have some
doubt about the right of the Legislature to correct it.
Senator FASSETT.- If there is any question there it must be extra-
legislative.
Mr. GILROY.—I think it is entirely outside of their powers. They
can't make a man responsible for something he is not responsible for.
Q. The Legislature has power to relieve him from that responsi-
bility? A. The difficulty about this is, that if you find that a county
clerk has made a search, which by some neglect or error in his search
has caused to lose $20,000, instead of suing the county clerk from
whom you might not be able to recover at all you would probably
sue the principal from whom you are sure to recover; you would take
the best one to sue.
Q. The Legislature could relieve him from responsibility? A. I
think it could, but I don't think it could add any responsibility to him
unless he was receiving the fees directly.
Mr. IVINS.-It certainly could not, so far as it affects any actual
incumbent of the office at the time of the passage of the law.
Mr. GILROY.-I ought not to be called upon to express an opinion
on those subjects. I am not a lawyer, anyway.
Q. You have had to operate under the law? A. Yes, sir.
}
No. 80.]
2009
Mr. IVINS. That is all I wish to ask, Mr. Gilroy. In view of what
I said when I began, and in view of what was said by Senator
McNaughton, so far as involves the immediate investigation of the
actual personnel of the office, and the manner of appointment of
other things and that kind, I don't care to pursue the investigation
now; but this same matter of extra searching, of preservation
of records, and other methods of that kind has been taken up as
falling under the same statute, in the office of the board of alder-
men. The same sort of thing will come up in the matter of the
register's office, and in the matter of the surrogate's office,
and while covering that and the extra searching and the apparent
deficit in the office, that was all that was necessary for
the purpose of investigation of the county clerk's office at the present
time, as I said, and as you see it does not in any way involve or trench
upon the decencies or proprieties, in view of the recent death of
Mr. Reilly.
Senator FASSETT.- Right in this connection, before I get through, I
want to take up the relations of the appointments in this office, as in
every other department to the civil service.
Mr. GILROY.— Let me say to you before you go any further, that
this is not a civil service office.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. In no part of the State? A. No; neither this nor the sheriff's
office, nor the surrogate's office.
Q. So that the appointments there are made how? A. Entirely at
the pleasure of the county clerk.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. The parties are appointed and removed at his pleasure? A. Yes.
Q. He appoints whomsoever he pleases? A. Yes.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. That is true of all appointments that he makes? A. Yes, sir.
Q. He appoints his own friends, or party friends, or another fellow's
friends, or another fellow's party friends, or the best experts he finds,
just as he chooses? A. Yes, sir; and I believe that statement is true
of every county clerk's and sheriff's office in the State.
Q. There is nothing to guide him in the matter except his own
- will and his direct responsibility for the acts of his subordinates? A.
Nothing more.
Adjourned to Monday morning, October 13, 1890, at 11 o'clock.
[Senate, No. 80.]
252
2010
[SENATE,
TUESDAY MORNING, October 14, 1890.
The committee met pursuant to adjournment.
Present Senators Fassett, McNaughton and Ahearn.
Senator FASSETT.—I want to state before we take up the work this
morning, Mr. Ivins, that Senator Stewart has been called to Europe
by the death of his aunt, that unfortunate event leaving his mother,
who is infirm, practically alone in Europe, and under those circum-
stances it seemed as if his nearest duty was to go at once to his
mother; and he, in the judgment of the committee, did perfectly
right. It was the only thing for him to do. In the meantime, of
course, for the benefit of those who are interested, I want it under-
stood that Senator McNaughton and myself constitute a quorum of
the subcommittee, ready to go on now.
HENRY M. TATE, recalled:
Senator FASSETT.- Mr. Ivins, what do you call Mr. Tate in reference
to now?
Mr. IVINS. The register's office.
Senator FASSETT.- There were one or two matters in connection with
the county clerk's office suggested while Mr. Gilroy was on the stand.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Have you got that work done, Mr. Tate? A. Yes, sir. [Witness
produced paper.]
Q. This is an accurate memorandum of what you have found on the
books of the city relative to the appropriations for the county clerk's
office during the years 1884 and 1885, is it? A. Yes, sir.
The paper referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 1," of this date, and
is as follows:
EXHIBIT No. 1-OCTOBER FOURTEENTH.
COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE, 1884 AND 1885.
The fees paid into the city treasury by the county clerk during
these years, exclusive of trial and extract fees, and stenographers'
fees, were as follows:
1884.
1885.
For certificate of official character..
$7,908 00
$8,064 00
For judgment-rolls, certificates and sealing
papers.
2,739 99
2,924 41
For equity judgments.
758 00
785 50
For transcripts .
Making a total of...
795. 84
$11,405 99
$12,569 75
No. 80.1
2011
The expenditures for salaries of regular employes, law and equity
clerks, during these two years, are as follows:
1884.
1885.
Number
of clerks.
Number
Amount.
of clerks.
Amount.
Assistant docket clerk
County clerk
Deputy county clerk
Assistant deputy county clerk
Mechanics' lien clerks
Docket clerk
Clerk of records.
Bookkeeper
$3,000 00
•
3,500 00
$3,000 00
4,999 92
•
3,000 00
3,000 00
3,000 00
3,000 00
3,000 00
3,000 00
2,500 00
2,499 96
2,500 00
2,345 39
1,500 00
Clerk in chancery
1,500 00
Messenger..
650 81
981 15
Recording clerks, at $125 per
month
2
3,000 00
1
1,500 00
Recording clerks, at $100 per
month
7-9
9,593 54
7-10
11,829 04
Recording clerks, at $93.75 per
month
2-3
3,281 25
Recording clerks, at $75 per
month
1-2
975 00
Recording clerks, at $50 per
month
1
600 00
Recording clerks, at $37.50 per
month
1
450 00
Recording clerks
•
56 66
Chief recording clerk, 7 months.
1,166 70
Lis pendens clerk
2,499 96
2,499 96
Certificate clerk
2,499 96
Assistant clerk of records..
Indexing corporation clerk
Record index clerk..
Comparing clerks, $125 per mo'th
Clerk of incorporation records..
Subpoena clerk
Copyist
Law clerk
Equity clerk..
Total ...
990 96
999 96
4,500 00
1,200 00
999 96
1,200 00
999 96
3,500 00
3,500 00
3,500 00
3,236 56
$50,273 96
$61,291 74
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF FEES PAID INTO THE CITY TREASURY BY THE
COUNTY CLERK, FROM JANUARY 1, 1884, TO OCTOBER 1, 1890.
From all sources other than Regular and Extra Searches, Trial and Extract
1884...
1885..
1886..
1887..
1888...
Fees and Stenographers' Fees.
$11,405 99
12,569 75
29,132 75
29,428 73
29,553 50
2012
[SENATE,
1889..
1890...
$33,049 64
25,427 22
From Regular Searches.
1886...
$87,332 31
1887...
88,595 56
1888..
40,755 85
1889..
20,786 17
1890...
10,890 68
For Extra Searches, less expenses charged on account of same.

1886.
1887.
1888.
1889.
1890.
Fees received.
$13,352 70
Less expenses charged
11,177 07
$17,138 32
14,961 75
$11,215 38
$5,327 37
$2,372 82
9,821 84
4,178 19
1,542 30
Am't paid into city treasury.
$2,175 63
$2,176 57
$1,393 54
$1,149 18
$830 52
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF SALARIES PAID IN THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE,
FROM JANUARY 1, 1884, тo OCTOBER 1, 1890.
County Clerk.
1884...
$3,000 00
1885...
3,000 00
1886..
15,000 00
1887..
15,000 00
1888...
15,000 00
1889..
15,000 00
1890..
11,166 67
Other Employes, exclusive of Searchers.
1884...
$47,273 96
1885...
58,291 74
1886..
47,151 21
1887.
52,479 55
• 1888.
1889.
55,253 32
56,510 99
1890.
43,095 39
Regular Searchers.
1886...
$24,833 34
1887...
25,916 65
,
1888...
1889..
1890..
26,160 00
21,757 24
14,354 77
No. 80.]
2013
The fees paid and salaries charged to extra searchers are given
above under "Fees received from extra searchers.”
¿
Q. What is meant here by the first total which you have struck, that
is of $11,405.99, in 1884, and $12,569.75, in 1885? A. That represents
fees that were received from various sources by the county clerk and
paid into the city treasury for the years 1884 and 1885, respectively.
Q. The proceeds of all certificates, official in their character, were
heretofore paid into the city treasury as they are now? A. Yes, sir;
but with this addition; it seems from a comparison of returns which
were made from 1886 down to the present time that there were cer-
tain fees which were retained by the county clerk in 1884 and 1885,
which in the subsequent years were turned into the city treasury in
each one of these different classifications.
Q. This simply represents the amount that was paid into the city
treasury during the years 1884 and 1885 as the proceeds of certificates,
official in their character, as the proceeds for judgment-rolls, certifi-
cates and sealing papers, equity judgments and transcripts? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Now those are still paid into the city treasury? A. Yes, sir.
Q. But others which might possibly be classified under the same
head are now paid in under laws passed subsequent to this date? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. At that time it would appear that there was appropriated to be
paid out of the appropriations by the board of estimate and appor-
tionment, and incident to the administration of the county clerk's
office in the year 1884, $50,273.96? A. Yes, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Is that right; were those expenses met from a public appropria-
tion? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. And in 1885 that appropriation was $61,291.74? A. Yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT.- Mr. Ivins do you notice what causes that $10,000
increase between 1884 and 1885? The chief recording clerk for seven
months in 1884 received 1,166.70; in 1885, 2,499.96.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. These recording clerks spoken of here are those who were
recording on old records, are they? A. No, sir; they are recording
clerks engaged in the county work purely, in the county clerk's
office.
$
2014
[SENATE,
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. The bis pendens clerk is new, the certificate clerk is new, the
assistant clerk of records, the record index clerk, comparing clerks,
indexing and corporation clerk, clerk of incorporation records, sub-
pœna clerk, copyist; all those were new for 1885? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Did you discover anything in the records to explain that
increase in the force? A. I did not see anything that would explain it.
Q. Do you know whether that increase in force was retained and is
still maintained? A. A reference to the exhibit which I made at the
last examination, I think, will determine that point.
Q. I notice no charge made to the city for the service of searchers
in the years 1884 and 1885? A. There were no searchers at that
time; the searchers' fees were the perquisite of the county clerk.
Mr. IVINS. They at that time belonged to the county clerk and it
was to throw those into the public treasury, among other things, that
the bill of 1884 was passed; now, if you will turn to the sixth page
of this report, you will find the supplement to that; it appears from
this that there was paid into the city treasury from all sources other
than regular and extra searches, trial and extract fees, and stenog-
raphers' fees, in 1884, $11,405.99; in 1885, $12,569.75; in 1886, when
the new law went into operation, $29,132.78; in 1887, $29,428.73; in
1888, $29,553.50; in 1889, $33,049.64, and in 1890 to date, $25,427.22.
Q. That all covers business which is not in any way affected by the
new title companies? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, as to the business which is affected by the new title com-
panies, that is regular searches, we find that none of these fees were
paid into the city treasury prior to 1886; for the year 1886, however,
under the operation of the law of 1884, the first of these fees were
paid in; they were $87,332.31; in 1887, there were $88,595.56; in 1888,
there were $40,755.85; in 1889, $20,786.17; in the first nine months of
this year they have shown but $10,890.
Senator FASSETT.-In other words, an annual diminution of fifty
per cent.
Mr. IVINS. Right along since diminution began. They reached
their maximum in 1887. In 1888 it was only one-half of what it was
in 1887. Now, from extra searches, less expense charges on account
of same, the extra searches fees received in the office in 1886, were
$13,352.70; in 1887, the extra searches fees received in the office were
$17,138.32; nevertheless, the amounts paid into the city treasury,
although there was a difference of proximately $4,000 in the gross fees
No. 80.]
2015
:
received were identical in those two years. That is, $2,175 in one
year and $2,176 in the next year. Those extra fees fell off $11,215 in
1888, of which gross sum there was paid into the city treasury, $1,393.
They, like the other fees, fell off again in 1889 to $5,327, and of that
sum $1,149 was paid into the city treasury. In other words, there
was a larger proportion of the fees paid into the city treasury when
.there were only $5,327, than were paid in when there were $17,138.
This year up to date the fees show for nine months but $2,372, of
which $830 have been paid into the city treasury.
Senator FASSETT.— Did he find anything to explain that?
The WITNESS. Well, that was explained by the percentage
arrangement.
Q. The percentage would remain the same no matter what the actual
cost of service was? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Even if that were the case, Mr. Tate, is it not inexplicable,
because twelve per cent of $13,352 and twelve per cent of $17,138 will
not be identical, will they? A. No, sir.
Q. Well, it appears to be identical by this statement, with a
difference of a dollar? A. I was going to say that in the second year,
1887, there was a clerk included among the expenses incurred by the
county clerk on account of extra services which diminished the amount
to be paid into the city treasury by the sum which was paid to him.
Q. The next statement shows what the salaries paid in the clerk's
office out of appropriation accounts were, from the years 1884 to 1890,
including the county clerk's salary, which is entered by itself, and
which was $3,000 for each of the two former years, and thereafter it
was $15,000; then you find in 1884 the item of $47,273, which corres-
ponds with the item on the former page.
Senator FASSETT.—That is other employes exclusive of the searchers.
Mr. IvINS.—Yes; no regular searchers were paid in either of those
two years. The county clerk's salary was increased by law to $15,000
as against $3,000 which had theretofore been paid out of the appro-
priations. Other employes, exclusive of searchers, increased from
$47,000 in 1884, to $52,000 in 1887, $55,000 in 1888, $56,000 in 1889, and
whatever sum has been appropriated for the present year, and on
account of which appropriation only $43,000 have as yet been spent.
Nothing was paid the searchers during those two years, but in 1886
$24,800 was paid to searchers, in 1887, $25,900, and in 1888, $26,100,
in 1889, there is a decrease in the appropriation and expenditure to
$21,757,24.
Senator FASSETT. In other words, all the work had fallen off for
three years, at the rate of fifty per cent each year, from the preceding
year, it cost within $2,000 to do the work.
2016
[SENATE,
Mr. IVINS.- That is what the records show.
Senator FASSETT.— That is, the work amounted to one-quarter, and
the cost came to within 3,000 of being the same.
Mr. IVINS.— The revenues to the city from that one source of search-
ers has almost entirely disappeared,, and nevertheless the cost of
governing that particular branch remains practically the same.
Senator FASSETT.-In 1885 this statement shows, Mr. Ivins, of fully'
$10,000 of the expenses of the office, which did not appear in the
year 1886.
Mr. IVINS.-- Yes.
Senator FASSETT.-Caused by these high-sounding officials shown
in the lower part of the paper.
Mr. IVINS. At that time the lis pendens clerk, the certificate clerk,
the assistant clerk of records, the record-index clerk, the comparing
clerks, the indexing and incorporation clerk, clerk of incorporation
records, subpoena clerk and copyist, were all put on the city pay-roll,
whereas, theretofore, if there were any such officers they certainly
were not on the city pay-roll.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-They were paid for by the clerk, were they?
Mr. IVINS. —No; they were paid for out of the appropriations made
by the city, in 1885. That is the main feature you will notice as
between those two tables.
Senator FASSETT. I wish you would inquire whether any of these
differences result from differences in bookkeeping.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Are these differences apparent or actual; that is, are they appar-
ent as incident to a method of keeping the books, or was the method
of keeping the books so far identical as to make these differences
actual and not apparent? A. So far as I know there was no differ-
ence in the system of bookkeeping.
Mr. IVINS. My own recollection is that that was practically the
provision for so many new clerks in the office at that time. I know
of no change in the method of bookkeeping in that regard. If it is
found that there is any, it can very easily be proved; that is, we can
very easily introduce evidence of it. This now enables us from what
has been spread on our records to prepare a complete statement of
the economies to the city or the failure of economy to the city, as inci-
dent to the enactment and enforcement of the Laws of 1884 and 1886.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.— Mr. Ivins, there is one more point, is there
not?
Has Mr. Tate the items on which a decrease of fees was made
by statute, and showing what the decrease is in the county clerk's
office?
No. 80.]
2017
Mr. IVINS.—Yes. That is already shown in the statements already in.
Senator FASSETT. That would not affect the statement of 1886 as
compared with other years, because it took effect in 1886.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.When did that law reducing fees take effect,
in 1886 ?
Senator FASSETT.- The law of 1884 reduced the fees.
Mr. IVINS. The law of 1884 reduced the fees, the law of 1886 did not.
But you have no basis of comparison there, becuse the fees prior to
1886, were not subject to either estimate or calculation, being the
personal property of the county clerk, but during the years for which
it is possible to establish that comparison there has been no change
in the rate of fees. You can not establish a comparison at any time
prior to 1886, going back no matter how far, because those fees were
not accounted for, and there are no records in the office to show.
Senator MCNAUGHTON. As it is now the clerk is obliged to charge
arbitrary fees for searches. He has no discretion.
Mr. IVINS.- None whatever; the fees are fixed by statute.
Senator FASSETT. There is another item in which there is an
apparent dispute between Mr. Tate and Mr. Gilroy.
The WITNESS.—I have not looked over the stenographer's minutes
on that subject.
Senator FASSETT.- When you look over the minutes and want to
make a statement, we will take it.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Mr. Tate, have you made an examination of the receipts and
expenditures of the register's office? A. Yes, sir.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-There may be some other matter we want to
nquire about in the county clerk's office.
Mr. IVINS.-I understand if there be any others they shall be passed
for the present, at least. For instance, the personel of the office,
as at present constituted, was the work of the late County Clerk
Reilly, and his successor will not be responsible for those persous,
as I understand it, in case he sees fit to make changes and it is
not proper for us now to investigate, and it could result in no
possible use to investigate the manner in which Mr. Reilly made his
appointments. As to the particular duties of each of these clerks
that will be taken up at some time later on, and another matter will
have to he called to your attention as incident to one of the decisions
of the Court of Appeals in a very recent case to the effect that certain
of the records of the county clerk's office, not only in this county
but in many other counties of this State, are such as to virtu-
ally exclude them from being used as official records, and it is a
[Senate, No. 80.]
253
2018
[SENATE,
matter for which, as far as I can understand or see, no particular
individual is in any sense blameworthy, and it arises from technical
questions which have been raised now for the first time, but which
nevertheless will demand correction. My attention has been called
to it by several members of the bar; that is, as to the manner of
entering judgment, but that need not come up in any form, and
involves no investigation at all, the investigation having been done by
the Court of Appeals.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Does that apply to the sheriff's office as well?
Mr. IvINS.—No; not under these particular decisions. It is as to
the manner and form of entering judgment and the proof of a judg-
ment-roll. So, leaving the county clerk's office for the present, I pro-
pose now to take up the matter of the register's office; and in the
register's office, when that investigation has been made, we will have
as far as I can now see, all of the means for determining exactly what
the expense to the city of New York has been of the work done under
the provisions of that law for the preservation of old records; because
that law included the preservation of all old records whatever, and
we have already examined the question of their cost in the office of the
board of aldermen; we have examined it in the office of the county
clerk, and now, when we shall have examined it in the office of the
register, so far as I know, that covers the three main items of the work.
The WITNESS. Also the surrogate's office.
Mr. IVINS.-The surrogate's office; that has to be added; yes.
Senator FASSETT.-It seems to be up to the present time a very
expensive luxury to keep these old records.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Well, it is absolutely necessary those records
should be kept for the benefit of coming generations.
Senator FASSETT.- It is not necessary to pay two dollars a page for
each day.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Mr. Tate, in regard to the work of the office and the manner in
which the work is done, the moneys received and entries made, I will
pass that so far as you are concerned, because the register is here and
will answer those questions himself? A. Very well.
Q. If this is accurate, nevertheless, I will have it marked and entered
as being the result of your investigation of the general manner in
which the office is organized, so far as the receipt and payment out of
moneys is concerned, and the fees prescribed by statute [referring
to a paper produced by the witness]? A. Yes, sir; that is accurate
according to the information given me by either the register or his
representative.
No. 80.]
2019
Mr. Ivins here read the paper referred to which was marked Exhibit
No. 2 of this date, and is as follows:
EXHIBIT No. 2-OCTOBER FOURTEENTH.
REGISTER'S OFFICE.
All the receipts of this office are entered daily in detail in cash
books covering a period of one month each, showing from whom the
money is received and designating the nature of the service. This is
a book of original entry.
The "transcript and return of fees received by register" are copies
of the cash books with the addition of a recapitulation showing the
total income of the office from each particular source each day of the
month, and giving the total for the month. Attached to this recapit-
ulation is the oath of the register that this is a correct statement of
all moneys received by him from all sources. Duplicates of these
transcripts and returns of fees received by the register" are filed
monthly with the comptroller.
CC
The moneys received by the register are deposited by him to his
credit with the Union Trust Company of this city.
No disbursements are made by the register except the moneys paid
as extra fees to the searchers for expedited searches. This sum is
deducted each month from the total receipts, and the balance is paid
to the city chamberlain,
A "search blotter" is kept, in which all fees for searches are entered
when receipted, and classified as "regular" and "extra," with name
of searcher where the search is expedited.
The "searchers accounts" is a record of payments made to each
searcher for expediting searches.
The recording clerks are paid by the folio for their work by the
comptroller upon duly verified vouchers based upon the recording
clerks' books in which the copyist enters the papers received by him
and the date of receipts, and when the work is completed the liber,
page and number of folios.
All the fees are prescribed by statute, chapter 531 of the Laws of
1884.
Recording any instrument (copyist is paid 5 cents per folio).. $0 10
Filing certificate of satisfaction piece..
•
Entering minute of foreclosure mortgage..
Filing bond of collector to receive taxes
Searching for bond for same.
Entering satisfaction thereof.
Filing papers for safe-keeping
Searching for same
•
•
•
25
10
12
06
12
10
CHE SEE
2020
[SENATE,
Sealing papers, each
Every certificate...
Searching and certifying title ...
Copying papers
Filing chattel
Entering chattel to each party
Searching for each chattel .
$0 12
25
08
06
06
06
Chapter 376, Laws of 1887, allows for searching and certifying title
fifteen cents per year for each person, and when the search is expedited
one-half fee in addition.
Mr. IVINS.— I should say here that we have the same difficulty prior
to the year 1887, in regard to proving up what the income of this office
was, that we had in regard to the county clerk's office prior to 1886,
the law of 1884 not affecting this office until the year 1887. It
affected the county clerk's office in 1886, but they differed, because
the county clerk and the register are not elected in the same years
here. The same year in which the law was passed making the county
clerk's office a salaried office, there was a law passed making the
register's office a salaried office. That is now as chapter 531 of the
Laws of 1884. The first section of the act provided that the provisions
of the law theretofore existing should remain in force until the expira-
tion of the term of the then incumbent. That term expired the 1st of
January, 1887, on which day Mr. J. J. Slevin became the register.
Section second provided that hereafter and when this act should go
into effect the salary of the register to be $12,000 per annum, and
should be in lieu of all fees, perquisites and emoluments for all ser-
vices which the register might perform by virtue of his office. Section
3 provided that all fees should thereafter belong to the city. Sec-
tion 4 of the fee bill which we have transcribed and which is
entered on our minutes. I would say that I have taken no steps for
the purpose of comparing this particular fee bill with the pre-existing
fee bill, for the reason that the fees theretofore did not belong to the
city and there was no account of them kept. Section 5 provided
for an official bond. Section 6 provided for the expenses of con-
ducting the office, and made those expenses a charge on the city.
Section 7 provided the manner in which yearly estimates should
be made by the board of estimate and apportionment, and the manner
in which appropriations should be made. Section 8 provides that
the duties of all clerks and employes of the office shall be such as the
register of the city and county of New York shall designate and
approve, subject to the revision of the board of estimate and appor-
tionment, providing that the aggregate expenses of such salaries or
No. 80.]
2021.
any expenses of said office in any year shall not exceed the amount
appropriated by the board of estimate and apportionment for such
purposes. That shows the relative powers of the register and the
board of estimate and apportionment in regard to the employment of
the subordinates in the office. Section 9 provided for a search to
be made without delay upon a written order or requisition, and to be
certified and ready for delivery within twenty days from the receipt
of said order, and provided a penalty for all injuries and damages
resulting from delay in completing such order or requisitions. It
seems that the latter clause differentiates the statute in regard to the
register's office from the statute in regard to the county clerk's office.
Section 10 provides the manner in which the account of fees shall be
kept. Section 11 provides the manner in which transcripts of
accounts are to be transmitted to the comptroller. Section 12
provides certain penalties, and section 13 is the repealing sec-
tion. In 1887 there was a law passed known as chapter 376 of the
laws of that year, which amended the law of 1884 in the manner of
expediting searches, the time within which searches shall be returned
and provision for the payment of expedition fees. It provided in
event of the register being called upon to return searches within
fifteen days, and additional charges should be made by him of one-
half the regular fees, and directing him to pay such additional fees
into the treasury except the actual expenses, including additional
compensation to employes, as hereinafter provided, incurred by the
register to meet the payment required to carry out the provisions of
the section. Now, reference to these two statutes gives us the present
legal basis for the administration of the office. I have stated this as a
point of departure before we can take up the consideration of the
work in this office.
Q. Now, is this your report of the financial administration of the
office, and are the figures in that report correct, as shown by com-
parison with the books of the office [referring to a paper produced
by the witness]? A. Yes, sir.
Paper referred to was marked Exhibit No. 3, of this date, and is as
follows:
EXHIBIT No 3- OCTOBER 14, 1890.
Supplementary examination of Register's office, covering the period from
January 1, 1887, to January 1, 1890, and giving pay-roll of present
incumbent :
Salaries of employes of register's office for the year 1890, based
upon the pay-roll for the month of March, 1890:
Frank T. Fitzgerald, register
James A. Hanley, deputy register
$12,000 00
5,000 00
}
[SENATE,
2022
John E. Fitzgerald, assistant deputy register
$3,000 00
Frank P. Young, satisfaction clerk
3,000 00
Michael Grady, tickler clerk..
James V. Lynch, grantee clerk.
Henry J. Comaskey, chattel mortgage
Chas. E. Baldwin, search clerk..
Geo. Achenbach, account clerk.
James Hynes, chief recording
Edward F. Smith, examiner..
Robert A. White, examiner
John H. Andrews, examiner.
John J. Coyle, reader
•
1,600 00
1,500 00
1,300 00
1,200 00
1,200 00
1,800 00
1,500 00
1,300 00
1,200 00
1,200 00
Wm. C. Murtha, reader...
1,200 00
Edward Hogan, Jr., reader
1,000 00
John Pyne, delivery clerk
1,500 00
Joseph A. J. Drew, delivery clerk
1,200 00
•
Henry W. Murphy, index clerk...
Horatio G. Moline, index clerk..
James A. Hamilton, index clerk
Thomas B. Fitzpatrick, index clerk
Joseph F. Pendergast, index clerk
John H. Curley, index clerk ...
Wm. H. Sinnott, temporary clerk.
Hugh Duffy, certificate copy clerk
Marcus O'Donnell, map clerk
Frank J. Wilford...
1,300 00
1,200 00
1,200 00
•
1,200 00
1,200 00
1,000 00
400 00
1,000 00
1,200 00
1,200 00
Michael Hart, map clerk
·
1,000 00
•
Frances Grimes, record clerk, powers attorney..
Henry Driscoll, recording clerk, religious incorporation,
John L. Meagher,
L. Meagher, recording clerk, discharging
mortgages
•
1,000 00
1,000 00
900 00
Edward F. Sheahan, recording clerk, discharging
mortgages.
900 00
Patrick J. Delaney, recording clerk, discharging
mortgages.
9,00 00
Matthew H. Moore, custodian.
1,500 00
Emanuel Mandelsohn, custodian.
*
1,200 00
Matthew Gilligan, custodian...
1,000 00
John McDonough, custodian.
Daniel A. Bostwick, Jr ....
Frank H. Gilhooly, custodian
John J, Moloney, custodian.
1,000 00
1,000 00
1,000 00
1,000 00
No. 80.1
2023
!
John Hernan, custodian...
•
Philip J. Fitzgibbon, watchman.
James Langan, watchman
John Mulholland, messenger.
Philip V. Walsh, messenger.
Thomas Quinn, messenger.
George F. Brennan, searcher
Edward F. Egbert, searcher.
Edward J. Keech, searcher
David F. O'Connor, searcher.
Abbott M. Ulman, searcher.
John A. Boyle, searcher.
Philip J. Britt, searcher
John A. Slevin, searcher.
•
•
$900 00
900 00
900 00
900 00
900 00
720 00
2,500 00
2,500 00
2,500 00
2,500 00
2,500 00
2,500 00
2,000 00
2,000 00
Recording clerks at five cents per folio, fifty-eight,
$2,661.55; assuming this to be the average for twelve
months
Total....
31,938 60
$121,658 60
Fees received by register from January 1, 1887, to January 1, 1890:

YEAR.
Satisfaction
of mort-
gages.
SEARCHES.
Papers. Chattels.
Total.
Regular.
Extra.
1887 ... $10,326 96 $74,286 60
$7,023 92
1888 ... 10,290 27
1889 ... 11,719 20
71,094 87
82,131 01
7,376 39
7,862 82
$51,956 41
22,761 00
12,442 24
$12,335 46 $155,929 36
6,988 96
118,511 49
3,225 41
117,380 68
Salaries paid to employes in register's office from January 1, 1887,
to January 1, 1890:
1887.
Register.
$12,000 00
Deputy register
4,999 92.
Assistant deputy register.
3,000 00
Satisfaction clerk..
3,000 00
Tickler clerk..
1,500 00
Grantee clerk
1,385 48
Chattel mortgage clerk...
1,500 00
Examiner, part of time, two..
2,049 96
Clerk....
1,400 00
2024
[SENATE,
Delivery clerk.
Index clerk, three
Reader, part of time, two..
Map clerk, part of time, two
Blotter clerk.
Clerk, satisfaction mortgages
Custodian, one to six.
Watchman, two...
Messenger
D
$1,500 00
3,347 17
1,166 62
•
1,360 47
999 96
636 79
3,321 80
1,599 84
763 37
$45,581 38
Searchers, twelve to eighteen
Recording clerks, thirty-one to fifty-eight, paid after
middle of February, at five cents per folio.
Total...
For expediting searches:
Chief of search bureau
Searchers...
Reader
•
37,858 53
28,729 84.
$112,169 75
$1,808 29
6,158 66
166 66
·65 32
Custodian conveyance index ..
Total....
Register.
1888.
Deputy register
Assistant deputy register
Satisfaction clerk...
Tickler clerk
Grantee clerk
Chattel mortgage clerk.
Examiner, two...
Reader, part of time, three....
Search clerk
•
Delivery clerk, part of time, two.
Index clerk, part of time, six.
May clerk, two ....
Clerk, satisfaction mortgages, two.
Custodian, part of time, seven..
Watchmen, two..
Messenger.
Account clerk.
8,198 93
$120,368 68
$12,000 00
4,999 92
3,000 00
3,000 00
1,500 00
1,500 00
1,500 00
2,949 96
2,800 00
1,500 00
►
2,500 00
7,100 00
2,400 00
•
1,795 63
7,847 11
1,800 00
900 00
919 35
}
No. 80.]
2025
Chief of search bureau
$2,624 94
Certified copy clerk.
633 33
Searchers, sixteen
37,724 22
Recording clerks, forty-two to fort-seven, paid at five
cents per folio..
28,008 70
For expediting searches:
Chief of search bureau
Searchers.
$874, 98
3,482 17
4,357 15
Total....
$133,360 31
1889.
Register ..
$12,000 00
Deputy register
•
Assistant deputy register..
4,865 51
3,000 00
Satisfaction clerk . .
3,000 00
Tickler clerk.
1,500 00
Grantee clerk
1,500 00
Chattel mortgage clerk.
1,500 00
Search clerk.
433 33
Account clerk, part of time, two
1,274 19
Examiner, two....
2,949 96
Reader, part of time, three.
2,829 03
Delivery clerk, two .
2,700 00
Index clerk, five …….
Certified copy clerk...
Map clerk, two
•
Clerk, satisfaction of mortgages, two
Custodian, seven.
Watchman, part of time, three.
6,300 00
1,200 00
2,400 00
·
1,999 92
· 8,099 88
1,991 13
Messenger, part of time, two.
•
1,091 13
Chief of search bureau.
3,499 92
Searcher, ten to twelve...
25,916 06
Recording clerks, forty-one to fifty-seven, paid at five
cents per folio..
33,390 95
Total...
$123,441 01
For expediting searches:
Searchers..
Total...
1,607 50
$125,048 51
[Senate, No. 80.]
254
2026
[SENATE,
1887.
Total receipts
$155,929 36
Total payments for salaries and expedited searches....
120,368 68
Gain for 1887
35,560 68
1888.
Total receipts
$118,511 49
Total payments for salaries and expedited searches
133,360 31
Loss for 1888..
14,848 82
1889.
Total receipts.
$117,380 68
Total payments for salaries and expedited searches.
125,048 51
Loss for 1889..
7,667 83
REGULAR SEARCHES.
Received for fees in 1887
$51,956 41
Paid to searchers.
37,858 53
Gain for 1887 ..
Received for fees in 1888 ...
Paid to searchers.
14,097 88
$22,761 00
37,724 22
Loss for 1888 .
Received for fees in 1889 ....
Paid to searchers.
•
Loss for 1889..
*
14,963 22
$12,442 24
25,916 06
13,473 82
Salaries of employes in register's office other than searchers and
recording clerks:
1887. . . .
1888...
1889..
1890, based on pay-roll for March, 1890.
$45,581 38
63,270 24
64,134 00
70,720 00
Q. Mr. Tate, on what date was that made? A. That covers the accounts
in the office from the 1st of January, 1887, to the 1st of January, 1890.
Q. Now, for the year 1890, you have gone through the books to the
first of October? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And this is the result [referring to a paper produced by the
witness]? A. Yes, sir.
No. 80.]
2027
Paper referred to was marked Exhibit No. 4 of this date, and is as
follows:
EXHIBIT No. 4 — OCTOBER 14, 1890.
REGISTER'S OFFICE SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT FROM JANUARY 1, 1890,
TO OCTOBER 1, 1890.
Amount paid for salaries of register and other employes, $55,867 11
Amount paid for salaries of regular searchers, eight....
Amount paid for expediting searches:
·
Searchers
Bookkeeper
Watchman
14,550 28
$810 02
569 98
76 00
1,456 00
24,541,80
$96,415 19
Amount paid to recording clerks, fifty-one to sixty-six..
Making a total of
Fees received by register from January 1, 1890, to October 1, 1890,
were as follows:
From satisfaction of mortgages
$9,076 22
Papers
63,611 44
Chattels
6,190 74
Regular searches
6,507 06
Extra searches.
1,619 63
Making a total of .....
$87,005 09
Excess of salaries, etc., paid over fees received from
January 1, 1890, to October 1, 1890
$9,410 10
REGULAR SEARCHES.
Received for fees from January 1, 1890, to October 1,
1890...
Paid to searches
Making a loss of.
$6,507 06
14,550 28
$8,043 22
Q. We will take that report a moment, Mr. Tate; are we correct in
understanding that the total expenditure for salaries of the register
and other employes in the office, including the amount paid to record-
ing clerks, will, upon the basis of expenditure for this year to date, be
$96,415.19 for the year? A. From the 1st of January, 1890, to the 1st
of October, 1890.
2028
[SENATE,
Q. That is not to date? A. Yes, sir; and one quarter would be
added to make up the remainder of the year, assuming the expenses
for the remaining three months are in the same proportions; $24,000
would be added, which would make $121,000.
Q. That is an estimate on fees received by the register from
January 1, 1890, to October 1, 1890, making a total of $87,005?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. An excess of salaries paid over fees received up to date of
$9,410? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That shows the loss of the office? A. Yes, sir.
Q. On this item? A. Yes, sir.
Q. For the first nine months of this year? A. Yes, sir.
Q. For these nine months, there was received for regular searches,
$6,507, making, with the fees paid, $14,550? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Showing that it cost the city $8,043 more to have these searches
made than the city receives in return for making the searches? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Showing in that case that that particular fee bill is now sufficient
to compensate the city for doing the work by this difference? A.
Yes, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. It may show that they pay more men to do the work than is
necessary? A. Yes, sir; of course, this was on the assumption that
the number of employes are necessary to do the work; then the fee is
insufficient.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. That refers to the regular fees? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And makes no reference whatever to the fees for expediting
searches? A. No, sir.
Q. That brings us to this question of the expedition fees? A. The
manner of expediting searches you will find at the beginning of the
report.
Q. From this report it appears that up to date, that is, during the
first nine months of this year, there has been received by the city for
extra searches $1,619; is that correct? A. 1,619.63 is the amount
received by the register.
Q. As against which there has been paid by the register $1,456; if
that be correct, it shows that none of the business virtually has fallen
under the expedition law.
$
Register FITZGERALD.— It will take a little time to explain that. As
soon as I get on the stand I will explain that thoroughly.
No. 80.]
2029
Mr. IVINS.— Then we will pass that until Mr. Fitzgerald is called.
Q. Now, Mr. Tate, in the matter of the preservation of public
records, this is your report, is it [Referring to a paper produced by
the witness]? A. Yes, sir.
The paper referred to was marked Exhibit No. 5 of this date, and
is as follows:
EXHIBIT No. 5- OCTOBER 14, 1890.
REGISTER'S OFFICE PRESERVATION OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS.
This work is done under chapter 57, Laws of 1883, as follows:
SECTION 1.— Whenever, by reason of age, exposure or any casualty,
any public records, maps or papers in the custody of the county clerk,
surrogate, register or other county officer in the county of New York,
shall become mutilated, obliberated or rendered unfit for public
service, it shall be the duty of the officer having the official custody or
control of any such records, maps or papers, to cause copies thereof
to be made and certified for the public use, and the officer making
such transcripts or copies shall be paid a sum as may be just, but
which in no case shall exceed a sum to be certified by a justice of the
Supreme Court for the first judicial district, to be reasonable for the
service rendered. And no payment shall be made for any service
rendered under this act until the work shall be examined and
approved of as to the manner and form of execution by a justice of
the Supreme Court of the said first district, nor shall any such work
be done until a justice of the Supreme Court of the first judicial
district shall, after an examination, certify that such work is necessary
for the security and safety of the public records; and such new copies
when so made and approved shall, for all purposes, take the place of
the original records.
The expenditures for copying and comparing from July 1883, the
date of the beginning of the work, to May 26, 1890, have been as
follows:
Examiner, $125 per month....
1883.
$750 00
Recording clerks -10 to 17-$100 per month, 8,038 70
Reader, $100 per month
•
1884.
600 00
$9,388 70
$1,500 00
1,000 00
Examiner, $125 per month..
Reader, $100 per month
Map clerk
Recording clerk-17 to 18-$100 per month, 18,176 61
100 00
20,776 61
2030
[SENATE
$
1885.
Examiner, $125 per month..
Readers — 1 to 2 — $100 per month
$1,500 00
Recording clerks-16 to 20-$100 per month,
Index clerks-7 to 8-$100 per month
$100 per month.....
Map clerks 2-$100 per month...
1,900 00
21,867 74
8,700 00*
2,400 00
$36,467 74
1886.
Examiner, $125 per month
$1,467 74
Readers, $100 per month
·
2,096 78
Recording clerks -9 to 19-$100 per month,
Index clerks 1 to 7-$100 per month.....
Map clerks - 1 to 2-$100 per month ..
18, 732 29
5,790 34
2,212 90
30,300 05
1887.
Examiner, $125 per month..
$1,087 50
Recording clerks-15 to 27-$100 per month, 26,970 12
28,057 62
1888.
Recording clerks-23 to 26-$100 per month.......
28,771 77
1889.
Recording clerks, examiners and readers-18 to 26-
$100 per month..
24,970 21
1890, to MAY 26.
Recording clerks, examiners and readers
15 to 22-
$100 per month..
9,608 47
Estimated for month of May, making a total of........ $188,341 17
for recording, comparing and putting in maps.
The total number of pages completed to May 26,.1890, is 170,602,
making the average cost per page one dollar and fourteen cents.
Mr. IvINS.— This work of preserving the public records in this case
as in the case of the aldermanic records and the county clerk's office,
is provided for by the Laws of 1883.
Q. This statement is the result of an examination of the official
records of the register's office, is it not [Referring to paper pro-
duced by the witness]? A. The pay-roll is the result of an examina-
tion of the pay-rolls in the comptroller's office.
Paper referred to was marked Exhibit No. 6 of this date, and is as
follows:
No. 80.]
2031
P. H. McKenna, recording clerk.
EXHIBIT No. 6— OCTOBER 14, 1890.
The following is the pay-roll of the clerks whose salaries are charged
to "preservation of the public records," for the month of September,
1890.
J. Burns, examiner...
J. W. Burns, recording clerk.
J. D. Henderson, recording clerk.
T. Boland, recording clerk.
T. Wunderlich, recording clerk.
J. U. Reilly, recording clerk.
L. Arnstein, recording clerk.
P. I. Garvey, recording clerk.
J. Brady, recording clerk....
E. F. Starin, recording clerk.
Per month.
$125 00
100 00
100 00
100 00
100 00
100 00
100 00
100 00
100 00
83 33
100 00
I. Amschel, recording clerk
100 00
D. J. Connell, indexer..
100 00
J. J. Kirk, indexer..
83 33
J. B. Kiernan, recording clerk.
100 00
J. N. Lerscher, reader
100 00
•
100 00
100 00
100 00
100 00
J. O'Connor, reader.
L. P. Smith, reader.
•
B. F. Fitzpatrick, reader.
E. K. Parris, reader . .
Total....
$1,991 66
Q. This shows what the elements of that expense are; it now
appears that there is one examiner at $125 per month, eleven record-
ing clerks at $100 per month as their fixed salary, one indexer at $100
per month, and another indexer who received eighty-three dollars and
thirty-three cents; does he receive $100 per month also, J. J. Kirk?
A. They are paid $100 a month if they do the full amount of work;
their regular salary would be $100 per month.
Q. And there is another recording clerk at $100 per month and five
readers at $100 per month each, making a monthly pay-roll of $1,991,
and making a possible pay-roll, dependent upon the manner in which
the men do their work, slightly in excess of that; say in round num-
bers something in excess of $2,000 per month for that service?
A. Yes, sir.
2032
[SENATE,
Q. Now, this is the pay-roll of the recording clerks, is it not [Refer-
ring to paper produced by the witness]? A. That is the work of the
recording clerks who are engaged upon the general work of the
register's office, at five cents per folio.
Q. That being transcribed from the books in the office? A. From
the pay-roll in the comptroller's office.
Q. Showing fifty-one clerks employed in this service, their work
varying from sixty-eight folios per month, which is the lowest number
of folios done by any of these clerks in this particular month, to 1,289
folios, which appears to be the largest number of folios done by any
one clerk in this particular month; the total number of folios for the
month being 27,974, which, at five cents per folio, makes the pay-roll
for this service; that is, the regular recording work of the office,
$1,398, or, in round numbers, about $600 less than the pay-roll for the
preservation of the old records; this is for the month of September;
Mr. Fitzgerald says this is a light month.
Mr. FITZGERALD.—We have had as high as 3,600.
The WITNESS.-The amount to recording clerks in January,
$3,109.65; February, $2,576.40; March, $2,661.55; April, $3,067.25; in
May, $3,606.20; in June, $3,168.65; in July, $2,384.35; in August,
$2,569.05; in September, $1,398.70.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. About an average of $2,800 a month? A. Yes, sir.
Q. An average number of employes of about fifty? A. It will
average more than that; it will range from fifty-one to sixty-four,
sixty-four being the highest number and fifty-one being the lowest
employes.
Mr. IvINS.-That is all the formal accounting matter that I care to
prove by Mr. Tate in regard to this office at the present time.
The last paper referred to was marked Exhibit No 7 of this date,
and is as follows:
EXHIBIT No. 7.- OCTOBER 14, 1890.
REGISTER'S OFFICE - PAY-ROLL OF RECORDING CLERKS FOR MONTH OF
SEPTEMBER, 1890, AT FIVE CENTS PER FOLIO.
Chas. M. Boyd…….
Michael P. Brady.
James M. Brennan.
Hugh Brady.
John J. Boylan . .
Peter Barnett
Folios.
162
358
954
98
138
803
No. 80.]
2033
Thos. W. Cashman..
Michael J. Callahan..
John J. Cunningham.
Edward A. Collins
Joseph A. Cassidy
Thos. F. Connolly.
Wm. H. Dunlap
Harry G. Dale..
Wm. H. Donnelly.
Chas. L. Dodge
Jacob Feis..
Alf. G. Finnessey
Thos. Finnell...
•
Edward F. Fitzgerald
John P. Flood...
John F. Gaffney..
John J. Guilfoyle.
Geo. W. Houghton.
Michael T. Griffin.
And. J. Kirk…..
Sam'l. Levner
James J. Leavy.
•
•
•
Thos. C. McNulty
Thos. F. McDevitt.
John J. Murray..
Jacob W. Moore..
Vincient J. McFeigne.
Hugh J. McDonald
Edw. J. McCauley.
John J. McKenna.
James H. McGraw.
Geo. McLaughlin.
Ber. J. McGee.
Edward J. Murray.
Patrick Moore..
Homer Nelson.
Edw. J. Nealon.
John H. Norton.
•
•
T. O. D. O'Callaghan.
Francis C. Reilly..
James H. Rodman.
Folios.
462
284
579
404
314
750
474
546
614
78
650
186
951
610
•
258
783
1,289
1,104
568
492
436
68
238
•
1,188
424
854
120
•
720
298
714
862
398
817
341
444
1,114
484
949
366
496
134
[Senate, No. 80.]
255
2034
[SENATE,
James Vincent....
Folios.
204
Chas. Wache.
Frank Watts
Thos. McFall.
1,100
853
553
27,974
.05
$1,398 70
FRANK T. FITZGERALD, called as a witness, being duly sworn, testified
as follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Mr. Fitzgerald, where do you live? A. Seventy-four Bench
street.
Q. You are the register of this city and county? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you been such register? A. Since the 1st of
January, 1890.
Q. You were elected at the last election? A. Yes, sir.
Q. As the candidate and nominee of Tammany Hall? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have heard the testimony of Mr. Tate here? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Tate who just preceded you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So far as you have been able to tell by listening to that testi-
mony, you have discovered no inaccuracies in it, have you? A.
No, sir.
Q. Will you explain to the committee, first the duties of your office,
the organization of the office, and the manner in which those duties
are performed, and by whom? A. Well, do you want me to go back
to the formation of the office, about 1813 ?
Q. Oh, no; just take up the office as it is to-day; this is not history;
this is a photograph? A. Well, the office as at present constituted,
is for the purpose of receiving for record all the conveyances and
mortgages affecting the real estate in the county of New York; we
also receive mortgages on personal property, chattel mortgages; also
conditional bills of sale; the papers are recorded at length, with the
exception of the chattel mortgages and the bills of sale in libers of
conveyances and libers of mortgages; after those papers are recorded,
that is the mortgages and conveyances, they receive the stamp of the
register, and are returned.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Everything affecting the title to real estate is entered at length?
A. Everything in the county of New York.
No. 80.]
2035
Q. And those papers which you have that are entered at length, are
such papers as affect the title of real estate? A. And of course
affecting the title to personal property in so far as it is mortgaged,
chattel mortgages.
Q. You do not enter those chattel mortgages at length? A. No,
sir; they are simply filed; the deeds of conveyances and the
mortgages are recorded at length, and satisfactions of mortgages_are
also recorded at length.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Contracts in regard to sale of land are recorded at length? A.
Yes, sir; deeds and their necessary appendages, including, of course,
the contracts in relation to property.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Will you go on, Mr. Register, with the explanation; that includes
all the duties of the office, does it? A. That includes the different
duties of the office; I may have left out some minor details.
Q. That includes all the duties of the office involving expendi-
tures? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now you have certain duties for searchers? A. Yes, sir.
Q. For performing such duties a certain rate of fees is fixed by the
law of 1884? A. I think that the law of 1884, has been supplemented
by chapter 376 of the Laws of 1887.
Q. I have that here; that is the chapter which is known as the law
for expediting fees, etc.? A. Of course, the situation with reference
to searchers' fees anterior to 1887, was this: The register's office was
a feed office; that is, the register received the fees and retained them,
paid the expenses of the office, and the surplus was his own; I should
say the first register who took office as a salaried official was the
register who went into office in 1887; now, then, in 1887, the office
being a salaried one, the situation with reference to the searchers was
simply this: The register had twenty days within which to return the
searches; members of the bar found that the register was unable to
do the work in that time for the simple reason that the office hours
are from 9 to 4, and there was no contract made on behalf of the
register with any of the searchers to get out this extra work after
hours; in other words, if a member of the bar handed in a search,
each search was taken up in its order as it was taken in the office, so
that between the hours of 9 and 4 it was impossible to do the work;
when the office was a feed office, the members of the bar had their
own special searchers, their favorite searchers, and the search came
addressed to them, of course, the requisition taking the usual course,
3
2036
[SENATE,
going in to the register first and then handed to the person designated
on the search; well, that searcher could work until 10 or 11-o'clock at
night if he pleased; he made a special contract with the person who
desired to have the search made; now, when it was made a salaried
office, that was done away with and the work could not be gotten out
between 9 and 4, and no searcher would stay there after 4 o'clock,
because it was not an object to him.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Who fixes the office hours? A. The statute.
Q. The statute makes a day's work for New York city six hours?
A. From 9 to 4; yes, sir.
Q. With an hour for lunch, I suppose? A. I assume that goes.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Do you understand that that means the time for office work or
the hours in which papers shall be filed in the office? A. The office
should remain open from 9 to 4.
Q. Open for what purposes? A. I should like to see the statute; I
do not care to quote it until I see the statute.
Q. Do you understand that the statute makes the hours for work
from 9 till 4, or that the statute provides that the office shall be open
for the public transaction of business from 9 till 4? A. If you will
kindly let me see the statute, I will give you my legal interpretation
of it.
Q. What is the practice? A. The practice is that our office opens
for the reception of papers at 9 o'clock, and it closes at 4 o'clock; now,
since I took office, I made a rule over there that the members of the
bar should be allowed to remain as long as they pleased after 4 o'clock,
if they chose to remain.
Q. How about your subordinates; do they stop work at 4 o'clock ?
A. Yes, sir; usually; not all of them; I have one subordinate that
works till 10 o'clock.
Q. Is there any reason, other than that which is covered by the law,
why they should not do a longer day's work if it were necessary? A.
Well, I do not take that position about it; I assume that if we were
rushed with work, if I went to my subordinates and said that it was
necessary that they should stay there to get the work out, I think they
would do it; I do not know as I would be legally obliged to do that.
Q. Do you know anything about the practice in banks with regard
to opening at 10 and closing at 3 o'clock? A. No, sir; I do not know
anything about it; I know that is the regulation.
No. 80.1
2037
Q. Have you ever been advised of the fact that while the banks
open at 10 o'clock and close at 3 o'clock, that does not fix the hours
of work of a bank clerk? A. I have not the slightest information on
that subject.
Q. Do you think that eight hours is a fair day's work? A. For
some men, I think it is.
Q. Do your men work so hard that six hours a day is exhaustive ?
A. I don't hardly think that is relevant.
Q. Oh, yes; I think it is relevant; why should a public servant who
is doing a very light class of work, work less than the average man
who is doing a heavy class of work? A. The law says the office shall
open at 9 and close at 4.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. What I want to get at is whether it is customary in this city to
regard six hours as a day's work, not only in your department, but in
other departments also? A. I don't know anything about any other
department.
Q. But in your department, a day's work is considered six hours?
A. From 9 till 4.
Q. And it is based upon the fact that the Consolidation Act, that is
volume 2 of the Laws of 1882, say that the office shall be opened from
9 till 4, for the transaction of business? A. Yes, sir; I think that is it.
Q. Do you know of any other provision of law which limits a day's
work, even by implication, from between the hours of 9 and 4? A. I
understood there was a law of this State which declared a laborer's
day's work to be eight hours.
Q. Yes; but that is not eight hours, from 9 to 4? A. No, it is not.
Q. Especially with an hour out for noon? A. I do not say that
that is taken; I do not know whether it is or not.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. If there were no law in the premises, would there be any reason
why your clerks should not do the full eight hour's work? A. If
there wasn't any law about it.
Q. Is your work so laborious that it is impossible for them to
stand it?
Senator FASSETT.-The point is, is there anything in your work that
is so laborious that a man could not stand over six hours?
The WITNESS. It is mentally laborious.
Q. Which part is mentally laborious? A. For instance, the
searcher's department.
2038
[SENATE,
:
Q. Do the searchers in your department search any more laboriously
than the lawyer's clerks who go there? A. I don't know that they do.
Mr. IVINS. I have been a lawyer's clerk myself, and have searched
ten hours a day.
The WITNESS.-It is laborious in this day that the work makes it a
mental strain.
Senator FASSETT. Is it more of a mental strain under this law than
it was under the old law?
The WITNESS.—I don't want to discuss philosophy.
Senator FASSETT. We are not asking you to discuss philosophy.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Is mere copying laborious work? A. It is not laborious, it is
exact work.
Q. Is the entry made from documents to be filed, work that a man
can not stand for more than six hours a day? A. No; I do not think
it is; of course, you understand I am proceeding under the Consolida-
tion Act; I am not fixing the six hours.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. The point is this: Mr. Ivins admits that under the law you can
not receive records before 10 or after 4 o'clock? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now the question is this: Assuming that the clerks who receive
the papers for record should act exactly under the statutes, should
receive papers after 10 o'clock, and not after four, the question is,
would it be against the Consolidation Act if you were to say to your
clerk: "We expect you to be here in the morning at 8 o'clock, and
work until five"? A. Oh, no; I don't think it would be against the law.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Your day's work usually ends at 4 o'clock, does it not? A.
Well, not usually; I get to my office at 9 o'clock, and probably stay
for two or three hours, and then go out, and then return and stay
some days until 4 o'clock or 5 o'clock.
Q. How is it with Mr. Hanley? A. He is there until 4 o'clock or
a little after, and sometimes until half-past 4.
Q. How is it with Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Young? A. They are
there from 9 till 4.
Q. Then these salaries are from $1,200 to $3,000; are really salaries
paid for six hours work a day; is that a fair statement? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now we were talking of the organization of the office; you have
a staff of clerks to report papers? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have a staff of clerks to copy documents? A. Yes, sir.
Q. The papers which need to be preserved? A. Yes, sir.
No. 80.]
2039
Q. And you have several superior clerks who supervise the manner
in which the work is done. A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that covers generally the organization of your office? A.
Generally; yes, sir.
Q. Now who is Mr. James A. Hanley? A. Mr. Hanley is the deputy
register.
Q. How long has he been deputy register? A. I think Mr. Hanley
was deputy register under Mr. Reilly; Mr. Reilly was register prior
to Mr. Slevin, from 1884 to 1887.
Senator FASSETT.-Which Reilly is this?
The WITNESS. John Reilly.
Senator FASSETT.-Is he now commissioner of jurors?
The WITNESS.- No, sir.
Q. You then retained Mr. Hanley in the office because he has had a
long experience there? A. I was going to say that Mr. Hanley was
also deputy for Mr. Slevin for, I think, six or eight months.
Q. Mr. Hanley is a member of Tammany Hall, is he? A. I under-
stand he is.
Q. Is he a leader in Tammany Hall, what you call a leader? A. I
don't know as he is chairman of any of the committees; I have not
heard that he was.
Q. He is a prominent man to the organization, is he not? A. I
presume he is in his district; the fourteenth district.
Q. Who is Mr. John E. Fitzgerald? A. John E. Fitzgerald is my
brother.
Q. He is the assistant deputy register? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you tell us what the duties of the assistant deputy register
are? A. The duties of the deputy register are to receive and pass
upon all papers as it is the duty of the register to receive and pass
upon all papers presented for filing or recording in office, to receive
the fees for the same and to see that they are entered properly in the
books used for that purpose; the duties of the assistant deputy
register are the same.
Q. You mean to say that they are properly acknowledged also?
A. Yes, sir; if they are received for register.
Q. Do both of these gentlemen do the same class of business, or is
the work divided into two classes between them, so that one class
calls to one and the other class calls to the other? A. Well, that
depends altogether upon the amount of work that appears at the desk;
now, frequently at 2 o'clock, quite a line of lawyers is formed there
for the purpose of recording papers; that is at about 2 o'clock, and
2040
[SENATE,
that continues on until 4; then one of them receives the cash and the
other passes upon the acknowledgments.
Q. The civil service laws have no application to your office, have
they? A. No, sir.
Q. Mr. Fitzgerald is also a member of Tammany Hall? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the total number of clerks employed in your office?
A. The regular staff is —
Senator FASSETT.- From fifty-one to sixty-four, isn't it?
The WITNESS.— From about sixty-one to sixty-four; then the record-
ing clerks altogether depend upon the amount of work there is to do.
Senator FASSETT.-They average from eighteen to twenty-two, do
they not?
The WITNESS.-No; I think there are more than that.
Q. The recording clerks numbered fifty-one? A. Do you mean the
old records?
Senator FASSETT.-Your regular clerks run from fifty-one to sixty-
four, and the old records, those clerks run from eighteen to
twenty-two?
The WITNESS.-Yes, sir.
Q. Fifty-one to sixty-four a month? A. That is about the regular
roll, too
Q. Say about sixty is a fair average for the regular roll? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. And then you have on the preservation of old records twenty-
one? A. Twenty-one; but that would depend altogether upon the
work that was done; the old record work is done in this way; some
years ago there was a regulation made that five pages a day of
book of mortgages would constitute a day's work; the pages have
got to be exact as to numbers and as to the matter; seven pages of an
index was called a day's work.
Senator FASSETT.-We will take that up later.
The WITNESS.-Very well; I was going to explain how the number
might be reduced.
Q. Excluding yourself, there are sixty-four other persons employed
in the office, in addition to those we have just spoken of, I find by
reference here? A. That is a transcript, is it, of last month's ?
Q. Yes, sir. A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that the total number of persons employed in your office is,
on the average, 135? A. I thought—that would include the old
record; ancient records; yes.
Q. Including those for the preservation of old records? A. I think
about that; yes, sir.
No. 80.]
2041
Q. Out of this 135 persons employed in your office, how many are
not members of Tammany Hall? A. Well, with reference to that, Mr.
Ivins, I could not say, and for this reason, for the past fifteen years
the register has been identified with Tammany Hall; I think from
Judge Low's time down, and there had not been many changes in the
office when I took charge of it.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Most all Tammany men? A. Well, I—
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Do you know of any case of any man in the office who is not a
member of Tammany Hall; that office has been virtually in the family
from Judge Low's time to date; has it not? A. In the Tammany
family?
Q. Yes. A. I assume that it has; yes, sir.
Q. Do you know of any one man out of these 135 people who is not
a member of Tammany Hall? A. Yes; I know of one, personal
appointment of mine.
Q. Who is he? A. Mr. Brodsky's father.
Q. Mr. John E. Brodsky's father? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What does he do? A. He is a messenger there.
Q. And he is a Republican? A: I don't know what his politics are;
his politics had nothing to do with the appointment; Mr. Brodsky and
I have had offices for some time in the same building together, and it
is purely outside of politics, altogether, the appointment.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. You spoke of John E. Brodsky; who is he? A. Well, Mr. Ivins
said he was a Republican.
Mr. Ivins. I asked if he was a Republican.
Q. Is he a Republican leader; recognized as that? A. I don't know
what his status in the party is.
Senator FASSETT.-I regard him as a very bright, wide-awake young
Republican; sound on most everything except this coalition ticket.
The WITNESS.
that point.
By Mr. IVINS:
I think Mr. Fassett would be the best evidence on
Q. Do you know of anyone else in the office whom you know not to
be a member of Tammany Hall? A. No, sir; I do not recall.
Q. Did you appoint Frank P. Young? A. Yes, sir.
[Senate, No. 80.]
256
2042
[SENATE,
Q. What was he; satisfaction clerk? A. Young, at present, is
satisfaction clerk; he was formerly a searcher in the office.
Q. How long was he a searcher in the office before you appointed
him for this place? A. Well, I think he was a searcher for three years;
I am not quite certain about that.
Q. I do not think it will be of profit to the committee to go through
this list in detail, but I will ask you this question: Have you in the
employ of the office and to whom you pay, directly or indirectly, salaries
for performing any kind of service, anyone who is engaged in or inter-
ested in the liquor business? A. I think so; yes, sir.
Q. Is it not a fact that you have three or four men in the employ of
your office who are engaged in the liquor business?
Senator FASSETT.— Do you mean who are carrying on the business
in addition to this work?
Mr. IVINS.-Carrying on the liquor business in addition to this.
The WITNESS. Well, I can not answer that; I don't know whether
they are carrying on the liquor business or not; just name these
people; then we will take it up in their order.
Senator FASSETT.- Liquor business or any other business, Mr. Ivins.
Mr. IVINS.-Liquor business or any other business.
The WITNESS.- I think Mr. Hart is one.
Q. Mr. Hart; who is he? A. He is a member of the Democratic
organization in the first district.
Q. Does he own a liquor store? A. I don't know whether he owns
one or not.
Q. Keep one? A. I can't tell you that; I understood that he was in
the liquor business; I couldn't tell, you know, unless I saw his license.
Q. Did he keep one when you appointed him? A. I am not certain
about that.
Q. What does he do in your office? A. I understand he is in the
liquor business.
Senator FASSETT.
In your office?
Q. No; but in your office what does he do? A. He is a map clerk.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. What are the duties of a map clerk? A. Draw maps.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Does he draw maps? A. I assume so; if he didn't we wouldn't
have him there.
Q. Do you know of your own knowledge, whether he does or not,
or is that one of the matters left to your subordinates to discover? ·
A. Well, of my own knowledge I don't know.
No. 80.]
2043
Q. Now, who ought to know? A. Mr.- if you will let me see that
roll, I will tell you; I know the name very well, but I don't just recall
it [examines paper]; Mr. O'Donnell.
Q. Mr. Hart is a member of Tammany Hall, is he not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, who else is in your office who is, directly or indirectly, at
present engaged in the liquor business, so far as you know? A. I do
not recall anybody; if you will name them, I can tell you.
Senator FASSETT.— Just read down the list.
Mr. IVINS.-If you will look over the list that will help you.
[Presents list to witness.] I do not want to have to take the list and
go through it in detail to find the antecedents of each man.
Senator FASSETT.- I suppose, Mr. Ivins, one object of your inquiry
is to know whether they are devoting their entire time to this.
Mr. IVINS. Whether they are devoting their entire time to this.
It is very easy for them to be in two businesses, in view of the fact
that they have a short day's work here.
Q. Who is that clerk named Comensky? A. He is the chattel mort-
gage clerk; he is not in the business; I am pretty certain he is not;
he was formerly.
Q. He was formerly in that business? A. Not now.
Q. How recently was he engaged in the business? A. I suppose
before I appointed him.
Q. Before you appointed him; where was his place of business? A.
He had no place of business, as I understand it; he was in the
employ -
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Barkeeper? A. Barkeeper; yes.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. So that Mr. Comensky graduated from barkeeper to chattel mort-
gage clerk in your office, by appointment? A. Well, I don't say that;
I don't say he graduated from anything to chattel mortgage clerk; I
say this about him: He is one of the best penmen in the office, and
discharges his duties properly and faithfully.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. And does not conduct any outside business? A. And does not
conduct any outside business; and it is a very important place, chat-
tel mortgage clerk, and I had confidence in him and put him there;
and he is one of the best penmen we have in the office.
1
2044
[SENATE,
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. He is there during business hours? A. He is there longer than
business hours; he gets there at 9 o'clock and does not leave until,
may be, 9 or 10.
Q. In short, he attends to every duty faithfully and properly? A.
Faithfully and properly; yes.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Is there anybody else in your office who was a bartender before
he went into the office? A. I do not recall anybody.
Q. Just look the list over and be sure? A. There is not any on that
list; no.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Are there any of your employes that are engaged in carrying on
any other business, that you know of? A. No, sir; not that I know
of; as I say, there have been very few changes there by reason of the —
Q. You never made it a subject of inquiry, did you, to see whether
your clerks were engaged in other business? A. The only thing, I
insist upon them being present during office hours, official hours; and
that is all I care about it.
Q. And attending properly to their duties? A. To their duties;
that is all; my business with them ceases.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Who supervises the manner in which they attend to their duties;
you personally, or one of your subordinates? A. Well, I do personally,
as far as I can.
By Senator FASSETT:
نام
Q. Who distributes the work? A. Under my direction it is
distributed.
Q. Yes; but by whom? A. By Mr. Hanley; I direct him what to
do with reference to the distribution of the work.
Q. Now, look through this list, also, which you did not have before you,
and see if you see any name there? [Presenting paper.] A. It is the
old records; I have been over that; there is not anybody on that; if
you think of anybody and you can recall them, I can tell you
you the truth.
tell
Q. I do not think of any one; I have received several letters saying
that there were a number of people now interested in, or who hereto-
fore had been interested in, the liquor business, but who now serve
under you or on your pay-rolls. A. I don't know who they are.
No. 80.]
2045
Q. I thought you could advise us; quite by chance I thought to ask
you about Mr. Comensky. A. I am glad to tell you the truth about
anything I have in my possession.
Q. You remember Mr. Hart; now, do you remember anyone else?
A. I do not recall anyone; no, sir.
Q. Do you know of anyone in the office who, while being on your
pay-rolls and receiving a salary for work done there, is, notwith-
standing, in other business of any kind? A. I do not; I do not recall
any, sir.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. And you don't know whether Mr. Hart conducts a liquor busi-
ness or is simply interested as partner, silent or otherwise, in some
business? A. I could not swear to it; no; as I remarked before, all
I care about is that they shall be there during official hours; doesn't
make any difference to me what they do after office hours.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Who is Thomas B. Fitzpatrick? A. If you will pardon me, let
me have that roll. [Counsel presents paper to witness.]
was there before I went in; I don't know anything about it.
Q. Do you know who he is? A. No, sir; I do not.
Fitzpatrick
Q. Is he the son of ex-Alderman Fitzpatrick? A. No, sir; he is not.
Q. Is the son of ex-Alderman Fitzpatrick in your employ? A. Yes,
sir..
Q. What does he do? A. He is on the ancient records.
Q. Does he copy ancient records? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you ever seen his handwriting? A. Well, I don't know as
I made it an especial subject of investigation; we have examiners who
pass upon all that writing, and on the certificate of the examiner I
certify to the record; I don't know as his handwriting was especially
picked out; he was there before I took office.
Q. This is B. F. Fitzpatrick? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You knew who he was when you took the office, did you not?
A. I don't know as my attention was particularly called to him; as I
remarked before, I have made very few changes in the office.
Q. Is this the Mr. Fitzpatrick who at one time was a member of the
police force of this city? A. I could not tell you, sir; I don't know.
Q. Do you know whether this is the Mr. Fitzpatrick who was dis-
missed from the police force and who was charged with and tried for
murder? A. I haven't any knowledge about it, sir.
Q. It is the son of ex-Alderman Fitzpatrick? A. I believe he is.
Q. Lives in the Fourth Assembly district? A. Yes, sir.
2046
[SENATE,
Q. If your attention were called to facts of that kind, would it lead
to any inquiry as to his antecedents on your part? A. Well, as I
say-
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-
Was he acquitted?
A. I had nothing to do with his appointment; he was there and not
disturbed; he was there when I went in the office and he discharged
his duties all right.
Q. Well, have you ever taken any steps to look up his record either
in public or in criminal life? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever yourself checked off the manner in which he does
his work? A. You mean personally.
Q. Yes. A. I assumed that I have, in this way; we have examiners
over there who go through—of course, the committee will under-
stand, and no doubt the counsel will understand, that I can't take
every page of this ancient record and read it through; that would
be an utter impossibility.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Physical impossibility? A. Physical impossibility.
Mr. IVINS. We understand that perfectly.
The WITNESS.— Well, I assume that his work has come under my
supervision in this way: that it has been examined by the examiners; the
examiners have certified to me that it is correct, and upon their certi-
fication I have signed the certificate.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. That is, you have not—? A. I don't recall
Q. Consciously made any exception in his favor? A. No; no more
than I have in anybody else's.
Q. If his work has been passed upon favorably, it has been passed
upon favorably as everybody's else work has been? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And if the examiner has favored him in any way, you would not
know it? A. Well, I wouldn't know it, but I assume the examiner has
not, because they are very exact documents.
Q. They are not good documents to have a man copying who has
not a good handwriting; are they? A. No, sir; I would not retain
anybody who did not have a good handwriting in copying them.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Do you mean to say now that, at the the time he was retained, and
up to date, you have never heard anything about his career in this city?
A. I have not, sir.
No. 80.]
2047
Q. It has never been brought to your attention in any way? A. No,
sir; not in any possible way.
Q. In order that no injustice may be done Mr. Fitzpatrick in this
matter, and that if he be not the man whom he has been identified to
me as being, you know of no reason why he should not be called here
as a witness; do you? A. Oh, not at all; as I say, I haven't aný
information about him at all; I don't know anything about him;
Mr. Fitzpatrick was there when I took office, and, as I say, he was
not disturbed.
Q. Well, now, will you explain to the committee how you, as regis-
ter, and being fully possessed of the knowledge of the manner in
which the work is done, how you explain the decrease in the income
of the office as compared with the income in past years? A. Do you
want that generally answered?
Q. Yes; just answer it generally; we have got the figures already,
but if you will just answer generally the reasons why the income of
the office has fallen off, as it has, so far as you know? A. Well,
in every department of the register's office from which fees come,
the profit to the city is, well, far beyond the appropriation which
is made to do the work in that department, with one exception, and
that is the searcher's department; now, you know there are three
title companies in the city of New York- the German-American, the
Lawyer's Title and Trust Company and the Title Guaranty Company;
they offer as an inducement the insurance of a title and -
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. They guaranty the titles? A. They insure the title; for example:
If there is any mistake, any flaw, or any speck on the title, the com-
pany binds itself to be responsible for that speck or flaw, and the
consequence is with that inducement these companies have absolutely
taken all the searching business from the register.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Well, do they do work for a less sum than you do it for in your
office? A. I could not say that; I don't know whether they do or not;
I wrote them to find out.
Mr. IVINS. He can not answer that for this reason: They charge a
net sum for searching a title
The WITNESS. And passing it and all that.
Mr. IVINS. And passing it. That includes the searching and the
passing; searching in the county clerk's office and the searching in
his office.
:
2048
[SENATE,
•
The WITNESS.And then they give you a certificate of insurance,
that if any search is made
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-
And does that aggregate of it amount to
more than he charges in his office.
Mr. IVINS. That aggregate amounts to more than he charges in his
office, but that aggregate of it is sufficient for doing the same class of
work in the county clerk's office, plus the work of the conveyancer and
the work of the lawyer passing upon the title. In other words, the
people who are suffering most from the competition of these particular
companies that we speak of, are the conveyancers and real estate
lawyers, because the business which was theretofore done by them has
gone into this new form, and this is only one item of the expense
which they have to undergo before they make their complete gross
charge covering the fee for all of the work.
The WITNESS.—The charges we make, of course, are settled by the
act of 1887. My charge, for instance, five cents a year for each paper,
making fifteen cents a year for each name and for each piece of
property excepting where the property was contiguous; in that case
one would carry the other with it.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Are you responsible now for an error in a search? A. Well, I
think that is an open question; the question has never been up; I am
responsible for any mistakes of the searchers under me; if one of the
searchers in the register's office should make a wrong return, acci-
dentally leave off a mortgage or a conveyance, I would be responsible.
Q. You are responsible under the statute? A. Under the statute;
yes, sir; that is an open question though; I do not participate in the
fees of the office; the city take them all.
Q. That has never been tested? A. That has never been tested;
in fact, I never heard of any mistakes.
Q. But on the face of the statute you would be responsible? A. On
the face of the statute I would be
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You do not receive, either directly or indirectly, any sum in
excess of $12,000 per annum for the work done in or about that
* office? A. No, sir.
Q. That is the absolute gross amount received by you? A. Yes,
sir; $12,000; the fees go to the city.
Q. You personally are not, directly or indirectly, the beneficiary by
the expedition fees, are you? A. No, sir; not in any way possible; of
course those expedition fees are very small indeed; this year they
No. 80.]
2049
are about $1,500; the city have received twenty per cent of the profit
on those extra fees and the searchers receive half under the statute.
Q. I ask that question because there is a very erroneous opinion in
the community to the effect that the revenues of that office are very
much I mean the revenues of the register individually, are very
much in excess of what they actually are? A. Well, for the time
ending the first of September the fees were, the extra fees were about
$1,619.63; that is for about eight or ten months; there is very little
extra searching done there.
Q. Will you make any suggestion to the committee, looking towards
legislation, which will restore that office to the position of a self-sus-
taining office? A. Well, if you want to restore it to a profitable
office
Q. Yes; make it a profitable office? A. The only recommendation
I can make is to abolish the title companies; it would make $200,000
a year then to the city.
Q. Have you any knowledge, either by hearsay or otherwise from
your predecessors, or any of the clerks in your office who were with
the predecessors, which would enable you to form a fair estimate of
the income of the register under the old system? A. I do not recall
anybody, sir, at the present, who could give that.
Q. You have heard it variously estimated from fifty to a hundred
thousand dollars a year under the old system? A. The income of the
office from fifty you mean the net profit?
Q. I mean the net profit to the register individually? A. That is
something that I could not form any opinion about for this reason;
that there are not any papers over there that could direct either
Mr. Slevin, my predecessor, or myself, as to the income of the office
anterior to 1887, because all of those papers are the property of the
register who was then in, and there is nothing on file that you could
get a line on whereby -
Q. I asked you if you had ever had any means through anything
that had been said to you by any prior incumbent in the office, that
would enable you to make a fair estimate? A. No, sir; I never have.
Q. Would it not be possible to run that office, Mr. Fitzgerald, with
a much smaller staff of searchers than you now have, in view of the
decrease in the volume of searching done? A. There were last year
twelve searchers; twelve searchers last year; that is, in 1889; there
are at present eight; now I don't consider eight searchers too many
for the city of New York to have, for this reason; that if the
public should lose confidence in these title companies, naturally the
volume of business would turn into the register.
[Senate, No. 80.]
257
2050
[SENATE,
Q. Then, it would be quite possible to provide sufficient new
searchers, would it not? A. It might be, although that is a very open
question; I understand this to be the situation, that when the budget
is closed by the board of estimate and apportionment for any one year,
it can not be reopened; I haven't given them any attention.
Q. I think you will find that that could be covered? A. Well, you
probably know; you have had something to do with financial matters
and you may know something about that.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Assuming it could be done; eight are more than you actually
need to transact that business now in that department? A. I don't
say eight are too many; I say the number was reduced last year from
twelve to eight.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Are the eight kept occupied now during the business hours? A.
Yes, sir; the work is distributed, of course; some searches come in,
one may take longer than another; it is pretty hard to graduate, the
time that each search will take, you will understand, Senator.
Q. In Monroe county, the county clerk's office, which is equivalent
to your office in duties, is kept open from 9 till 5 in the afternoon?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you think it would be an accommodation to business men,
lawyers, men doing business with your office, if your office were kept.
open until 5 o'clock for receipt of papers for filing or record? A.
If the question was settled with reference to that statute declaring
the hour to be from 9 to 4.
Q. We assume now that your statement is correct; that it is to be
open for the transaction of business from 9 to 4; suppose those
were the words; suppose the statute were altered and were to
be open for the transaction of business from 9 to 5; do you think
the general public would be accommodated and interests subserved?
A. I think that the conveyancing bar would be very much accommo-
dated, for this reason, that lawyers have cases in court; the usual
court hour is from half-past 10 till 3 in the afternoon, say, and I
think in that way the conveyancing bar would be considerably accom-
modated, if the office was open till 5 o'clock.
Q. Don't you think the whole public would be accommodated in
that way, just to lengthen the hours? A. Well, naturally so.
Q. Would any great injustice be done your clerks, suppose that
they were to remain there until 5 o'clock? A. I don't think any
injustice would be done, sir.
No. 80.]
2051
Q. Would it be a hardship? A. No; I don't think it would be a
hardship.
Q. That would add one-sixth to the volume of work to be accom-
plished in each day? A. Yes, sir.
Q. By adding one more hour? A. Yes, sir; of course, you will
understand that the work, for instance, in the - the mortgages and
deeds in New York are always increasing; they increase at the rate of
about 12,000 a year; so that there wouldn't be any decrease in that
department at all.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. In that connection will you tell us what is being done by you
and your office with regard to preparation for the change in the sys-
tem which is to take place here on the first of January under the new
law? A. You mean the block system?
Q. Yes. A. It was only towards the end of last month, September,
that the board of estimate and apportionment made an appropriation
for that work.
Q. What was the amount, in round figures, appropriated for it?
A. The amount, in round figures, was -- I don't know as I can be very
exact about that; I think it is between $15,000 and $18,000; I am not
quite certain without I had my papers at hand.
Q. What is proposed to be done with that money? A. Well, Mr.
Olmstead, who they say is the father of this land transfer reform that
is about to be introduced, and myself, had various consultations; it
was really upon his figures that this appropriation was made; most of
that money will be paid for books, and in that connection — you
asked me what was being done; I am having prepared some models
of books; in fact one of them is complete now, which will give direc-
tion to the printer or to whomsoever may have this work in prepar-
ing this, these different indexes, and the tax department haven't filed
their maps as they are required to do in my office; they have not filed
the land map of the city, as it is called.
Q. Have you made any requisition on them to file their maps? A. I
have not beyond this, that I got an advice from them that when we
were prepared to go on we might come over and trace the maps from
advance sheets; that the maps were not ready yet.
Q. On whom is the obligation; on them or on you? A. The obli-
gation is on the tax department to file the maps with the register
before—that is, if you want to stand on technicality, the obligation
is on the tax department.
Q. To file the map? A. To file these land maps.
2052
[SENATE,
1
Q. But you have to make a transcript of those maps, do you not?
A. We have got to prepare these block indexes which will disclose the
fac simile of the different blocks of the city; as you understand the
city is divided into thirteen sections; each section is divided into
blocks; for instance, the first section takes that part of the city from
the Battery. east and west to Grand street on the east and then across
to Watts street and then on to the North river and around in that
fashion; there are 325 blocks in that section; now then, our duty is to
reduce that section to paper; in placing the fac simile of the blocks,
Mr. Olmstead's idea was that there should be about ten pages to
each block.
Q. Was it proposed that the actual, original maps, which are docu-
ments of the tax department, should be deposited by the tax depart-
ment and go out of the custody of the tax department to you, while
that change was being made? A. The provision of law, as I remem-
ber it, was that the tax department should prepare these maps under
the direction of the act of 1889, and amended by the act of 1890, that
they should prepare these maps and file them with the register, and
thereafter they were to be known as the land maps of the city of
New York.
Q. Do you know whether any appropriation has been made for the
tax department to enable that department to prepare maps? A. I
know there was an appropriation.
Q. There was an appropriation? A. That is, I got it second-hand;
I believe there was an appropriation made for that purpose.
-
Q. I am inquiring about this, because I have very recently heard a
great deal of doubt expressed as to whether or not this work would
be in readiness for the law really to go into force on the first of
January. A. Well, the real trouble, Mr. Ivins and Mr. Olmstead
will back me up in this statement; I understand there was a great
deal of fault found with the board of estimate; that they would never
come together to make any appropriation for the work, and, as I say,
it was only at the end of last month that this appropriation was made.
Q. Did your ever make any personal application for this appro-
priation? A. I did not; and, for this reason, that the tax department,
in an informal way, advised us to wait, Mr. Olmstead keeping track of
the matter; the tax department advised me, in an informal way, that
they were not quite ready; the appropriation was not necessary, in
fact, just yet; I understood that Mr. Olmstead, who, as you know, had
a great deal to do with this act, and who is especially interested to see
it put in force, had made different applications to the tax department,
to the board of estimate, to find what the condition of the work was.
No. 80.]
2053
Q. Is it your judgment now that the work has progressed so rapidly
that during the next two months and a half, and by the first of
January, you will have all the preliminary steps taken so that the law
can go into force? A. That is a very serious question; if it is not
* přepared there is not any way to record papers after the first of
January; there is going to be an extraordinary effort to get them
ready.
Q. Can they be got ready by an extraordinary effort? A. I think
so; that is, by putting on a sufficient force.
Q. The result of failure, however, will be that for the time between
the first of January and the time when the system is ready, we will
have no means of recording documents in this city? A. No means of
recording documents; that is, so far as indexing documents; you know
it does not change the form of recording.
Q. I mean so far as indexing; not so far as recording; so far as
indexing is concerned, because this simply takes the place of the old
system of indices? A. Although there is a provision-I think the
old alphabetical system is still kept in vogue under this law.
Q. If you have no further suggestions to make, I will run hurriedly
through this list, and see who the different clerks in your office are,
instead of calling each separately; Frank P. Young, satisfaction clerk?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you appoint him? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was his business prior to his appointment by you? A. His
business was searcher in the office.
Q. Michael Grady? A. Michael Grady is the present ticket clerk;
been in the office for some years.
Q. James V. Lynch? A. James V. Lynch is deceased.
Q. Richard J. Comasky? A. He is the chattel mortgage clerk.
Q. He is the one of whom we have just spoken? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Charles E. Baldwin? A. Charles E. Baldwin is the account
clerk.
Q. Did you appoint him? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was his business prior to his appointment? A. Engaged
in the custom-house.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Who recommended him? A. Mr. Benjamin Wood.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. That is Mr. Wood of the New York News? A. Yes, sir.
Q. George Achenbach? A. George Achenbach has been there
before I took office.
2054
[SENATE,
Q. He is the account clerk? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that a peculiarly responsible or confidential position, in any
way? A. It is a responsible position.
Q. Is it a confidential position? A. No; I regard the deputy and
the assistant as the confidential positions in the office, because they
take charge of the money.
Q. Do you know what Mr. Achenbach's business had been prior to
his going in the office? A. No, sir; I do not.
Q. Who recommended his retention? A. I don't know as anybody
recommended him.
Q. James Hynes? A. He was appointed by me.
Q. What was his business prior to appointment? A. I think he
was in the undertaking business; I am not quite certain.
Q. And he is now chief recording clerk at $1,800 a year? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who recommended him? A. He is a personal appointment.
Q. What district does he live in? A. Lives in Mr. Purroy's.
Q. That is the twenty-third and twenty-fourth wards? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Purroy ask for his appointment? A. No, sir.
Q. Edward F. Smith? A. Edward F. Smith has been there for
some years.
Q. He is examiner? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Robert A. Wood? A. He has been there for some time.
Q. John H. Andrews? A. He has been there for some time.
Q. Those are your three examiners and they have all been there
some time? A. Yes, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. "Examiners," what does that mean? A. They compare the
papers after the papers are written at length in the libers.
Q. Are these the examiners who pass upon the work of the subordi-
nates? A. Yes, sir; examiners and readers,
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. What do you mean by "readers?" A. For example: A deed is
sent up to be copied at length; after the deed is copied the reader
takes it and reads it off and the examiner takes the liber and-
Q. That is, the two do the comparing? A. Yes, sir; you would have
to have two to do it.
Q. Just as all ordinary comparing is done, by one person reading
and the other listening? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have three readers; Mr. Coyle, Mr. Murtha and Mr. Hogan?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are they all old clerks? A. Well, yes; I think so.
No. 80.]
2055
Q. You did not appoint either of them? A. I do not just recall.
Q. Do you know what the business of Mr. Coyle was before he went
into that department? A. No, sir.
Q. Know the business of Mr. Murtha? A. No, sir.
Q. Or of Mr. Hogan? A. No, sir.
Q. Who is Mr. Hogan; a son of Judge Hogan? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Judge Hogan is A. Oh, yes; I appointed Hogan; that is right.
Q. Son of Judge Hogan? A. Yes, sir.
Q. He lives in this district that we are now in, does he not? A. No;
he lives in Thirteenth street.
Q. John Pine? A. Mr. Pine has been there for some years.
Q. What is meant by "delivery clerk?" A. Delivery clerk is the
gentleman who takes out the papers and leaves them with the law-
yers, for example, you send a paper for record; at the bottom would
be "record and return to Mr. Ivins, such and such a number;" Mr.
Pine, after the comparing is done and the deed was passed upon, the
register's certificate on it, would take it down to your office.
Q. Takes it to my office and gets the fee? A. No; The fee is paid.
Q. It runs if you carry an account? A. We don't carry on account;
it is C. O. D.
Q. Then he has simply to deliver these papers to save the necessity
on the part of the lawyers from coming up and getting them? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. There is another
Joseph A. J. Drew
who is a delivery clerk
also? A. Mr. Pine also assists the grantee clerk.
Q. Do you know of any reason why they should pay for sending
these papers back to the lawyers instead of the lawyers sending up
and getting them? A. Well, I don't know of any reason why the
lawyers should not send for the papers; no.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. If you had to pay the clerks out of your own pocket you would
not do it, would you? A. Why, I don't-I think - certainly I would.
Q. You would get a fee from the lawyers in return, would you not?
A. If I was paying them; personal interest would compel me to do it
then in order to keep the business up with the title companies.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You didn't make a provisional estimate to the board of estimate
and apportionment for the expenses of your office for this year? A.
No, sir; do you mean the year 1889 ?
Q. Eighteen hundred and ninety-the present year? A. Yes.
Q. You have made it for '91, have you not? A. For '91; yes, sir.
2056
[SENATE,
Q. But the estimate for the moneys which you are expending were
not provided for in a provisional estimate made by you? A. No; they
were not.
Q. But you have now to file your provisional estimate for your
expenses for the year 1891? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Does your provisional estimate include these two clerks? A.
Yes, sir; it does; I want to say with reference to those two clerks,
that that is not altogether their duties; now, for instance, Mr. Pine
assists behind the desk with the grantee clerk.
Q. What proportion of Mr. Pine's time is spent in doing that? A.
And takes charge, as Drew does, of the deeds and mortgages.
Q. What proportion of their time is spent in doing that, and what
proportion is spent in doing the work of lawyers' clerks? A. Well,
I could not say.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Half? A. Well, I couldn't tell even that; I know they are not
during business hours.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Suppose one of these men were to do the work done in the office
and the other were to do all the delivering; couldn't it be done that
way ? A. I don't think one man would be sufficient to deliver all the
deeds and mortgages we send out in a day.
Q. Then it takes one man and part of another man, at least? A. I
presume it would.
Q. To do work which does not belong to the city in any proper
sense, does it? A. It belongs to the city in this regard; that the city
is responsible for those deeds and mortgages; for their safe keeping
and for their proper return.
Q. Why is it not just as much the duty of the city to send around to
the man's office for these things, in the first instance, as to send them
back after they have been recorded; how do you distinguish? A.
Why, because it is not the city's affair; if a man buys a piece of real
estate and he does not record his paper, it does not give notice, and
it is therefore the interest of the party who purchases the property to
see that the deed is recorded.
Q. Is it not his interest to come and get his deed; is it the city's
affair how long he goes with or without it if he does not see fit to
come for it? A. Why, I think it is the city's affair to relieve itself of
as much responsibility as possible; and if the party has paid for the
recording of his paper, I think the city should deliver it; it has been
the custom.
No. 80.]
2057
By Senator McNaughton:
Q. How long has it been the custom? A. From time immemorial,
I understand.
Q. And is not this the fact; that if those deeds and mortgages are
not returned they are left in your office, and then subsequently, weeks
or months or years afterwards, a party comes in entitled to the deed
and inquires for it; won't that take a great deal of time, to find that
old deed? A. There is no doubt about that, sir.
Q. Does it not really take less time to deliver them and have them
out of the way than it would to have them piled up in your office,
subject to their call when they come in? A. Certainly.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Do you think they would pile up in your office? A. If
they were
not delivered?
Q. Yes. A. Yes; I think they would.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- They do in all offices.
Q. As a matter of fact, is it worth $1,500 a year to save the city
storage room of those deeds, in your office or elsewhere? A. To save
the city the storage room?
Q. Yes; that is what it has come down to.
Mr. IVINS.-The trouble with this is here; when this was a feed office
and the register got the fees and put them in his own pocket, then
it was very proper, if he wanted to, that his own money should pay a
number of these men to send these papers around; but it is no longer
a feed office. The city of New York, as a municipal corporation, is
now paying these items of expense, and the office is running to the
bad, financially; and the question is, what can be done to stop it.
Now, here is one leak, apparently of $2,700, or the major part of it,
which accrues solely from the fact that a man is paid by the city to
take these papers out of this office and return them to the lawyers,
instead of seeing that the lawyers come and get their papers. If
they do not want their papers, let them leave them; then the question
arises whether it is worth $2,700 a year to get rid of this storage of
those papers.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.— You have got to go further than that;
whether it is worth $2,700 to search the papers and be responsible,
and then to search for them when they are called for.
Mr. IvINS. They never have to search for them but once. They
have to do that anyhow.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.—I can see a very great difference between a
paper recorded to-day and delivered to-day to a lawer, and filing that
[Senate, No. 80.]
258
2058
[SENATE,
paper away among the records of the office, and having that paper
looked for to-morrow, or three weeks from to-morrow, or three years
or ten years from to-morrow. There is the difference.
Mr. IvINS. Isn't that done every day in the county clerk's office,
going back for years, on judgment-rolls or anything of that kind?
You can put your hand on judgment-rolls that are twenty years old.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-That the clerk gets pay for. I do not want
to argue this finical point; but I think that is a fair question, whether,
in the judgment of this witness, anything would be saved to the city
by abolishing the office of deliverers, as they are called, and leave those
papers to accumulate, subject to be called for and taken out at any
time from this out.
Mr. IvINS.— The point is here: We made a loss last year on this
office of $9,410
The WITNESS.-But only in one department, Mr. Ivins.
Mr. IVINS.-You have made a net loss. You have made a much
larger loss than that on one department. Your loss on one depart-
ment has been in excess of the other.
The WITNESS.-If you will take each department of the office and
figure out the percentages, you will find that it nets a very handsome
sum to the city, with the exception of the searching department, and
that is accounted for.
Q. We take that now after the loss has been made by the searching
department; after the city has been credited with the profits on the
other departments, nevertheless there is an ultimate net loss to the
city of $9,410, and the change of a very few items of that amount of
expenditures would counterbalance that loss, and leave that office a
self-sustaining office, instead of an office that is not self-sustaining;
and here is one of the first items that sticks out clearly, as it seems
to me, and I ask the witness, consequently, whether or not the city
should not be saved the cost of sending around the papers to other
people at the city's expense, if the other people don't take enough
interest to come and get them for themselves?
Senator FASSETT. If it is proper, why should they not be charged
for that?
The WITNESS.-Because the statute don't provide for any such charge.
Q. Is there any reason why the statute should not provide for any
such charge, if it is at all a proper public function? A. We get ten
cents for recording, and those different rates that you know about set
forth in the statute; now, in response to your question that you put,
would it save the city, why, if the papers are going to accumulate
you would have to have two clerks who wouldn't be called delivery
No. 80.]
2059
clerks, but clerks on accumulation of papers; that would be the
difference; that is, you know you certainly would have to have some-
body to take care of those deeds and mortgages if they piled up.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Do you consider the return of these papers as a proper public
duty? A. I do.
Q. If it is a proper public duty, and costs the city $2,700 a year, do
you know of any reason why the city should not charge that back to
the people to whom the duty is performed? A. If there was a pro-
vision of the law allowing that charge.
Senator FASSETT.- Why should there not be one?
Q. Is there any reason why there should not be a provision of the
law, if that is a proper duty? A. I don't know of any reason.
Q. What do you think would be a proper charge, in your judgment,
for returning papers? A. I do not know; I haven't given the matter
any thought; I could not express any opinion about it.
Q. Do you know whether either of these clerks ever gets anything
for returning those papers? A. Why, I know they do not, except
what they get paid from the city.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. That is, you know they do never receive little gratuitous fees
from lawyers? A. Well, I never heard of it.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. No complaint made to you that they exacted anything of that
kind? A. No.
Q. Do they do that during the hours of 9 and 4? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do they ever start out after 4 o'clock with the deliveries? A. I
don't know, Senator; I don't think so.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You are familiar with the law of 1883 in regard to recopying the
old records? A. Chapter 57, I think, of the Laws of 1883; yes, sir.
Q. From your knowledge of the condition of those old records,
have you any doubt of the wisdom of that law? A. Why, I have no
doubt of the wisdom of that law; I think it is a very proper law
indeed; you understand how that is done in the city of New York.
Q. Yes, I understand. A. The register makes a report to the First
Department Supreme Court, and one of the justices, on that report,
appoints a committee of three lawyers who make a report back to him,
as to the matter contained in the register's requisition; upon the
2060
[SENATE,
report of those lawyers, one of the justices of this department makes
an order condemning a certain number of books; for instance, the
books we are copying at present, is under the order of condemna-
tion of July 12, 1888; there are about twenty-five books still under
that order to be copied.
Q. That is where records are illegible? A. Illegible; yes, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Or mutilated? A. Or mutilated.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Have you any suggestion to make in regard to that, cheapening
the
way of recopying those records? A. I couldn't make any sugges-
tion on that point.
Q. It is very difficult work, is it not? A. As you understand, it is
very diffucult work for this reason: That the new book must corres-
pond in every detail with the old book, as to page for page and line
for line, and you might say word for word.
Q. And the punctuation? A. And the punctuation must be the
same.
Q. Misspelling? A. Misspelling and everything like that.
Q. It must be an accurate copy of the old record? And, of course,
some of them are very much mutilated, torn, and it takes a great deal
of time to get these pages out.
Q. And ink has faded? A. Oh, certainly; binding gone.
Q. You have not any recommendation that you could make to the
committee as to the way of cheapening that in any way? I could not
make any recommendation, Senator, with reference to cheapening
that, because, as I say, I haven't- I am at present proceeding under
an order made in 1888 by Judge O'Brien, dated July twelfth.
Q. No order has been made since you took charge? A. No.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. It would cheapen it some if men worked eight hours a day
instead of six, would it not? A. Well, as I say, I am traveling under
the Consolidation Act, and I assume that our hours of labor are from
9 to 4.
AFTER RECESS.
FRANK T. FITZGERALD, recalled, further testified:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Going back to the matter of the clerk who delivers those deeds,
mortgages and other papers, that is to the clerk or clerks called the
No. 80.]
2061
delivery clerks, do you not know that when the office was a fee office
instead of a salaried office, it was the custom for the delivery clerk to
collect the fees due, and that he took the papers and got the money?
A. Whilst I have not an exact, information about that, I understood
that when the office was a feed office, that was the custom, and I also
learned at recess that at the commencement of Mr. Slevin's term, that
is on the 1st of January, 1887, the papers accumulated in such large
quantities that the office found that there was no way to store them,
and that there was a general outcry from the members of the bar
with reference to the delay of the delivery of papers; the accounts
were not run as formerly, on account of it being city money, and, of
course, they had to pay as each deed was offered for record, and by
reason of that situation these delivery clerks were created, as I
understood at the behest of the bar.
Q. Who told you that? A. My deputy clerk, Mr. Hanley.
Q. Is Mr. Hanley in the room now? A. No.
Mr. IVINS.- Before going further I want to put in evidence a copy
of the report filed by John Reilly, as register, dated December 31,
1886. This is addressed to Frederick Cook, Secretary of State. This
will give us officially the status of that office during the time when it
was still a free office. It appears on this, for instance, that in the
month of January, 1886, the receipts were $15,304, and the expenses
were $8,300, showing a profit for the month of $7,000. In February
of that year the receipts were $13,710, and the expenses for the month
$7,750, showing a profit of $5,959. In March of that year the receipts.
were $18,000, the disbursements 10,000; the profit balance for the
month being $8,764. They are losing as much per year now as they
were then making per month.
The WITNESS.-There were not any title companies in those days.
[Paper marked Exhibit 8 of this date.]
Mr. IVINS.-I think that a comparison for this year, the other figures
that we have, will show that there was something more than title
companies which produced the loss. It appears that the gross
balance of profits receivable for the year was $91,190.
The WITNESS.-That was the profit.
Mr. IVINS.—That was the register's income under the old system,
under and above the expenses of conducting his office. Of that
$91,190 which had been earned at that time, there was outstanding,
subject to collection, $11,140, there having been actually collected of
the amount $80,049.
Senator FASSETT.— Does that report give any differentiation of the
incomes?
2062
[SENATE,
Mr. IvINS.—I am going
summary of the report.
right through the report. That is a
This report shows that a volume of
business which gave a net profit for this year to the register of
$91,000. It becomes necessary to see consequently exactly how much
it cost the register to earn that amount, that is to do the volume of
business out of which he earned $91,000, and the volume of business
was very much larger than it is now, as due to the fact that at that
time there were none of these title companies. A comparative study
of his pay-rolls as returned, with the pay-rolls as they stand to-day
show, that although the volume of work was then much larger
than it now is, the pay-roll was very much smaller, and that I would
like to take up in detail.
Q. John Reilly's deputy register was your deputy register, wasn't
A. I understood that Mr. McLaughlin was John Reilly's deputy
for some time, and then Mr. Hanley succeeded him.
Q. Mr. Hanley was his deputy register part of the time, wasn't he?
A. I understood so; yes.
Q. He is returned by Mr. Reilly as having been his deputy register
for this entire year? A. That would be probably correct; I don't
know anything about that, really.
Q. You now pay the deputy register $25,000 per annum? A. That
is the amount allowed by the board of estimate and apportionment;
yes, sir.
Q. It is the amount asked for, isn't it haven't you asked for that
amount for next year? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it is allowed because it is asked for, isn't it? A. I assume
that that is so.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Does he get it- do you pay him that? A. Certainly; the city
pays him.
Q. You laid emphasis on the words that is the amount asked for;
is that the amount he receives? A. This schedule that Mr. Ivins is
now reading from, I know nothing about whatever.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. I have not read from any yet. A. I assumed that you were;
your eyes were on the paper, and I assumed that you were reading
from it.
Q. I am talking about what you pay your deputy? A, The board
of estimate and apportionment have fixed the salary of the deputy at
$5,000; that was requested by my predecessor.
No. 80.]
2063
By Senator FASSETT:
1
Q. He gets it, doesn't he? A. Yes.
Q. There is no division in that salary with anyone? A. No; there
is not.
Q. I asked that, from the way you asked the question; you seemed to
hesitate about answering whether he got it? A. Not at all; what I
wanted to say was this, that Mr. Slevin, in his estimate for the year
1890, asked it, and those are the lines I am traveling on now; Mr. Slevin
was my predecessor and he put in his provision estimate before I was
elected, and his provisional estimate was adopted as the final estimate
by the board of estimate and apportionment, and the salary was fixed at
$5,000.
Q. And you put in the same estimate for next year? A. Yes.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Mr. Hanley's work is no more difficult now than it was
then during Mr. Reilly's time, is it? A. Not any more than,
of course, the number of papers is larger; the amount of work done
in the department for recording deeds and mortgages; of course,
accumulates and is larger.
Q. Does he do any part of the recording of the deeds and mort-
gages? A. No; but he receives them and he passes upon the
acknowledgments.
Q. Does not he have assistants to assist him in passing upon those
acknowledgments? A. Yes; it is all done subject to a system, isn't
it, all done methodically? A. If the acknowledgment is not correct,
of course, the paper would not be received.
Q. Does he personally pass on every acknowledgment? A. Well,
not personally, not every one.
Q. Not personally? A. Not on everyone; no.
Q. Then, this passing of acknowledgments is done as part of the
system of the office by him and his assistants? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In what regard does his duty and his work now differ from what
it was in 1886? A. In this respect, that there is more business done
in the office at present than there was at 1886, excepting the search-
ing department.
Q. Is the system changed to such an extent that the supervision of
it is now more difficult than it was then? A. No; the system is not
changed any; but there is more work.
Q. Does he do the additional work— I am talking about him alone?
A. Of course; yes.
Q. He does do the additional work? A. He helps to do it.
2064
[SENATE,
5
Q. And although this work has been so greatly increased he
can still do it between the hours of 9 and 4? A. Between the
hours of 9 and 4, because after 4 o'clock, or before 9 o'clock, there
wouldn't be any work to do, the lawyers wouldn't offer the papers.
Q. Do you think the work has doubled in the last four years? A.
I think it has increased about thirty-three and one-half per cent.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. After deducting the searching? A. No; this is outside of the
searching; you understand that I draw a distinction between the
searching and the rest.
Q. I know that; the volume of work done because of the searching
has decreased? A. Yes.
Q. The volume of work done because of the increase of business in
recording has increased? A. Yes, sir; the other departments.
Q. As your deputy register he is responsible for both classes of
work, isn't he; as your deputy register he acts for you in both
behalfs? A. He does his share of the work; yes, sir.
Q. There has been an increase of departmental work on one side
and a decrease of departmental work on the other side? A. Yes.
Q. Has there been any increase in his work; in the long run has
his work been increased or made more responsible? A. I don't know
as I could answer that for this reason, that I have not any idea what
work was done in the year 1886.
Mr. IVINS. Then we have simply got to pass that, and I call the
committee's attention to the fact that the sworn report of Mr. Reilly
is that at that time the deputy register received $3,000 per annum;
now he is receiving $5,000.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. How was it in 1887? A. He received $5,000 then; these salaries
have been in vogue since the 1st of January, 1887.
Q. You have no reason to suppose that the duties or the amount of
work differed very much in 1887 from what they were in 1886, have
you? A. I couldn't say about that; I have not any knowledge
about it.
Q. You have no reason to suppose it
there is nothing to cause
any special variations between those two years in the amount of work
done? A. Not unless it was a very active year in real estate; if it
was, of course, the conveyances and the mortgages would be larger
in number.
No. 80.]
2065
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Does Mr. Hanley have more to attend to than he can do?
A. He does his business properly.
Q. He does it properly? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know of your own knowledge, or even from hearsay,
whether he has more business to do than he had four years ago, in
the long run? A. I do not of my own knowledge, because I do not
know anything about what was done four years ago.
Mr. IVINS.-I call the attention of the committee to the first item,
to the difference of $2,000 per annum in the salary of the deputy
register. When the deputy register was paid by the register and the
business was run on the basis of a fee office, it was possible to get the
services of the identical man for $3,000, from which now, as a city
office, he is being paid $5,000.
Q. Now, we come to the next place; the assistant deputy register
gets $3,000 under you, does he not? A. That is the salary allowed by
the board of estimate and apportionment.
Q. And that is enjoyed by your brother? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know whether the assistant deputy register personally,
has more serious, difficult or responsible work to do now than the
assistant deputy register had to do four years ago? A. I think the
same answer will apply to that position as would apply to the deputy.
Q. Well, Mr. Reilly reports that Lewis H. Watts was assistant
deputy register and that he receives $1,800 per year, being a differ-
ence of $1,200 on that item, as between the old system and the new;
your tickler clerk is whom? A. Mr. Grady.
Q. Is he the father of the Honorable Thomas F. Grady-'ex-Senator
Grady? A. Yes, sir.
Q. He is a very competent man, is he not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. He does as much work now as he did four years ago, you would
assume, wouldn't you? A. I would assume that he did more work ·
than he did four years ago.
Q. Assuming that he did more work, can you account for it that he
gets $200 less than he got four years ago? A. What is his salary
now?
Q. His salary now is $1,600, and then it was $1,800? A. The last
register requested $1,800 for him and it was denied by the board of
estimate and apportionment; I think I have asked for $1,800 for him
this year, if I remember rightly; I think he ought to have $1,800.
Q. Can you tell why, particularly, in view of the fact that the fees
are not collected by the delivery clerks, you now need two delivery.
[Senate, No. 80.]
259
2066.
[SENATE,
clerks at an aggregate of $2,700 to do the work which Mr. Reilly was
enabled to have done by one delivery clerk at $1,800? A. My answer
to that would be just as it was in the other instance, that the city is
growing, and naturally there would be more deeds of conveyances
and more mortgages put on record, and more to deliver than there was
four years ago; and I say, the creation of those two offices was really
done at the behest of the bar; I am so informed; I don't know of my
own knowledge.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Is conveyancing in this city done largely by a few firms?
A. There are some firms, for instance, Strong & Cadwalader,
Alexander & Green, and the different attorneys for the monetary
institutions of the city, that I think do the bulk of the business.
Q. Then it wouldn't take any longer to deliver 100 documents to
them than it would to deliver ten; would it? A. You could deliver
100 documents to them more easily than you could deliver ten docu-
ments to ten different firms?
Q. I mean on one and the same delivery? A. May I trouble you
to repeat that question.
Q. On one and the same delivery, it wouldn't take a man any longer
to leave 100 documents than it would to leave ten; would it? A. It
depends; If Strong & Cadwalader had 100 documents in our office to
be returned, of course, it would be simply one journey to their office,
that would be all; the conveyancing, of course, is not done by them;
it is the mortgaging.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Are the duties of examiner at present the same as the duties of
examiner four years ago? A. I should think so; yes.
Q. How much, in your judgment, has the business of recording
increased; are there twice as many folios of records to-day as there
were four years ago; has the business doubled in four years? A. The
theory of those who have given this question a good deal of thought
is that the recording, I should say that the real estate transactions,
increase at the rate of about 12,000 papers per year; I took the liberty
of asking Mr. Olmstead about that, and he told me that they increase
about 12,000 a year; whether that is a fact or not I couldn't say.
Q. Are you, as register, prepared to say generally what the volume
of the business is, so far as concerns recorded papers, as to the cor-
rectess of the record of which examiners are employed has increased
in the last two, three or four years? A. Will you kindly repeat that.,
No. 80.]
2067
C
Q. I will ask it in another form then; first, these examiners, as I
understand, have to examine certain books, to see whether or not the
papers have been correctly entered? A. Yes, sir; that is done before
we receive the papers for certification.
Q. Is the volume of papers so entered materially larger than it was
four years ago? A. I don't know anything about four years ago.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. You have the books in your office? A. I have, but not at hand;
in fact I don't know.
Mr. IvINS.— Mr. Tate, will you make a memorandum to show the
number of libers filled in the year 1886, and the number filled during
this year?
The WITNESS.—I can tell you what the number of libers is now; the
average number of libers for this year is about 105 of conveyances
and about 125 of mortgages; that is, there may be one or two either
way; but that is about the average; 105 of conveyances and 125 of
mortgages.
Q. The reader is complemented to the examiner in his work; they
complement each other? A. Yes.
Q. How do you explain it, that during Mr. Reilly's time, one
examiner at $1,500 was able to do the work which is now being done
by three examiners at $4,000 a year?
Senator FASSETT.- Apiece?
Mr. IvINS.- No; $4,000 for the three now, for work which is done
by one reader in Mr. Reilly's time at $1,066; it now requires three
readers at $3,600? A. For the reason that the business has increased
since 1884.
Q. Has it increased to such an extent that it requires three men
where only one was required in each of these instances; has it
trebled? A. I think so, for this reason; in order to return the papers
in proper time to the attorneys; I was very fully over that before the
board of estimate and apportionment last December; Mr. Arnoad,
who is a lawyer, as you know, one of the board of estimate and
apportionment, went over it very carefully with me, and he thought
that that expense was necessary in order to get the papers out in
time to the attorneys, who were interested in their return.
Q. Does your bookkeeper have as much to do as he used to have to
do, or as the bookkeeper had to do four years ago? A. Keeping in
view, of course, that difference of searching, I don't know as he has;
I think probably that one hand would wash the other in that case
may be.
2068
[SENATE,
:
Mr. IVINS.-I called the attention of the committee to the fact that
Mr. Reilly's bookkeeper received $1,500, while the present bookkeeper
receives only $1,200 a year.
وو
Q. Now, I see entered here "Charles E. Baldwin as search clerk;
what is a search clerk? A. A search clerk is the gentleman who takes
charge of the searches and enters up the searches as they come to
the office.
Q. You have fewer searches to so enter up than there were four
years ago? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Very much fewer? A. I should think so; yes, sir.
Q. As shown by the return? A. Yes, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Four times? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. In other words, you don't have twenty-five per cent of the
searches to enter up that you had four years ago? A. I should
think not.
Mr. IVINS.—I call your attention to the fact, and the attention
of the committee to the fact, that there was no such clerk
known in Mr. Reilly's term, and there was no one to correspond to
clerk at all; so that that seems to be a complete addition to the
pay-roll.
Q. Now, what kind of entries does this search clerk make? A. He
enters the searches as they come into the office.
Q. Do you know what the volume of his work is? A. Do you mean
stated in money?
Q. No; the volume of his work in point of entries? A. If you will
allow me to refer to some papers I have here I can tell.
Q. Certainly; refer to anything you want to. A. The number of
requisitions of search received up to date was 1,286; that probably
represents about nine months.
Q. Nine months of the year? A. About nine months; may be till last
Saturday.
Q. One thousand two hundred and eighty-six requisitions? A. Yes,
sir; as against 2,500 during the same period in 1889.
By Senator Fassett:
Q. It has fallen off substantially how much? A. About half; fifty
per cent.
No. 80.]
2069
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Then this clerk does not have to do more than half as much as
he had last year? A. The search clerk also assists in keeping track
of the accounts.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. He did that last year? A. We have to keep a duplicate book,
you understand; there are duplicate accounts; one is filed with the
comptroller and one I retain; so that every entry of a transaction in
the office is really double entried.
Q. That was done last year, was it, or is it a new feature? A. I
don't know; I don't think it is a new feature.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You speak of this as double entry?
Senator FASSETT.— He means a duplicate entry.
The WITNESS.—I mean a duplicate entry; that is what I mean.
Q. You don't mean to say that you render an itemized account to
the comptroller, do you? A. Yes, sir; of everything.
Q. Giving the name of the person who paid the money for entering
which it is paid? A. Yes, sir; and that appears in detail; at the end
of each day you will find in the transcript at the comptroller's office
the transactions of every day; day by day.
Q. Will you let one of your clerks go over and get that book now,
so that we can see what the entries of any one day are for this present
year? A. Yes, sir; I will send for it.
Q. How many requisitions did you say there were? A. One thou-
sand two hundred and eighty-six requisitions this year as compared
with 2,500 for the same period last year-about fifty per cent falling off.
By Senator FASSETT:
*
Q. Is that true for most of the months? A. This represents the
work for this year; that is, the 1,286 requisitions represent the work
done from the 1st of January, 1890, to the present date; now, for the
same period of 1889 there were 2,500.
Q. And for the same period of 1888 there were twice as much as
there was for 1889? A. I couldn't say that.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. That would make an average of about 130 requisitions a month?
A. I don't know.
Q. He enters these requisitions and assists in making up the dupli-
cate account; does he do anything else? A. I think not.
2070
[SENATE,
Q. Then the volume of his work would be what he does on the dupli-
cate accounts and making the entries of these requisitions? A. He is
pretty thoroughly engaged in keeping up the duplicate accounts, as
you will see when that book arrives.
Q. This search business, then, and the entry of these requisitions is a
very small part of his work, is it? A. Yes; it is a small part of his work.
Q. It is not the major part of his work? A. No; the major part of
his work is to keep up the day's transactions; we could not get along
unless he assisted our regular account clerk and bookkeeper.
Q. What did these temporary clerks do, these so-called temporary
clerks? A. Let me see the list, please.
Q. Mr. Sinnott is one of them; he is a temporary clerk; he is down
here as getting $400 per annum? A. Mr. Sinnott is also engaged on
preparing the extra fees and keeping account of the extra fees, and
also in rendering assistance to the tickler clerk.
Q. What extra fees do you mean? A. I mean the extra fees for
extra searches.
Q. Then, if that is the case, will you explain why out of $1,600
received for extra searches for 1890, the bookkeeper got $570 out of
the entire gross sum? A. The same rule applies to those as applies
to the county clerk's office which Mr. Gilroy spoke of the last time he
was on the stand; as a matter of fact that act of 1887, has been a pure
accommodation to the bar, as I explained this morning, and the same
rule applies there as did in the case of Mr. Gilroy, who was on the
stand as to the county clerk's office.
Q. The trouble is that the same rule does not apply? A. Why not;
if you read the statute of 1887?'
Q. I will tell you why; your entire gross receipts for extra searches
were $1,600? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the statute provides that you should pay the cost of those
extra searches? A. Yes.
Q. Now, what did the bookkeeper have to do with making those
extra searches and why should the bookkeeper out of the gross sum
of $1,600 get $570? A. I will explain it in a moment if you will let
me have the statute of 1887.
[Laws of 1887 handed to witness.]
The WITNESS.-You understand that this act of 1887 was passed at
the request of the members of the bar in order to get over that tangle
in which this office got at the time.
Q. Will you swear to that? A. So I am informed.
Q. Do you swear to that as a fact to your knowledge; that is the
point I want to get at? A. It comes to me in this way—I want to go
into the history of this legislation.
No. 80.1
2071
Q. You are not prepared to swear that that was passed at the request
of the bar for the purpose of getting out of the tangle, are you? A.
Out of what tangle?
Q. That the business had then got in? A. This legislation was
adopted on the request of the bar.
Q. How do you know that? A. Because I have inquired about it.
Q. Did you make any inquiry as to who it was stimulated or brought
about that action on the part of the bar? A. Well, I don't know.
Q. Do you know it was the register himself? A. No; I do not.
Q. You never heard that before? A. I did not; I was not registered
at the time and it was not I who did it; but under this act I claim that
that work is done after office hours in order not to affect the regular
business of the office; in other words, if the volume of business of the
office was so that they could not perform the work during the office
hours, then this work is done after hours, and that is what has been
done under me; and I insisted that this work had got to be done
after hours, in order not to interfere with the regular searches of the
office; this is a pure accommodation to the bar in order to have their
searches returned within three days.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. As a matter of fact, is it all done out of hours? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. What part of it does the bookkeeper do? A. The bookkeeper
makes a transcript of the fees and keeps track of the extra searches.
Q. Does he do any part of the work of extra searching? A. No.
Q. He simply makes the entries? A. Keeping the accounts.
Q. Will you explain why it is that for keeping the accounts, which
aggregate $1,600, the total entries of accounts, $570 of that sum
should be paid for making those entries? A. I will explain that; in
the first place we receive nine
Senator FASSETT. It is a large percentage that goes for mere
bookkeeping.
Mr. IvINS.— It costs $570 to keep the books showing entries of
$1,600 ?
The WITNESS. We received for extra searching $1,619.60, of which
$800 was paid to the searchers.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. For the actual work of searching? A. Yes, sir; under this act;
there was twenty per cent of $800 turned into the city treasury,
twenty per cent. of the remaining $800.
2072
[SENATE,
Q. Twenty per cent of $800? A. Of $800; there was whatever the
pay-rolls show paid to the bookkeeper for separating this extra search-
ing from the regular searching, which was done after office hours.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Does it take the bookkeeper as much time to separate the items
of entry of extra searching from the regular searching as it takes
the searchers to make the searches themselves? A. That, I couldn't say.
Q. How do you account for it that the bookkkeeper gets $570 for
keeping the entries touching certain business, for the performance of
which business the searchers only get $800? A. don't think the book-
keeper gets that amount.
Mr. IVINS. That is what the records show.
Witness withdrawn for the present.
HENRY M. TATE, recalled, further testifies:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You find that the amount that the books show the bookkeeper
got for that item is how much-is it $570? A. In round numbers; yes.
FRANK T. FITZGERALD, recalled, further testifies:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. The records show that the bookkeeper got $570? A. That is
explained in this way; the compensation for extra searches is fixed by
the statute, that they should get half; and under the discretion which
is conferred upon me by that act, I can employ whatever employes I
require and make whatever payments I please.
Senator FASSETT.-That is right that you pay your searchers half;
but the statute does not say how much you should pay the bookkeeper.
The WITNESS.- Not at all; that is within my discretion.
Q. In your exercise of the duties of that office, do you consider that
it is proper for you, as the holder of an office of trust, to pay $570 to
a bookkepeer already under the pay of the city for the simple work of
making entries showing $1,600? A. As a matter of fact, this statute
was passed for the accommodation of the bar.
Q. I don't care anything about the accommodation of the bar; what
I want to find out is, how you justify yourself for employing that man
at that rate? A. I think that I ought to have just a little opportunity
to make response to your question.
Q. You may; but it is not necessary to lug in the bar every time.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. No matter for whose benefit this was passed, what is the explana-
tion that to enter up items amounting to $1,600 you paid almost as
No. 80.]
2073
ADE
much as the cost of getting the work done; that is, you paid $570 for
entering up $1,600 worth of work? A: For the reason that those men
are employed to do it, and that is the rate that I fixed for their pay.
Q. You are mixing it up; the searchers you paid $800? A. Yes.
Q. Now, then, the bookkeeper is already employed to do other work,
is he not? A. Yes.
Q. And he receives pay from the city for the other work he does?
A. This is not the bookkeeper.
Q. But he does receive other pay, doesn't he, the bookkeeper? A.
Yes, sir; for his work between regular hours.
Q. He worked out of hours to make these entries? A. Yes.
Q. And for the work he does out of hours, you have a right to fix
his pay? A. Yes.
Q. And that it seems is something over $570? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. IVINS.— The exact figures are $569.28.
Q. How does it happen that you fix so much money to do so little
work? A. It is not little work.
Q. It only aggregates $1,600? A. It is important work.
Q. Yes; any one act I suppose is important, but it does not take
long to do it? A. In my judgment I claim that under this statute,
I have the discretion to fix the salary that I shall assign to those that
do that work.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Now will you tell us under what provision of the statute you
have a right to fix a salary for doing it-see if it does not say that
you shall pay the cost of doing the extra work? A. The regular
searches we have fifteen days in which to return; when there is an
expedited search, we get the regular fee and fifty per cent additional
to return it within three days; when I took office, I saw Mr. Gilroy
with reference to the construction of this statute, and he told me he
had an opinion of the corporation counsel, and that I would be
perfectly justified in going on and fixing the compensation of a book-
keeper under that opinion of the corporation counsel.
By Senator Fassett:
Q. You felt that you had the discretion to expend the amount of
money over and above what the searchers got, which the statute fixed
at half? A. No; do you mean to spend it all ?
Q. No; to spend as much of it as was necessary? A. Mr. Gilroy
said that they turned in, I think, twelve per cent.
Q. There was nothing in the statute to limit them to twelve per cent,
was there? A. Not at all; they need not to have turned in anything.
[Senate, No. 80.]
260
2074
[SENATE,
Q. You understood that you had that power? A. If it was
necessary to employ.
Q. And you were the judge of the necessity? A. Yes, sir.
Q. There is no misunderstanding about that? A. No.
Q. And in the exercise of what you understood to be your discre-
tion, you have set apart this sum for the bookkeeper? A. Yes, sir;
that opinion of the corporation counsel applied to the register's
department, I understood.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. The provision is that he shall account for all fees, etc., except-
ing the actual expenses, including additional compensation to
employes, as hereinafter provided, incurred by the said register to
give the payments required in carrying out the provisions of this
section; now, was the payment of $570 required to carry out the pro-
visions of that section? A. Don't put it that way; you want to put it
by the month; yes; lump it, and it was.
Q. Was it required in order to do that $1,600 worth of extra
searching that you should pay out of the $1,600, $570 to a bookkeeper
to make those entries? A. In my judgment it was.
Q. How did it come to be required? A. Because the work had to
be done outside of office hours, and I insisted that it should, in order
not to affect the regular searches; that is the object of the act.
Q. Now, since the work had to be done out of office hours, it was
for you to enter into a contract for its performance, was it? A. Yes.
Q. Did you consider that you were acting as a trustee for the city
in doing that? A. That was my duty, as I assumed it under the
opinion of the corporation counsel that I have just referred to.
Q. And acting as trustee for the city, do you think that you were
doing your duty when you agreed to pay $570 out of $1,600 for the
entry in the books of the receipt of $1,600? A. I should think that
it was necessary for that work to be done without telling any figures
at all.
By Senator АHEARN:
Q. It was important work? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in your judgment you wanted a qualified person to do it?
A. That was it; and as I remarked before, I proceeded under the
opinion of the corporation counsel.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. What book were those entries made in? A. There is a book in
the office.
:
No. 80.]
2075
Q. What is it called? A. The extra search book.
Q. Will you send for the extra search book? A. Yes, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Do you know of any other business in which it takes thirty-
three and one-third per cent of the income of the business to pay
for bookkeeping? A. That I don't know anything about; I don't
know as it is a relevant question anyway.
Q. I should think it was very relevant whether you paid four or five
times too much for your work or not? [Question not answered.]
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. If you will send for that extra search book, then I will come
back to this point; you answered that Mr. William H. Sinnott was a tem-
porary clerk at $400 a year, and that he assisted the bookkeeper in
this matter of entering those extra fees? A. Yes, sir; part of the
time.
Q. What does he do besides that? A. He helps Mr. Grady at the
tickler book; as I remarked, on account of these transactions increas-
ing every day, you have got to keep your book written up.
Q. How much of Mr. Sinnott's time is devoted to assisting the book-
keeper in making these entries of the expedited fees? A. He does
not assist in making them.
Q. Whom does he assist in making them? A. Do you mean the
expedited fees?
Q. Yes. A. He keeps that book himself; he does not assist anybody
in doing that.
Q. Who does? A. I am saying that Mr. Sinnott assists Mr. Grady;
a sort of assistant tickler clerk.
Q. I understood you to say that Mr. Sinnott assisted the book-
keeper? A. No; I do not mean to say so.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. I understood you to say so. A. No; I didn't mean that.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You correct yourself then? A. Yes; I mean to say that Mr.
Sinnott assists Mr. Grady who is the tickler clerk.
Mr. IVINS. As far as Mr. Sinnott is concerned that place seems to
have nothing to correspond with it, and no such duty was required
to be performed, and no light expenditure was made for any such
duty by Mr. Reilly under the old system.
2076
[SENATE,
}
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Before you leave that search clerk, Mr. Fitzgerald testifies that
his work last year was fifty per cent less than it was the year before.
A. For searching in the matter of requisitions.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. As a matter of record the search clerk was unknown in the year
of 1886 when the volume of work was largest? A. Of course, you
will understand that I am proceeding under the line of my predecessor.
Senator FASSETT. That is right; we understand that.
Mr. IVINS. And we understand that in the present year you are
working on an estimate made by your predecessor and not by yourself.
The WITNESS.-Yes, sir.
Q. As a matter of fact there was no such clerk known in 1886, when
the business of searching was largest; the work done by the search
clerk this year is fifty per cent less than the work done by the search
clerk last year.
Senator FASSETT.
That is right.
Mr. IVINS.-So that there is not only an office here which did not
exist four years ago, but the alleged duties of which office are not
even one-half of what they were last year.
Q. Now, I would like to have pointed out from this exactly what the
search clerk does in the course of the year in making these entries;
this book comes down to September 30, 1890 [handing witness.
book]? A. To last month; yes, sir; there is a counterpart of that
with the comptroller.
Q. This is a transcript of return of fees? A. There is a counterpart
of that book with the comptroller.
Q. Do you keep a book for each month? A. Yes, sir.
Q. It appears that there are eighty-two filled or partially filled
pages for the month of September; that includes the entire month's
work, does it? A. Excuse me; we have a recapitulation put in the
book here so that I could return the fees as soon as possible to the
chamberlain.
Q. And two pages of recapitulation in the back? A. That was done
because I wanted to return the fees as soon as possible.
Q. These fees are entered in this way, in one column from whom
received? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Next, if it was the satisfaction of a mortgage, it was entered after
that? A. Yes, sir.
Q. If it is papers it is entered under that? A. Yes, sir.
Q. If a chattel mortgage it is entered under that? A. Yes, sir.
Q. If for searches it is entered under that? A. Yes, sir.
No. 80.]
2077
Q. The book being printed so as to bring about a differentiation of
accounts with the footing of each column? A. Yes, sir; there is a
counterpart of that book with the comptroller.
Q. And then there is the total amount received? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And against the entire entry is this ["Deed, Kurzmann, $0.97,
expended $0.97"]; that is the entry, and that is the longest entry that
is possible, is it not, and the most difficult entry that is possible in
this search-book, or in this transcript, and return of fees-book? A.
Well, that depends.
Q. Is it possible that there should be any other, in view of the way
in which the book is printed and got up for entries? A. No; it is
not possible.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. And naming the amount, and the extension of the amount? A.
And the extension of the amount, the work, for whom done, the nature`
of the service and the amount received.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You pay this search clerk $1,200 per year for doing that work,
do you? A. I want to say that I think he is improperly named as
search clerk; he had better be called account clerk.
Q. Then we will call him account clerk; this account clerk then is
paid $1,200 for doing that work, is he? A. That would be two
account clérks; no, he is not, because he has got to keep pace with
his entries; we have got two there.
Q. Are the two men paid for doing this work? A. Certainly;
because one man has a book to himself; there are two books; one is
in the comptroller's office, and the other I keep myself.
Q. One man is paid $1,200 for keeping one book like that? A. And
the other is paid $1,200 for doing the other book like that.
Mr. IVINS.- Just pass that book to the committee, and let the com-
mitteemen run their eyes through it as to the general excellence of
the clerical work.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. That work averages about three and one-half pages a day for
the working days of the month? A. I have not looked at that; I
suppose that is it; the work of each day is separate.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. And from three to four pages a day, is a day's work of such
entries as those? A. That would altogether depend on the business
done.
2078
[SENATE,
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Is September a busy month? A. No; September is a very
light month; it is hardly a test; it is probably the dullest month in
the year; that has been my experience from the first of January.
By Senator АHEARN:
Q. Are the clerks used for another purpose besides that? A. Yes;
I was just talking of it.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Are you prepared to say that those expedited searches that you
insisted ought to be done outside of the time, were really not done
inside of the time? A. They were done outside of the time.
Q. Are you sure of that, that they were done outside of business
hours? A. Those are my orders.
Q. Have you ever taken pains to see whether your orders are
observed in that regard? A. I have taken the pains in the conduct
of my office to see that it was run properly, and I assume that.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. The question is, are you so positive that you are willing to swear
that the work has actually been done outside of business hours? A.
My information and belief are that it has.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. What book is that that you have there? A. This is the search-
book, to keep the accounts with the searchers.
Q. This is the book for making entries in which the bookkeeper gets
$570? A. Well, if you put it that way; yes, sir.
Q. Does this refer to all searches? A. No; it does not.
Q. It refers only to the extra searches? A. If we didn't have the
extra searches there would be no need for that work.
Mr. IVINS [to Mr. Tate].-Mr. Tate, will you go over that and see
how many entries there are there and how much it has cost per line
to do that work [Handing book to Mr. Tate].
Q. How much do you think the business of indexing has increased
as compared with four years ago? A. Do you mean the keeping up
the index?
Q. The work done by the index clerk in making the index? A.
Within four years?
Q. Yes.
A. I should think that has increased, or it should have
increased forty per cent, because we index against the mortgages and
deeds or conveyances.
Q. That is a good fair estimate, isn't it, forty per cent? A. That is
No. 80.]
2079
my opinion; it may be more and it might be a little less; I think
forty per cent is fair.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. It is a fair round guess? A. I think so; yes.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. There is no reason why an index clerk can't do as much work
within six hours now as he could within six hours four years ago?
A. I don't see any.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. The indexes are not more complicated in any way? A. No, sir;
only the volume of business is greater.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. How do you account for it that Mr. Reilly was able to do the
work of that index office with four clerks, to whom he only paid
$3,800 in total, whereas the office now has to have eight index clerks
who receive $9,800; how do you account for that? A. I can't say
anything about Mr. Reilly because I don't know anything about him;
but when I took charge of the office the indexes were way back, so
much so that the lawyers were finding fault, and Mr. Arnold, who is a
member of the board of estimate and apportionment, and who is at
present president of the board of aldermen, and an attorney and a
man who does a great deal of real estate business, had a consultation
before the board of estimate and apportionment with me in reference
to that index work, so that in order to get it up we put on additional
men; it was way behind then, I think a year and a half.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. How many additional men did you put on? A. Can you tell me
how many were on last year?
Mr. IVINS.— Last year, no; I know that you have had eight index
clerks this year.
The WITNESS-Yes; that is right.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. How many index clerks have you asked for next year, and for
this reason that under the block index system, we have got to keep up
an alphabetical index as well as the block index, and we have got to
wind up all the work that will be presently in the office, that is to the
end of this year; as soon as we continue on and write up these present
indexes, that closes that, and then we start off on a new matter that is
to keep up an alphabetical index, together with the block index.
2080
[SENATE,
}
Q. Have you got a copy of your provisional estimate in your office?
A. I can get it.
Q. Is it in your office? A. Yes, sir.
J
Q. If you sent for it now could you get it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Please do so, and we can fill that space by looking back and
seeing how many index clerks there were employed during the year
1889, if Mr. Fitzgerald would like to have it on record? A. I want to
say that the reason for the increase was this, that the indexes were
way behind when I took charge of the office.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. I think we have got that, haven't we? A. From a memorandum
here it shows that the grantees and mortgagees' indexes were seven
months behind; at present they are three months behind; the mort-
gagers were three months behind; at present they are three and a
half months behind; that is a half month lost; the blotters at present
are within six weeks of date, and at the time that I took office they
were only within two months from date, so we have gained two weeks
on the blotters; of course you understand that these indexes have got
to be up as near as possible for the use of the members of the bar and
others who have business with us in making searches.
Senator FASSETT.-I understand that.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. What does your grantee clerk do? A. The grantee clerk enters
up against the grantees and mortgagees.
Q. Enters where? A. In his grantee book.
Q. From which it is transcribed to what?
[Question not answered.]
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Those are the libers of grantees and mortgagees and the others
of grantors and mortgagors? A. We call the grantors and mort-
gagors the tickler, and the grantees and mortgagees we call the
grantee book; I could send for a copy of it; that would set forth the
grantees and mortgagees.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. And that is to facilitate your searchers, keeping that up to date?
A. Yes.
Q. That grantee clerk, I find, gets paid $1,000 now, whereas Mr.
Reilly paid his grantee clerk $1,200? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Has there been any marked increase, so far as you know, in the
filing of chattel mortgages? A. Very much so.
No. 80.]
2081
4
Q. What does the chattel mortgage clerk do? A. The chattel
mortgage clerks receive from the front desk-all papers come
through the front desk - he receives from the front desk all the
mortgages on personal property; he also receives what we call con-
ditional bills of sale.
Q. What does he do when he receives them? A. When he receives
them he numbers them and enters them in a book or a blotter, or a
register, to be exact; he enters them in a register showing the mort-
gagor and mortgagee.
Q And the amounts and dates? A. Not the amount of the mort-
gage, but the number.
Q. The number of the mortgage and the date? A. Yes, sir; and
the date of entry.
Q. He has no more than he can do, has he? A. He has a great
deal more than he can´do.
*
Q. Does he work after hours? A. Yes, sir; he works as late as 10
o'clock some nights.
Q. How frequently do you suppose that sort of thing happens?
A. I never knew him to get away, averaging in and out, before 8
o'clock.
Q. This is Mr. Commiskey? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I find that the chattel mortgage clerk under the fee system was
paid but $1,100, whereas Mr. Commiskey gets $1,800. A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is a custodian? A. You mean the legal definition of cus-
todian, or as applying it to our office?
Q. As applying it to your office? A. Do you mean a register's
custodian?
Q. Yes; a register's custodian? A. A register's custodian under
the act is one who should be present whenever a book is examined;
a custodian should be at the end of the man's arm who is examining
a book.
Q. As a matter of fact, is a custodian always present at a man's
elbow when he is examining the books? A. Not in our office; each
custodian has an aisle of books to look after.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Is that to prevent people from running away with their books or
mutilating them? A. Well, I don't know what.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Are the custodians in the office from 9 till 4? A. Yes.
Q. Do you keep a time-book of the custodians? A. We don't keep
[Senate, No. 80.]
261
1
2082
[SENATE,
an especial time-book as to them; we keep the time of all the clerks
in the office; they are required to be there from 9 till 4.
Q. You keep tally of the time they come there and the time they go
away? A. No; I don't know as there is any tally kept any more than
any other office.
Q. Do you know of any reason why the same system should not
apply in a public office in that regard that does apply in any other
office, for instance, a banking office or a factory? A. I don't know of
any reason why it should not, but I don't know of any public office in
New York where they adopt that system.
Q. Have you any means of telling whether your custodian is there
at 9 o'clock and whether he stays till 4, and whether he is there at all?
A. We have this means, that any person who is absent is bound to
send notice to the office of his absence and the reason of it.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. In the absence of a complaint of anything calling your special
attention to it, you don't know whether he is there or not; you have
not any system to determine it? A. I don't know whether I should
say that; the persons occupying positions under me would report the
absence of any person.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Are the records in better preservation from mutilation to-day
than they were four years ago? A. I don't know what was done four
years ago; as I say, I don't know anything about Mr. Reilly's term.
Q. Have you ever heard of a theft of any books from the office? A.
I never did.
Q. Either during your term or any other person's term? A. I am
certain not during my term.
Q. Does one custodian do any more or different work from another
custodian? A. It depends; if we had a number of subpænax, duces
tecum, why, I would call on a custodian to take a book over to the
court.
Q: What custodian do you ask to do that; any one particular cus-
A. No; there isn't any particular one; I say that if such a
thing occurred I should.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. He would be the man you would select as a messenger? A. Yes.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Why is it that one custodian gets $1,500 a year and another cus-
todian gets $1,200, and another custodian gets $900 a year; what does.
No. 80.]
2083
>
Mr. More do different from what Mr. Mendelsohn does, and what does
A.
Mr. Mendelsohn do different from what Mr. Hernan does?
Mr. More has general supervision of the books of the office and
Mr. Hernan is in the mortgage index room; Mr. Mendelsohn is in the
west aisle on the ground floor.
Q. Has the question ever been called to your attention as to whether
or not the city would be responsible in case you were to lose any
books? A. I would be responsible personally.
Q. You would be responsible, but don't you think the city would be
responsible too, you being the paid official of the city? A. I am
under bonds; under $40,000.
Q. You are responsible to the city? A. Yes.
Mr. IVINS. There is no way in which the city could be responsible,
because it is the city's own property.
Q. These books that these custodians have charge of are the prop-
erty of the city itself? A. Of the city itself.
Q. How do you account for it that during Mr. Reilly's term only one
custodian was necessary, at a salary of $1,074, and now there are nine
custodians necessary at $9,600; will you explain how it is that one
custodian at $1,074 was sufficient when the register paid the custodian
himself, and now that the city has to pay for it, it requires nine cus-
todians at $9,600? A. I can explain the way these custodians are
allotted to the different aisles of books in the office; for example, this
year we have added a new floor to the building; to commence with,
there is an additional floor to the building, which was prepared by the
department of public works for the reception of those books which
were the least consulted, in order to make room for those transacting
business with the office.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Is the office, with that difference, the same as it used to be? A.
I submit that I think it would be fairer to take last year and this year
and compare them; 1884 and this year, it seems to me, are quite dis-
tant; we should take last year, or we should take 1887.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. What I want is to compare the fee system with the present sys-
tem. A. What I wanted to do was to compare last year with this year.
Mr. IVINS. We will compare them. We have got it all here. I am
not comparing your administration with the administration of Mr.
Slevin, for the reason that he and you are both operating under the
same system. That comparison has been made. What we want to
2084
[SENATE,
find out now is the basis of comparison between this system and the
fee system prior to the passage of the law of 1887.
The WITNESS.— Did you say 1884 or 1886?
Mr. IVINS.-Eighteen hundred and eighty-six. In 1886 there was
one custodian. Now, four years later, there are nine custodians.
Senator FASSETT.- Is it the same office?
Mr. IvINS.— When it came out of Mr. Reilly's pocket it cost $1,074,
and not that it comes out of the pocket of the city it costs nearly
$10,000.
Senator FASSETT.
The WITNESS.
That is probably the reason.
That is not my answer, of course. I want to figure
up the number of books that have accumulated since 1886. They
accumulate at the rate of about 230 a year.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Are there nine times as many books now as there were in 1886?
A. No; I don't think there are.
Q. Are there twice as many? A. The books are differently dis-
tributed now from what they were in 1886; on the lower floor in the
west aisle there is a custodian; in the east aisle there is a custodian;
in the mortgage index room there is a custodian.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Then the question arises, is there a custodian needed in each of
those places? A. I believe there is.
Q. What does the custodian do in those places? A. He supervises
the books there.
Q. Isn't it a fact that those custodians are out of the office over half
of the time? A. No; not to my knowledge; if they were, I should
remove them.
Q. Would you be surprised if you were to learn it? A. Yes; I
should remove them.
Q. Would you be surprised if you found out that the majority of
those custodians virtually held sinecures? A. I would be very much
surprised.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. You occupy the same building now that was occupied in 1886?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And with the addition of this extra floor the office is the same as
it was in 1886? A. As I remember it; yes.
Q. The doors of ingress and egress are the same, are they not? A.
Yes, sir.
No. 80.]
2085
Q. Is it the main business of a custodian to guard the books from
mutilation or to guard them from being taken away? A. I think his
duties are both.
Q. Couldn't a custodian stationed at the door see to it that no books
were carried out? A. The custodian's further duty is to put the
books back in the rack after they have been used.
Q. Isn't that the duty of the person who uses the book; don't your
rules require that the person who takes the book down should put it
back where he got it? A. They don't usually do it; it may be the
rule; I have not had any rule on it; I know that they don't do it.
Q. How many floors are there in the office? A. There are three
floors.
Q. Couldn't one custodian at the door and one on each floor see to
it that the books were not mutilated or carried away? A. I
couldn't say.
Q. Don't you think you
would undertake to do that
did just as you have done?
men could do the work.
could get four good active fellows who
or is this a case where your predecessor
A. I am not prepared to say that four
Q. If you did, that would be like impeaching your own record,
wouldn't it? A. I should think it would.
Q. You never made the effort to get four men to do it? A. No; I
did not.
Q. And there were nine men employed by your predecessor? A.
I am not quite sure of that; I don't know how many were employed.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You said there were 1,200 and odd requisitions for searches?
A. One thousand two hundred and eighty-six for searches.
Q. As against about 2,500 last year? A. Yes, sir; I think that is it.
Q. The appropriations for searchers and the provision for searchers
for this present year, then, was made sufficiently large to take care of
2,500 searches, wasn't it-- that is, it was made on the basis of last year's
searches? A. No; the board of estimate and apportionment reduced
the number of searchers from last year, I think, about four; I think
they were reduced about four.
Q. But it was reduced by four so as to compare last year with the
year before act, was it not? A. Yes, sir; I assume that was so.
Q. And on the theory that a reduction of four would enable your
searchers to make 2,500 searches, that is as much as have been made
the past year? A. Yes, sir.
2086
[SENATE,
Q. Now, as a matter of fact, your searchers only had half as many
searches to make as it was estimated they would have to make? A. I
presume that is correct.
Q. Can you tell us why it is that they didn't have sufficient time to
make these two extra searches within business hours? A. Because I
didn't think that the statute required it to be done.
Q. Did the statute require that the men should be idle? A. It didn't;
but the statute required that they should do the regular work of the
office, and I consider that this work was outside of the office altogether.
Q. Isn't it a fact that you had more searches allowed to you in the
expectation that the regular work would be larger than it was, and.
more searchers than there was any necessity for? A. I can't say that;
that was a matter for the board of estimate and apportionment.
Q. Do not the figures show it? A. The figures show this, that the
income from the searches is about $7,000 or $8,000, and the expendi-
ture is $19,000; that is occasioned, as I remarked before, by reason of
the title companies taking all the business from the register's office.
Q. I think we have found some other reasons as we have been going
on here? A. I don't know of any other; to illustrate, I heard that one
of the title companies last year made as much as $86,000 out of
searches; I don't know that, it is purely rumor.
By Senator FassETT:
Q. You answered, Mr. Ivins, as I understand, that the estimate under
which you are working is one made by your predecessor? A. Yes, sir,
Q. On the theory that the work of this year would be the same as
it was last year, presumably? A. I don't know what his idea was.
Q. Do you know whether you are asking as much for searchers this
year as was granted the last year? A. I couldn't answer that without
seeing the provisional estimate.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You said there were 1,286 searches this year and 2,500 last year?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that the 2,500 last year were as much smaller than the
number of searches the year before? A. I don't know anything about
that.
Q. The record will show it; now, inasmuch that it appears that there
were only 2,500 searchers last year the board of estimate and appor-
tionment reduced the number of searchers by four, didn't they? A.
That is my impression; yes, sir.
Q. And the impression was that the number of searchers you
No. 80.]
2087
appointed would be able to do the amount of work that had been done
that year? A. I assume that is so.
Q. If that is the fact, the work this year appears only to have been
one-half as large as it was estimated it would be, and they only had
1,200 searchers.
Senator FASSETT.- How much has he estimated for next year?
Mr. IVINS. Before we come to that I want to take up this other
matter that we have had. figured up as to this bookkeeper that
received $570 for keeping accounts showing the receipt of $1,600.
Mr. Tate has figured this up, a number of lines.
Mr. TATE.- It amounts to 1,107 lines to the 1st of October, 1890,
and $570 would be fifty-one and one-half cents a line.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. So that your bookkeeper already in your employ has had fifty-
one cents for every line that he wrote in that book; is that correct?
A. I have not figured in that way; if those figures are correct I
assume that is so..
Mr. IVINS [to Mr. Tate].-Those figures are correct, aren't they,
Mr. Tate?
Mr. TATE.— Yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT.- And the line consists of the name of the person,
the nature of the service, how much it cost, and the extension of the
cost.
Mr. TATE.—Yes, sir; and at the bottom there is also a summary. I
counted that. I didn't count the lines in which arrears have been
made and the lines erased.
55 66
*
Mr. IVINS. The line consists of the word "the
mortgaged" the
name of the person, the entry of the amount, and again the entry of
the amount and for every time that that bookkeeper did that, he
received fifty-one cents.
Q. Does that building need any more watching now than it needed
four years ago? A. How do you mean?
Q. Do you need more watchmen than were needed four weeks ago?
A. I don't really know what were there four years ago.
Q. Then I call your attention to the fact that one watchman did the
job four years ago, at $1,000 when the register paid for it, and there
are two watchmen now at $1,800? A. Yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT.- Is that $1,800 apiece or $900 apiece?
Mr. IVINS.-Eighteen hundred dollars for the two, $900 apiece.
Q. Now, you have a map clerk; tell us what the map clerk does?
A. In connection with the map clerk I have learned since recess the
2088
[SENATE,
draftsman is Marcus O'Donnell who is constantly at work drawing
the maps and Hart is the custodian of the maps who hand them down
to the men.
Q. Hart is the liquor dealer? A. I didn't say he was a liquor
dealer; you said he was.
Q. I asked you and you said Mr. Hart was a man who was in the
liquor business? A. I understood he was.
Q. And what he does is to hand the books down to the map clerk?
A. No; he does not hand the books to the map clerk; he has charge
of the maps.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Is he the custodian of the maps? A. Mr. O'Donnel is con-
stantly employed in drafting maps; Hart has charge of the maps and
as they are asked for he reaches to the pigeon holes and hands them
out to whoever may request to see them.
By Mr. IVINS:
H
Q. These maps are kept in circular tubes, are they not? A. Yes,
sir; about probably, from the floor to the ceiling, ten or twelve feet;
he has to use a ladder.
Q. That necessitates his presence there all day? A. Yes.
By Senator Fassett:
Q. How many maps are they? A. I think there are about 1,000.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Is there any reason why it should require two map clerks at
$2,400 for the two as compared with one map clerk at $1,049 under
the fee system? A. Map Clerk O'Donnel is constantly employed at
present in drafting maps; I suppose his time is taken up constantly
from 9 o'clock till 4 with the lunch hour out; and in order then to
attend to the wants of those who have business in the office I think it
is necessary to have a person who can attend to the handing out of
these maps and see to their proper restoration in the proper pigeon
holes where they belong.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Otherwise there would be no reason why the man who was
drafting maps could not get a map as often as he wanted it and
return it as often as he was through with it? A. No more than that
there would be trouble in getting your maps on to paper as fast as
you want to have them; if he had to leave his work constantly he
would do very little work, so far as drafting the maps is concerned.
No. 80.1
2089
Q. Does the other map clerk hand down maps for the use of others
than the draftsman? A. Certainly; the lawyers come in and request
to see such and such a map, and the second one attends to that; the
map clerk would attend to himself if he required to see one himself,
and take it over to his drafting table and compare it.
Q. Do you think that work has doubled in four years? A. I think
the demand for a map clerk has doubled in four year; yes, sir.
now.
Mr. IVINS.-Now, leaving out of consideration searchers, and leav-
ing out of consideration recording clerks, I have read to you the
entire expenditures or at least the entire list of officers who were
employed by Mr. Reilly during the last year of the fee system. Mr.
Reilly was enabled to conduct the entire office of that business, when
it was much larger than it is to-day, all things considered, consider-
ing searches, and when the revenue was just larger, with the staff
that I have referred to., There was a deputy register and an assistant
deputy register in each case. There was a tickler clerk in each case.
There was one delivery clerk then, and two now. There was one
examiner then, and there are three now. There was one reader then,
and there are three now. There was one bookkeeper then and one
But there is a search clerk, and two temporary clerks now that
were not known then. There was a grantee clerk then, and there is
a grantee clerk now. There were four index clerks then, and there
are eight now. There was a chattel mortgage clerk then, and one
There was one custodian then, and there are nine now. There
was one watchman then, and there are two now. There was one map
clerk then, and there are two now, and in addition to that, I find that
there are provided for by the board of estimate and apportionment,
and paid for by the city treasury, clerks unknown apparently, and not
required four years ago, as follows: A chief recording clerk at
$1,800; a certified copy clerk at $1,000 a year; a clerk of powers of
attorney at $1,000 a year; a clerk of railroads and corporations at
$1,000 a year; five messengers aggregating $4,440; a mortgage clerk
at $1,200 a year, and two assistant clerks at $1,920. In other words,
leaving out of consideration the recording clerks and the searchers,
the board of estimate and apportionment has provided salaries for
fifty men to do the work which was done by Mr. Reilly, under the fee
system, with sixteen men. Now, you can take up that work, if you
wish, at any time.
now.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. How many of these additional officers have you named yourself?
A. Do you mean of the employes?
[Senate, No. 80.]
262
2090
[SENATE,
Q. Yes.
A. Personally?
L
Q. Yes. A. I have not named more than two or three.
Q. Have you increased the number of employes over those of last
year? A. Only in the department of index clerks, and for the reason
that I have suggested sometime since.
Q. You have accepted the office as you found it in the hands of
your predecessor? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Does it keep you busy most of your time? A. I am there most
of my time.
Q. That is you are there the six hours? A. Yes, sir; the major
part of the six hours.
Q. Did you ever take up the office with the view to seeing if you
could not cut down the expenses of administration? A. I looked at
the office in this way, that with reference to the keeping
up of the indexes, with reference to keeping account of the
fees received with reference to recording, that nothing could be done.
but I think probably in the searcher's department that there might
be something done.
Q. As a matter of fact, does your estimate for next year, your pro-
visional estimate, differ in any appreciable amount from the estimate
of your predecessor for this year? A. That is a matter of figures.
Mr. IVINS.-It is here; I will put it in; I will read it.
The WITNESS.— I want to explain it to the Senator before you read
it; it seems to me that there is an increase over last year, and for this
reason, under the block system, as it is popularly known, it is neces-
sary to keep an alphabetical index, and for that work you require
index clerks; that is an addition; that is something additional that we
don't have this year; then under the old system of indexing we are
obliged to close that up; as I suggested a moment ago, it is in some
cases four months behind, or five months, whatever the figure was
that I mentioned that time in answer to your question; the answer
still holds good on that same thing; so that in reference to this next
alphabetical index which must be kept as well as the block index, the
appropriation is larger, but after next year you can do away with the
old index clerks who are presently engaged on keeping up this old
form of index; that thing could be done away with next year; that is
after we closed it up.
Q. Excising from your provisional estimate for next year, the addi-
tional items which grow out of the block system and the items
which grow out of the necessity for the additional number of index
clerks for the purpose of closing up the old index, how does that pro-
visional estimate compare with that made by your predecessor for
No. 80.1
2091
this year? A. Í don't know what the provisional estimate made by
my predecessor was; I know we were allowed $125,150; that was thé
allowance made by the board of estimate and apportionment; I under-
stood there was an application made for $140,000; I don't know
whether there was or not.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You got $125,000? A. Yes.
Q. And you asked this year for $150,000? A. We asked this year
for $153,250, for the reasons that I have explained.
-By Senator FASSETT:
Q. How many thousands do those reasons explain? A. For clerical
services under chapter 349, Laws of 1889-that is the block system
act $15,250; that item was agreed upon after hearing Mr. Olmstead
before the board of estimate and apportionment at the end of last
month.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. That would leave $138,000 for the other items; wouldn't it? A.
I will come to it in a moment; with reference to the item ten index
clerks, after we close up the present book of indexes, I think we could
do the work with five.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. How many index clerks are you now employing? A. There are
at present eight.
Q. And you ask for two more? A. I ask for two more to carry
out the provisions of the act of 1889.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Now you ask for two more, because you have got to keep the
alphabetical index up? A. Because I have got to keep the alpha-
betical index up and to close up the old index as well.
Q. How long have you got to keep up the alphabetical indexes and
close up the old ones? A. We have got to keep up the alphabetical
indexes so long as the law of 1889 is on the statute book; you see we
have got to keep up two indexes, the block index and the alphabetical
index, under the act of 1889.
Q. And, in your judgment, ought that law to be repealed so that you
would have only to keep up one index as the new index and abandon
the alphabetical one? A. I think before answering that question that
I would like to see some important members of the conveyancing bar;
2092
[SENATE,
*
I understood that that provision of the alphabetical index was put
in to oblige or accommodate some members of the conveyancing bar.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. What does the cost amount to of those ten indexing clerks?
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You have eight already? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the increase is how many? A. Two.
Q. That amounts to how much? A. Two thousand four hundred
dollars; but you know the alphabetical index has got to be kept up
as well as the block index; there are two forms of indexing.
Q. Is your office insufficiently equipped to-day? A. No, it is not.
Q. It is quite sufficiently equipped? A. In my judgment; yes.
Q. Now, you have asked for $15,000 because of the increase of work
under the block system? A. Yes.
Q. And you have asked for $2,400 additional for searchers?
A. Yes.
Q. That is $17,400? A. Yes.
Q. Is there any other increase of work in your office besides those
two items? A. Not that I just recall now.
Q. Then, why should you ask for $136,000 next year as against
$125,000 which you have got now, in view of your testimony that your
office is sufficiently equipped? A. Sufficiently equipped under the
present law, but we go under a new law next year; at present
you said.
Q. But you have put in your new law at $16,000 and $24,000 ? A.
I don't understand it so; I don't get that point.
By Senator Fassett:
A
Q. You have asked in your provisional estimate, for next year, for
$153,250? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is right, is it? A. That is correct.
Q. Of that $15,250 is due to the block system? A. To the block
system exclusively; and the alphabetical index clerks.
Q. For the alphabetical index clerks there is how much? A. For
the alphabetical index clerks there are these ten index clerks, assign-
ing say five or four to close up the present indexes, and assigning six
to the block system.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You have eight already? A. Yes, sir.
No. 80.]
2093
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. You have eight now? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So then the difference between eight and ten is two? A. I want
to say that those eight were put on for the purpose of bringing down
the indexes; they were way behind.
Q. They are there to-day, are they not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. There are two extras? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That would account for $2,400? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then $2,400 plus $15,250 would be $17,650; is there no other
items here which, on account of new laws, has compelled your making
a larger estimate? A. The tickler clerk is increased to $1,800.
Q. From what? A. From $1,600.
Q. That is $200 more? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is in round numbers $18,000? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Just let us check them off; Mr. Hanley you asked the same for?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Fitzgerald you asked $3,000 for? A. Yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT.-It seems to me we have them all now.
The WITNESS.— Here is an item of five special alphabetical index
clerks; that is for the alphabetical index.
Q. That is $5,000 for the alphabetical index clerks ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Making $23,000? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. I don't understand the $5,000 for five special alphabetical index
clerks? A. There it is there.
Q. What are they to do? A. That is under the special act I speak of.
Then you are going to have fifteen index clerks? A. I think we
should need that number to keep under the new law and close up
what is left under the old law; this has all been done, after advising
with Mr. Arnold and Mr. Olmstead; there has not been any step taken
whatever without getting the views of those gentlemen about it.
Q. That makes $23,000? A. Whatever the figures are.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. In round figures it makes $23,000; subtract $23,000 from $153,000
and you have $130,000, which seems to be- something like $5,000 that
you asked for more than you had this year, and yet you say your office
is sufficiently equipped? A. There it also another item; we are suf-
ficiently equipped to do the work as at present done, but we are not
sufficiently equipped to do the work for next year, for the reason that
I have assigned.
1
2094
[SENATE,
*
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You have given reasons which account for $23,000 of the differ-
ence; how do you account for the remaining $5,000? [Not answered.]
By Senator Fassett:
Q. Where is the other $5,000? A. That probably is in that item of
of $40,000 for recording clerks and clerks on satisfactions of mort-
gages; the satisfactions of mortgages were way back when I took
charge of the office; there is probably an increase thereof of $5,000.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Have you stated the number of clerks? A. No; because we
can't.
Q. Don't you state the number of clerks that you want? A. No;
you can't in that department, because the work is piece-work; if a
clerk does fifty folios he gets five cents a folio for it, if he only does
twenty folios he gets five cents a folio.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Right in that connection I see by your estimate here that
recording clerks gets five cents a folio for the work they do? A. Yes.
Q. Is that any harder work than the clerks do on this preserving
the records? A. The old record clerks ?
Q. Yes. A. The work of the old record clerks is much harder.
Q. Is that a fair compensation, five cents per folio? A. I am not
prepared to say that; I know it has been the custom of the office to
fix the compensation at that rate.
Q. The clerks are satisfied with that rate of five cents, are they?
A. I have not heard any objection from them; if they could get the
work they would be very well satisfied, I understand.
Q. If it is a fair compensation to pay five cents per folio for record-
ing clerks
A. This is based on the custom here before.
Q. When a custom once establishes itself in a department it main-
tains itself there? A. Well, if it is found to be a very proper custom,
I should think it would.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. It generally does continue to prevail, unless someone kicks,
doesn't it? A. I suppose the custom continues.
Senator FASSETT.- The excise commissioners excused everything we
found fault with on the ground that it came down to them.
Q. Have you ever known of a change in your department or in any
department of the city government being made without someone
No. 80.]
2095.
having objected and raised the issue? A. I don't know anything
about any department but my own; I have not heard anybody object
to that yet.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. If five cents per folio is fair compensation for recording clerks,
is not sixteen cents per folio a pretty large price to pay the transcrib-
ing clerks? A. The old record clerks ?
+
Q. Yes. A. No; I think not, and for this reason, in these old
records, you will probably run across a page with the ink of it very
hard to make out and probably another page torn and dogeared all
the way through; you will find them very frequently there and I think
I can show you them now.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Are they one-half or one-quarter of the pages or ninety per cent
of the pages? A. Probably twenty-five per cent of the pages; it is
100 per cent of the pages so far as the faded ink is concerned.
Q. Now, I call your attention in that connection to this fact, if the
10,003 pages which are shown on your pay-rolls to have been done
during the months of January, February, April and March of this
year, and for which $7,374 was paid, had been paid for on the basis of
five cents a folio, which is what you pay your recording clerks, it
appears that it would only have cost the city $3,501 instead of $7,374;
is there any reason why
A. I don't think that five cents a folio
would be fair compensation for that work.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Did you ever try to get them to do it for five cents a folio? A.
No; I never did.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Don't you believe that if you were to advertise for applicants for
clerical services to do that work for five cents per folio, men who could
give you bonds and bring proper recommendations, you could get the
work done on that basis? A. I couldn't say.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. You never tried it? A. I never tried it.
[Provisional estimate for the coming year as produced by the wit-
ness offered in evidence by Mr. Ivins, and marked Exhibit 9 of this
date.]
Adjourned to to-morrow morning at 11 o'clock.
2096
[SENATE,
EXHIBIT No. 9, OCTOBER 14, 1890.
REGISTER'S OFFICE, HALL OF RECORDS,
September 10, 1890.
To the Honorable the Board of Estimate and Apportionment :
GENTLEMEN. In compliance with the provisions of section 7, chapter
531, of the Laws of 1884, I herewith transmit to your honorable board
the following estimate, specifying in detail the objects thereof, of the
amount of expenditure required in the office of the register for the
year 1891, viz. :
Register..
Deputy register
Assistant deputy register.
Satisfaction clerk.
Tickler clerk . . .
•
Assistant tickler clerk.
Grantee clerk
Estimate 1891,
for salaries.
$12,000 00
5,000 00
3,000 00
3,000 00
1,800 00
1,200 00
1,500 00
Chattel mortgage clerk..
1,800 00
Assistant chattel mortgage clerk
1,200 00
Search clerk..
1,500 00
Account clerk
1,200 00
Three examiners, one at $1,600, two at $1,200 each..
4,000 00
Three readers at $1,200 each.
3,600 00
Two delivery clerks, one at $1,500, and one at $1,200....
2,700 00
Ten index clerks, one at $1,500, and nine at $1,200 each.
12,300 00
Certified copy clerk.
1,200 00
Two map clerks at $1,200 each..
2,400 00
Eight custodians of records and instruments, one at
$1,500, one at $1,200, and six at $1,000 each.
8,700 00
Two watchmen at $900 each.
1,800 00
Four messengers at $900 each……….
3,600 00
Eight searchers, six at $2,500 each, two at $2,000...
19,000 00
Recording clerks at five cents per folio, and clerks on
discharges of mortgages...
40,000 00
Five special alphabetical index clerks at $1,000 each...
For clerical service, chapter 349, Laws 1889..
5,000 00
15,250 00
$752,750 00
For contingencies
500 00
Total...
$153,250 00
Respectfully.
FRANK T. FITZGERALD,
Register..
No. 80.]
2097
WEDNESDAY MORNING, October 15, 1890.
The committee met pursuant to adjournment.
Present-Senators Fassett and Ahearn.
FRANK T. FITZGERALD, being recalled, testified as follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. When we stopped yesterday afternoon, Mr. Fitzgerald, we had
been inquiring concerning the work of the map clerks; you said the
map clerk spent his time in drafting maps; now, tell us what maps he
drafts; I understood you to say that the map clerk drafted maps, and
Mr. Hart, who assisted him, got the maps down for examination? A.
Well, not for the purpose of drafting those maps that he took down
for examination; the maps that Mr. Hart would hand down would be
those requested by the lawyers or any person having business with
the office; Mr. O'Donnell is here; he would probably know more about
the detail and technicality of the work than I do; there are about
1,100 maps in the office; you know about what they are.
Q. Now, what does the chief recording clerk do; I find that there
was no such officer during the time that this was a fee office? A. The
chief recording clerk supervises the work of the folio writers and also
stamps the papers after being compared; he adjusts the register's
stamp; then they are sent to the desk for the register's signature.
Q. That means the deputy register's signature? A. Or myself, or
the assistant, whoever is there, they all have authority to sign.
Q. Then he is a sort of aid to you and the deputy register? A. I
don't know as you could call it that, because he does not aid us at all
any more than in the sense of overlooking the work of the folio clerks,
and also of adjusting this stamp, assisting probably Mr. Smith; he
would be more of an aid to Mr. Smith.
Q. How does he overlook the work of the folio clerks? A. Well, he
investigates the number of folios that are written in the libers.
Q. That is for the purpose of checking off the pay-roll? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Have you any idea how many documents are brought in per
diem on the average on which he has to adjust the stamp? A. Well,
he does not adjust the stamp, you know, until the document is copied;
until it is copied and compared.
Q. Well, have you any idea as to how many documents he is required
to adjust the stamp on per diem? A. I suppose in a year probably
about 30,000.
Q. Well, that would be about a hundred a day? A. I suppose about
that.
[Senate, No. 80.]
263
་
2098
[SENATE,
}
Q. Somewhat less than a hundred a day? A. I should think about
that; I am not quite certain, you know, but I should think about that.
Q. What are his working hours? A. From 9 o'clock until 4, sir.
Q. Who is the chief recording clerk? A. James Hines.
Q. Did you find him in the office? A. No, sir.
Q. You appointed him? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was his business prior to his appointment to this place?
A. I understood he was an undertaker; I think that is his business.
Q. He is the one of whom you testified yesterday that he was an
undertaker? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know whether he is still in the undertaking business?
A. I think he is; that I am not certain about; I believe he is.
Q. Now, what does the certified copy clerk do? A. The certified
copy clerk, when an application is made for a certified copy of any
paper in the office, it is the duty of the certified copy clerk to make
that copy.
Q. Can you explain how it was possible to get along without a cer-
tified copy clerk under the old system? A. The only explanation that
I can give about it is, the certified copy clerk was there when I took
office; I don't know whether he was there under the old system or not.
Q. I asked to have the books which were here yesterday morning
brought back this morning; that is, certain libers containing powers
of attorney and certain libers containing certificates of religious.
corporations? A. I think the books are here.
Q. What is the name of the clerk on powers of attorney; Grimes?
A. I think Grimes; yes, sir.
Q. Francis J. Grimes? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you appoint him to office? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where does he live? A. Grimes lives in the Fourth Assembly
district; he was appointed on the recommendation of the Jeffersonian
Democracy; Shields, over there.
Q. On the recommendation of Shields' party? A. The recommend-
ation of that Democracy.
Q. The Shields Jeffersonian Democracy at that time was in active
co-operation with Tammany Hall, was it not? A. I think not, because
Grimes was appointed the first of last January.
Q. Was not Mr. Shields' Jeffersonian Democracy acting in concert
with Tammany Hall in that district last fall- at last fall's election ?
A. I think not, beyond myself.
Q. They were with me? A. They were with me; yes, sir; that I
know; I do not know anything about the rest of the ticket.
Q. And you appointed Mr. Grimes for them? A. Yes, sir.
No. 80.]
2099
Q. Did that cancel the account, or did you make some other appoint-
ments for them? A. No; there was a man named Driscoll appointed
on that account.
Q. Driscoll? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Anybody else on that account? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you think that is enough for one district? A. Well, I can't
express any opinion about that.
Q. Well, now what was Mr. Grimes' business before? A. I haven't
the slightest idea, sir.
Q. Did you make any inquiry? A. No inquiry, beyond the recom-
mendation of those people there; they said he was a good man; I
understand he is a good clerk; does his duty properly and faithfully.
Q. Have you personally ever taken any steps to see how he does his
duty? A. Well, personally, I can't say that I have; no, sir.
•
Q. Now, what are his duties? A. Well, his duties are- is he the
power of attorney, or religious corporation?
Q. Power of attorney? A. His duties are to copy the powers of
attorney that come in the office and also to copy any expedited papers;
for example, a lawyer has a mortgage or a deed which he wants in a
hurry, within two or three days, and that request is left and we try
to accommodate them, and if Grimes or Driscoll - they both help in
that direction—if they happen to be disengaged, they take charge of
that and copy it, in fact, that is what they do together, copying the
powers of attorney and religious corporations.
Q. Mr. Grimes entire work then consists then of copying the powers
of attorney and the expedited papers? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And does he do anything else in the office? A. Well, not that I
know of.
Q. The copies of expedited papers are not records of the office? A.
They are records of the office, but in this way, a lawyer leaves a deed
or mortgage to be recorded at length, well now the usual course would
be that the paper would not be returned probably for six weeks; it
would take that long you know to copy.
Q. Would it be returned in six weeks? A. Well, not at present;
that is so.
Q. Have you ever returned papers within six weeks since you have
been there? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, we will not take that up now; we will return to it; the
paper will not be returned within six weeks? A. I say usually all
papers are returned or ought to be returned within six weeks; now,
if a deed was to be hurried; if a person wanted it in a hurry, Grimes
or Driscoll would be put upon that work.
2100
[SENATE,
Q. They would be put upon the work of recording it? A. Recording
it at length; yes, sir.
Q. Is there anything in your office which shows how many of such
papers have been so recorded at length in order that the original
might be returned quickly? A. No; I don't think so; I don't think
there is any record, because it is purely a matter of accommodation
to the bar; I have no right to do it, you know.
Q. Then, part of the time of these people is taken up, or part of the
time of Mr. Grimes is taken up, in one function which you have no
right to perform? A. I do not put it in that way; I have a right to
record the paper at length, and the reason this is hurried is purely a
matter of accommodation to the lawyer; while I have been there I
have endeavored to accommodate the bar.
Q. Is there any means of telling how many things of that kind have
occurred? A. I don't know of any.
Q. Is there any means of telling how much work of that kind has
been done by either of these men? A. I think so if it was investigated;
I will be glad to look it up; I will talk with the deputy about it and
see if we can't look it up; I would be very glad to do it, indeed.
Q. Henry Driscoll, you say, is the record clerk for religious
corporations? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And he was appointed at the request of the Jeffersonian Democ-
racy of Mr. Shield's district? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was his business before he was appointed? A. I do not
know, sir.
Q. Did you make any inquiry? A. Not beyond the inquiry of the
recommendations that were made for his appointment at the time;
they told me he was a very good man; a competent man and a very
good clerk, and I understand that he is so.
Q. Did you look at his handwriting? A. I don't think I have, but
I understand that he is a good clerk.
Q. From whom do you understand that he is a good clerk? A.
Well, Mr. Hanley told me so.
Q. Does anybody else make a record of these religious corporations
besides him; has anybody else in the office any duty in that regard?
A. Not that I know of, sir; nobody else to do it.
Q. You say nobody else to do it? A. No, sir; not that I know of.
Q. Did you make any inquiries as to Mr. Driscoll's qualifications in
point of skill as a copyist? A. Well, no special inquiry.
Q. Is it not a fact that you simply took him in his shoes as he stood
because he had been recommended by these people? A. Well, that
is about the English of it.
No. 80.]
2101
Q. And that is about the English of the Grimes' matter, is it not?
A. They represented that they were both good men and good clerks
and I assumed that if they were not they would have been reported
to me and they would have been removed.
Q. Now, how much of Mr. Grimes' time do you think is taken up in
copying this book of powers of attorney? A. I haven't any idea; I
know that he should be at work constantly between 9 and 4 and
longer than that sometimes.
Q. Would you be surprised to find that all he had done in entering
powers of attorney was 248 pages for the last nine months, and that
for that, 248 he had been paid $750, or three dollars a page? A.
Well, but there were some additional work done in that other depart-
ment I speak of; it would not surprise me if that were all the powers
of attorney that were filed in our office for the last nine months, and
they were all written in; it would not surprise me then, because I
know that he has been engaged on other work; I have made special
inquiry about it.
Q. Do you know how much of that other work has been done, that
is the point I asked you about awhile ago? A. Yes; I said I would
have to advise with Mr. Hanley about that; I think we can furnish
that.
Q. An examination of these books shows the powers of attorney
recorded since January 1, 1890, appear in Liber 21 of Powers of
Attorney, from page 594 to page 700 inclusive, being 107 pages, and
in Liber 22 from page 1 to page 141 inclusive, being 141 pages, mak-
ing 248 pages, and if Mr. Grimes rendered no other service than that
for the $750 that he got, he would have got three dollars a page;
now the question is, what other service he rendered and what that
other service was? A. That service I referred to some time since;
for example, he has written in the Saturday papers, probably.
Q. What do you mean by the Saturday papers? A. Well, the
accumulations in the office during the half day of Saturday.
Q. You say "probably," do you know whether he did or not? A.
Well, I think he did; I am almost certain he did, that he did part of
that work.
Q. Do you know Mr. Grimes' handwriting when you see it? A. I
don't think I ever saw it.
Q. Now, I will run hurriedly through this book with you for the
purpose of trying to check off his clerical skill; on page 595 of
Liber 21 of Powers of Attorney, in your judgment, as register, is that
good work where the words "and appoint William M. V. Hoffman
are; the "M. V." is stricken out, and the "M. V." written above the
2102
[SENATE,
·
line, or the "M. U.," and the same thing occurs again? A. That
probably was a correction when it was compared; of course, I admit
that that special feature of that is not neat, but, you understand, that
in copying these records the only way that corrections can be made is
by interlinations.
Q. Would it not be better to appoint a man in the first instance who
could do his work without the necessity for correction on the very first
day he goes to work? A. It would be better, but I do not think you
could find such a man.
Q. I think I could; now, "giving and granting to my sal;" the
"sal" is stricken out, and the word "said" written in, and in a few
lines before the word "act" is stricken out and the word "act" writ-
ten in again; now, we come down to page 601; we find "collect and
disdain "stricken out and "demand and restrain
""
Senator AHEARN. Is that not liable to happen to any man?
The WITNESS.—I don't think you can find a clerk in New York copy-
ing these things who would not make some mistakes. The only
redress we have in such a case is to interlineate.
Q. The next page, 603, is there any reason, in your judgment, why
a clerk should write in the name of a party to a document and mis-
write it "Charles E. Cambridge," instead of "Charles E. Camidge,” and
so necessitate that correction on the face of the document on one page,
and then on the next page to write an entirely wrong name, and be*
compelled to write in the name of "Thomas Sanderson" instead of
it in the transcript of one document; is that what you call careful
work; good clerical work? A. It may not be good clerical work, and
it might be careful work.
By Senator АHEARN:
Q. Could not that happen and not be the fault of the man who put
it down? A. No; I don't know as it would.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Does anybody write in this book except Mr. Grimes? A. Well,
I could not say that.
Q. Then even all this work may not be done by Grimes? A. I am
not familiar with the handwriting of those clerks.
Q. This document, at page 620, does certainly not appear to you to
be in the same handwriting as the document at page 621? A. It does
not look as if it were in the same handwriting.
Q. Now, does the document on page 622 look as if it were in the
handwriting of either of the preceding documents? A. No; it does
not look so; it may be, too.
No. 80.]
2103
Q. Does the document on page 623 look as if it were in the hand-
writing of either of the three preceding documents? A. No; it does
not.
Q. Then it appears that four documents, running right along in
succession, from page 620 to page 625, are in the handwriting of four
different people? A. I don't know that that is a matter of fact.
Q. It appears so on the face of it? A. The appearances indicate
that way; I don't know as a matter of fact that it is so.
Q. Is there any way for you to tell; do you know which of this hand-
writing is Mr. Grimes and which is somebody elses? A. No; I could
not tell, because I never saw Grimes write.
Q. Is it not quite possible that the handwriting in those first pages
that I referred to which are the first written in after Mr. Grimes'
appointment, may not have been written by Mr. Grimes at all? A.
Well, that might be; I could not tell you anything about that because
I am not familiar with his handwriting.
Q. And it is quite possible that this neat work later on in the book
may have been the work of Mr. Grimes? A. It may have been.
Q. Now, how are we going to find out which particular clerk is
responsible for the entry of these particular documents? A. No way,
only by calling Grimes to prove his handwriting.
Q. Now, it appears that the entries here have only covered during
the past year 200 and odd pages, and it appears that those 200 and
odd pages were not done by the same man? A. I don't say that as a
fact, I don't know; there is a great deal of that very well done.
Q. Yes; a great deal of it is exceptionally well done and some of it
is very badly done; the question is which is which; now, in regard to
Mr. Driscoll's work in the recording of certificates of incorporation of
religious societies, I find that from the first of January to the thirtieth
of October, that is the first of the present month, these were recorded
in liber 3 of religious incorporations and are contained in the pages
from seventy-two to seventy-eight; Mr. Driscoll is entered as the
recording clerk for the recording of these particular documents-
A. And for any other recording work that may come up.
A.
Q. And it appears that there have been seven pages of those docu-
ments done which, if Mr. Driscoll did nothing else than this
But he did something else.
Q. Would be equivalent to $107.14, and it appears on the face of it
that the pages are even in the handwriting of different people; now,
will you look at that? A. He also copies, as I said, these expedited
papers.
2104
[SENATE,
Q. Look at that page, are not part of the entries in this book in the
same handwriting as part of the entries in the power of attorney
book, liber 21? A. I could not express my opinion on that.
Q. Now, it is apparent on its face, is it not, or it appears on its face,
that the record on page 74 of this book is not in the same handwrit-
ing as the record at the foot of page 75 of this book? A. I could not
even tell that.
Q. That is not in the handwriting that this is in [indicating the
two pages referred to]? A. I don't know; I don't see that there is
very much difference in the handwriting; I don't know; they may
be too.
Q. Now, do you know how many expedited entries there were? A.
I do not; I think, as I remarked before, it might be found out after
consultation.
Q. Now, I find out that there were no messengers employed in the
office during the last year under the fee system, and that you now
employ five messengers, will you tell me what their duties are? A.
The duties of the messengers are to run errands for the register, if
necessary, about his public business; one messenger takes the deposit
to the bank every morning, and the other messengers attend in court
in response to the subpoenas duces tecum.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. That is two? A. We have as many as twenty-eight subpoenas
duces tecum in one day.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Do you know who used to perform this service in the time of the
fee system under Mr. Reilly? A. No, sir; I do not.
Q. Did not any clerk perform those services? A. I don't know, sir.
Q. These subpoenas duces tecum require you to take your papers.
where? A. Require the register to bring the paper to the court or
at the place indicated in the subpoena and remain with them.
Q. That is either in the court-house here or at the office of some
referee? A. Yes, sir; and frequently at the District Court at One
Hundred and Twenty-fifth street or any of the district courts about
the city or the police court.
Q. Is it a fact that you are frequently subpoenaed duces tecum to pro-
duce papers at a district court from your office; is not that a very
exceptional thing? A. It is an exceptional thing; I was simply adding
that; we would have to take them there if subpoenaed; I suppose we
have from the commencement of the year for the district court,
probably four or five.
No. 80.]
2105
Q. Is it not a fact that ninety to ninety-five per cent of those sub-
pœnas required you to produce those documents in the court-house?
A. Ninety per cent?
Q. Yes; the vast majority of them require the papers to be produced
in the court? A. I should say that it would be very safe to say seventy-
five per cent certainly about the court-house; of course, you under-
stand that when a messenger takes a liber, the messenger must remain
with the liber until it is disposed of, used, or rejected, or whatever it
may be.
Q. The court-house is right here within stepping distance from your
office? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Within a stone's throw? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Right in the same square? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you keep a book in which any entries are made showing how
many subpoenas of that kind are received and what is done with them?
A. That ought to appear on the cash book.
Q. Why? A. For the reason that there is a dollar paid when a sub-
pœna is served on the register, and that dollar should be turned into
the city.
Q. How many such subpoenas do you say there are per diem? A.
Well, I could not give any average about that.
Q. Well, to your knowledge, are they sufficient to require a
messenger to be employed in at least one case each day? A. Oh, I
think certainly that; yes; there is no doubt about it.
Q. There is no doubt about that? A. I think more than that.
Q. Now, do those messengers that attend to this duces tecum business
attend to anything else? A. Why they are in and out of the office.
Q. Well, what do they do in and about the office? A. Well, as I
described, they attend to the errands, whatever may be required of
them.
Q. Do you think the volume of litigation in which such books are
required for the purposes of evidence has materially increased in
the last three years? A. On the supposition that the litigation of
the city is increasing on account of the increase in population.
Q. Do you think it has increased so much that you need messengers
to do it now, whereas none were needed to do it three years ago? A.
All I know is that these messengers came down from the other
administration.
Q. Now, who are these messengers; one is John Mulholland? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. At $900 a year? A. Yes, sir..
[Senate, No. 80.]
264
2106 -
[SENATE,
Q. Did you appoint him? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you appoint Philip V. Welch? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who is Welch? A. He resides in the first district.
Q. What was his business before you appointed him? A. I think
he was in the fish business in Fulton Market.
Q. Is he still in the fish business? A. Well, I don't know.
Q. Have you ever made any inquiries to find out? A. No, sir; I
have not made any special inquiries.
Q. Do you not think Mr. Welch could perform the duties he has to
perform here and quite well attend to the fish business simultane-
ously? A. I don't know as he could; he would not be allowed to
do it.
Q. Not if you knew it? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever taken any steps to know it? A. The only steps.
taken are to see that the office is properly conducted?
Q. He is a member of your organization, is he not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In your district? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What office does he hold in your organization? A. He does not
hold any office beyond being a member of the general committee.
Q. Did you appoint Thomas Quinn? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was he? A. Well, I have no objections to say, but I would
like to talk with the chairman before that; if you would come up I
would just tell you here.
Senator FASSETT. Might go into secret session about it.
The WITNESS.-No, there isn't any secret about it.
After consultation with the attorney and committee, the witness
answered: Well, he was recommended by a clergyman.
Q. And is he a good clerk? A. Yes, sir; a good messenger.
Q. What part of the messenger service does he do; is he the one
who is in the office or the one who attends to these subpoenas? A.
Well, there isn't any special one to attend to the subpoenas, whoever
happens to be there; he is in and about the office constantly.
Q. Why does he get only $700 a year and the others get $900, or
$720 and the others get $900? A. I don't know that there is any
special reason except the scale of graduation of salary.
Q. What is the reason for the scale of graduation of salaries in that
particular service? A. I can not assign a reason for it.
Q. Have you a man named Keenan in your office; John B. Keenan?
A. No, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Or Kernan? A. I think there is a Kernan.
**
4.
No. 80.]
2107
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Have you a man named John B. Kernan ? A. I think so; I think
he is in the old records.
Q. In the old records department? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you appoint him? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is he a custodian, or is there another man named John Hernan?
A. There is another man named John Hernan who is a custodian.
Q. I find "John B. Kiernan, recording clerk," at a $100 a month?
A. That is old records I think.
Q. Did you appoint him? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where does he live? A. I don't know where he lives, but I
know for whom he was appointed.
Q. Whom was he appointed for? A. Commissioner of jurors
Reilly.
Q. Had he been in the commissioner of jurors' office before that?
A. I am not certain about that.
Q. Did you make any inquiry about that? A. No; I did not.
Q. Did you ask Commissioner Reilly if he had been in his office?
A. No; I did not.
Q. Did you ask Mr. Reilly if he had been discharged from his
office? A. No; I did not.
Q. Did you ask Mr. Reilly why he had been discharged from his
office? A. No; Reilly recommended him.
Q. Would you be surprised, however, to learn that notwithstanding
Mr. Reilly's recommendation, Mr. Reilly had discharged him from the
commissioner of jurors' office? A. I think it would be a very strange
occurrence; yes, sir; very strange indeed.
Senator FASSETT.- Mr. Reilly might have thought that he was a
good enough man for you.
Q. Is that possible that Mr. Reilly might have thought that he was
a good enough man for you, but not good enough for him? A. I
could not tell what Reilly's thoughts were.
Q. Did you take that man as he stood in his shoes on Mr. Reilly's
recommendations, without any further inquiries? A. Yes, sir.
Q. He copies the old records? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you take any steps to find out what his qualification for
copying records was? A. No, sir; no special steps; Reilly said he
was a good clerk; he knew him; he knew him to be a good clerk.
Q. Did Mr. Reilly support you in your election? A. I assumed
that he did.
Q. You assumed that he did; Mr. Reilly also comes from the same
district that Shields' Jeffersonian Democracy comes from? A. Yes, sir.
2108
[SENATE,
Q. But he is not on the same side as the Shields' Jeffersonian
Democracy? A. I understand that there is a division of interest over
there with reference to local matters; I don't know what the situation
of the district is.
Q. You have, however, provided places for both divisions, is that
the fact? A. Well, it looks so.
Q. It looks so, yes? A. I assume, however, that Reilly's recom-
mendation of Kiernan, was on account of Kiernan being a
Tammany man.
Q. Then between the Republicans, the Tammany organization,
the Jeffersonian Democracy and the Reilly division, all have some
representation in your office? A. Well, I don't know of any Republi-
can who is there by reason of him being a Republican; there is a
Republican there, I understand, but I assigned, yesterday, the reason
for that; it was purely a personal matter.
Q. Are there any County Democrats in your office? A. Unless you
want to call Grimes and Driscoll County Democrats.
Q. They were appointed, you said, for Mr. Shields? A. They were
appointed for Mr. Shields; yes, sir; that is, on the recommendation of
the Jeffersonian Democracy; I don't say that Shields had altogether
to do with it.
Q. Any others? A. Ryan.
Q. You think Ryan is a County Democrat? A. Well, Ryan is in the
district with Shields, I say.
Q. Oh, yes; now, are there any other county Democrats in your
department? A. No; I don't think of any.
Q. You have a record clerk, John H. Mahar, who records satisfac-
tion of mortgages? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who is he? A. Mahar is a resident of the lower part of the city.
Q. Who appointed him? A: I did.
Q. What was his business before you appointed him? A. Tdon't
know; he was recommended by ex-Alderman McCarthy.
Q. Of what district? A. The first district.
Q. Is he a member of your organization? A. McCarthy is; I don't
think Mahar is.
Q. Did you ask McCarthy what Mahar's business was prior to his
appointment? A. I don't think that that direct question was put;
no, sir.
Q. Did you take any steps to find out? A. Beyond this that
McCarthy told me that Mahar was a very good man, and that he would
like to see him appointed.
Q. Did you take any steps further than listening to that recom-
No. 80.]
2109
mendation to discover what his qualifications for a clerkship were? A.
Well, no; not any especially.
Q. Did you ask to see his writing? A. No; I think not.
Q. Did you ask whether he had ever been in clerical service of any
kind? A. I don't think I put that question.
Q. Do you remember to have put any questions to him, or did you
just agree to appoint him and then appoint him? A. Well, there was
a little more formality about it than that.
Q. Tell us what the formality was? A. Well, Alderman McCarthy
called on me and said he had a very good man that he could recommend
for a position in the office; I said: "Very well, send him to me; I shall
have his writing tried, and if he is satisfactory we will appoint him."
Q. Did you have his writing tried? A. I did; I left orders for that
to be done, as we try all of them; everybody over there is supposed
to go through that trial before they are appointed; they do, in fact.
Q. Do you know what amount of work he does in the course of a
year? A. No; I could not tell.
Q. Is he a pretty busy man? A. I could not even tell that; that is
probably left to the supervision of the deputy.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. If you had to pay these men out of your own pocket, you would
see to it that they were individually busy, would you not? A. Any
business I would engage in would not require so many clerks, and
for that reason I could bring under my supervision three or four
clerks a great deal more readily than those that are in the office; of
course, you have to assign a part of that work to subordinates; it
would be an utter impossibility for one man to take charge of the
whole thing and look at every line that was written in that office; it
would be a physical impossibility.
By Mr. IVINS :
Q. But it appears that you have fifty-one clerks there to do the
particular duties which, during Mr. Reilly's time, were performed by
sixteen? A. Well, that I haven't any knowledge about; all I know is
that those clerks were there under the former administration of the
register's office,
Q. Did you appoint Edward F. Sheehan recording clerk for the
discharge of mortgages? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who is Mr. Sheehan? A. Mr. Sheehan's case is the same as Mr.
Quinn's case.
Q. He was recommended by a clergyman? A. He is the brother of
clergyman.
2110
[SENATE,
Q. Did you take any steps to check off his work? A. Well, no
personal steps.
Q. Did you make any investigation as to his qualifications? A. Not
beyond that his writing was tested before he was put in.
Q. There is another clerk of this same class, Patrick J. Delaney;
did you appoint him? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Whom did you appoint him for? A. Personally; he was for-
merly a clerk in the Hudson River depot, and a very good clerk, and
a very good penman.
Q. And knowing that, you thought he was a good man for the
office? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many of the custodians did you appoint; Matthew H.
Moore? A. He was appointed, I think, by Mr. Slevin.
Q. Emanuel Mendelsohn? A. I appointed him.
Q. Whom for? A. For organization reasons.
What were the organization reasons as affecting a clerk in a
public office? A. He is not a clerk.
Q. He is a custodian? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was the organization reason for your appointing him cus-
todian? A. Because he had been a very ardent worker for Tammany
Hall in the first district.
Q. That is your district? A. Yes, sir; and an ardent supporter of
the organization.
Q. In other words, he had given you a boost and you gave him a
boost? A. No; he never gave me any personal boost.
Q. Did he not help you in your election? A. Not that I know of.
Q. But he was an ardent supporter of the organization? A. Yes, sir;
he opposed me, in fact, once.
Q. But not this time? A. No, sir; he was not with me at all times
when I ran for office; I recognized in him a warm supporter of the
organization, and applied the same rules that would be applied to any
political organization to men.
Q. Is he still a hearty worker in the organization. A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know how much of his time is taken up in work of the
organization, and how much of his time in the work of the office? A.
The time taken up by work in the office should be from 9 to 4 o'clock;
of course, after that I do not know anything about it.
Q. He is the one who has $1,200 a year, whereas the others only have
a thousand a year, and one of them only $900; why does he get $200
more than the others? A. Well, there isn't any special reason for it.
Q. Might it be a reason that he is an ardent worker for the organi-
zation? A. No; I don't know that that would enter into the gradua-
tion of the salary.
No. 80.]
2111
Q. What was his business before you appointed him? A. I think
he was in the pawnbroking business.
Q. Is he not still in the pawnbroking business? A. I think so.
Q. And does he not attend to the pawnbroking business still per-
sonally? A. Well, I assume that he does outside of office hours.
Q. Have you taken any steps though to find out how much of his
time is spent in the office during office hours? A. Yes, sir; I know
that he spends most of his time there; that is during those hours we
spoke of yesterday; from nine to four.
Q. Now, Mr. Fitzgerald, I want you to be very accurate about that;
you say you know he spends most of his time there; how do you know
it? A. Do you mean personally?
Q. Yes. A. I assume he does it; I don't, for instance, go out of my
private office every hour in the day to find out.
Q. Do you want to go on record as being responsible for saying that
you know that that man spends most of his time in the office during
office hours? A. I want to go on record as saying that I know that
he performs his duties from what I know and from what information
I have.
Q. What steps have you taken to see in what manner he does his
duty? A. There are no special steps employed more than would be
employed in reference to anybody else there.
Q. Matthew Gilligan; did you appoint him? A. No, sir.
Q. He was an inheritance? A. Matthew Gilligan was an inheritance.
Q. Is he a Tammany Hall inheritance; is he a Tammany Hall man?
A. Well, I understand so.
Q. John McDonough? A. John McDonough is not my appointment.
Q. Whose appointment was he? A. I think Mr. Slevin appointed
him.
Q. Do you know what other business either Gilligan or McDonough
had? A. No; I do not.
Q. Do you know whether they have any other business or not? A
No; I think not; they are both Grand Army men and could not be
removed if I wanted to.
Q. Couldn't they be removed for cause, if they did not come to the
office and do their business properly? A. Undoubtedly.
Q. Notwithstanding they are Grand Army men? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who is Daniel A. Bostwick, Jr.? A. Daniel A. Bostwick is a
custodian of the safe.
Q. Who appointed him? A. He was there before I took office.
Q. Do you know whether he has any other business? A. Not that I
know of.
2112
[SENATE,
Q. Do you know whether he is continually in the office and in custody
of the safe? A. I know that he is.
A. Who is Frank H. Gilhooly? A. Frank H. Gilhooly is a
custodian.
Q. Custodian of what? A. In the register's office.
Q. Are you prepared to say that he is not the custodian of some-
body's bar? A. I am prepared to say that he is engaged as one of the
managers for McKeever Brothers of this city; he is here to-day.
Q. Is it not a fact that his time is mainly spent in superintending
and watching a barroom? A. Well, not as I understand it.
Q. Have you ever taken any steps to find out how much of his time
is spent in the barroom of which he is superintendent or keeper, and
how much of his time in the office? A. I never took any steps to find
out how much of the time he has been at his bar; I understand he has
been at the office constantly; I understand he takes charge of this
business at night; he is here to speak for himself.
Q. Who is John J. Moloney? A. John J. Moloney was in the office
when I came.
Q. Has he any other business? A. Not that I know of.
Q. John Hernan? A. John Hernan is an appointment that I made.
Q. Whom did you appoint him for? A. Well, he was recommended
by some societies.
Q. What societies? A. Some Irish societies.
Q. Were they Irish societies which had a particular interest in the
good administration of the register's office, or were they just plain
Irish societies? A. Well, I don't know any difference between a plain
Irish society and an Irish society; I don't know whether there is any
distinction or not.
Q. Did you ever have any reasons to suppose that they had any
particular interest in the good administration of the office? A. I say
I don't know as they took any political part.
Q. What other business has Mr. Hernan? A. I don't know.
Q. Have you ever taken any steps to inquire? A. No, sir; I know
he is attentive to his duties.
Q. Do you know what his business was before he went in there as
custodian? A. No, sir; I do not.
Q. Philip J. Fitzgibbon? A. Philip Fitzgibbon is the messenger
who was here; he came down from a former administration.
Q. James Langan? A. He has been there some time.
Q. Is Fitzgibbon a messenger or watchman? A. Well, he is a
watchman; for instance, he takes charge of the office, all that until
Langan arrives at night; then Langan goes on and remains in the
No. 80.] :
2113
office until morning; we have got to have a watchman there at night;
and Fitzgibbon also comes down on Sunday and takes charge of the
place on Sunday in the absence of the night watchman.
Q. Take the pay-roll for the preservation of the public records, did
you appoint Mr. Burns? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Whom did you appoint him for? A. On the recommendation of
an organization, I think.
Q. What organization is that? A. An organization uptown.
Q. Which one? A. I don't know whether it is the Jolly Fellows or
what they call it.
Q. Who is the jolliest of these Jolly Fellows on whose particular
application you made the appointment? A. I don't just recall.
Q. Will you tell us why you appointed Mr. Burns for the Jolly
Fellows? A. Well, they had rendered some political service.
Q. In what district? A. In the twentieth, I think.
Q. Who is the Tammany Hall leader in the twentieth district? A.
Mr. Carroll.
Q. Did he recommend the appointment on account of the Jolly
Fellows? A. No, sir; he did not.
Q. It was a private and not an organization enterprise then; did you
appoint J. W. Burns? A. Yes, sir.
Q. There is J. Burns examiner, and J. W. Burns, record clerk; what
is the difference between the two, any more than the "W" or are they
the same person? A. I will have to look at that; I don't think that is
correct; John Burns lives 784 First avenue; that is the examiner.
Q. The jolly fellow? A. I suppose so; and John W. Burns lives 102
Monroe street; he came from the Fourth Assembly district and was
there before I took office.
Q. The fourth district stands pretty well in your office? A. I
should think so.
}
Q. I want to go back a moment to Mr. Gilhooly; was your attention
ever called to the fact that after Mr. Mitchell was appointed civil
justice Gilhooly applied for a clerkship in the Fifth Judicial district,
and that although the examination was a non-competitive examination
his papers were returned by the State Civil Service Board and marked
incompetent; did you ever hear of that? A. Yes, sir; I heard that.
Q. And notwithstanding the fact that he had been rejected in a
non-competitive examination you appointed him in your office? A.
The civil service rules do not apply to our office.
Q. Is there any reason in view of the fact that all of the work in
your office is either clerical or expert work that the civil service rules
should not be made to apply to it? A. Well, I haven't any reason
[Senate, No. 80.]
265
2114
[SENATE,
why they should not; of course, the reason is that I am under bonds;
I understand that is the reason they are not applied.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. When the civil service law was passed that office was still a feed
office? A. I understand where a person occupies a fiduciary relation
and is under bonds to discharge his duties that the civil service
regulations do not apply; that is my understanding of it.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. This same Gilhooly who was a custodian and who was rejected
in a non-competitive examination is as you say a superintendent for
one of McKeever Brothers' saloons? A. I understand that is so.
Q. Now, to go back to Commiskey; you say he had been a barkeeper?
A. I understood so.
Q. Had he not been a barkeeper for your father in Washington and
Herbert streets? A. I haven't any reason to answer; when my father
was in the business; yes, sir.
Q. As to Michael Hart, do you know that Hart now has two liquor
saloons? A. No, sir.
Q. And that Hart has his own name over the door and that the
business is run in Hart's name? A. I don't know that he has two
liquor saloons, but I spoke to him after the examination yesterday and
he said he was in the liquor business.
Q. One of his saloons is on the corner of Hubert and Hudson streets,
is it not? A. I don't know; I know that he has one on the corner of
Beach and Greenwich or Hubert and Hudson, I don't know, some-
where around the neighborhood there; I know he was in the business
because I asked him since he was on the stand yesterday.
Q. What does Michael Kennedy do in your office? A. I haven't
any Michael Kennedy in my office; Michael Kennedy was in my office.
for probably half a month.
Q. Did you appoint him? A. I appointed him and then-
Q. Discharged him? A. Discharged him.
Q. Why did you discharge him? A. Because he was appointed
superintendent of stables in the street cleaning department.
Q. Did you know at the time you appointed him that he owned a
liquor store at 28 Beach street? A. No; I did not.
Q. You know whether he now owns it? A. I do not know.
By Senator Fassett:
Q. You say you do not know; you are speaking exactly now; you
never saw his license? A. I never saw his license; I don't know
whether he owns the store or not.
No. 80.]
2115
1
Senator AHEARN.-You know he does the duties assigned to the
office properly? A. He is not there now; he is in the street cleaning
department.
Q. This other man? A: Mr. Hart?
Q. Yes. A. Certainly he does his duty.
Q. From your own knowledge you know that all those clerks do
their duty, and if they did not do their duty, you would be notified,
would you not? A. Undoubtedly.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. I. D. Henderson; did you appoint him? A. No; Henderson
came down from the other administration.
Q. Were you asked to retain him? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who asked you to retain him? A. Probably, Mr. Croker; I am
not quite certain; probably so.
Q. Do you know what district Mr. Henderson lives in? A. I do
not know.
Q. Did you appoint T. Boland? A. Mr. Boland was there when I
took charge.
Q. Did you continue him in the service at the request of anyone?
A. Boland; yes, he was continued, I think, at the request of Mr.
Croker.
Q. Mr. Boland was also continued at the request of Mr. Croker?
A. I think so.
Q. T. Wunderlich? A. Mr. Wunderlich was in the office when I
went there.
Q. Was he retained at the request of Mr. Croker? A. Well, I don't
know about that; no; I do not know as Wunderlich was specially
retained; I know he was there, and was not disturbed.
Q. Do you know whether Wunderlich has any other business? A.
I do not.
Q. Do you know whether Boland has any other business? A.
I do not.
Q. Do you know whether Henderson has any other business? A.
I do not.
Q. J. J. Riley, did you appoint him or retain him? A. I think Riley
was retained.
Q. At the same request? A. I do not say that Mr. Croker måde
such request, I am not certain; but those clerks were nearly all there
when I went in.
Q. Were most of these men on this list for the preservation of
records, retained? A. Pretty much so; yes, sir.
2116
[SENATE,
Q. And generally speaking, on whose request did you retain the
people whom you found in the office when you went in? A. Well, on
the general request of the organization.
Q. The request of the organization as represented by whom? A.
As represented by the executive committee.
Q. Who were the executive committee? A. The executive com-
mittee is composed of the chairman from each Assembly district.
Q. Well, was that representation in each particular case by some
particular member of the executive committee, or by the act of the
executive committee as a body? A. No; it was not by an act of the
executive committee as a body; I suppose you might say that it was
on the recommendation of Mr. Croker.
Q. He representing the entire body? A. I should think so.
Q. Did you retain L. Arnstein, or appoint him? A. Arnstein was
retained.
Q. P. I. Garvey? A. Garvey was retained; he was there under the
other administration.
Q. Do you know what Riley's business was or is? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know what Arnstein's business is or was? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know what Garvey's business is or was? No, sir.
Was P. H. McKenna retained or appointed? A. Retained.
Q. Do you know what his business is or was? A. I do not.
Q. J. Brady? A. I do not know what his business was.
Q. Was he appointed or retained? A. He was retained.
Q. E. F. Starin? A. He was appointed.
Q. For whom did you appoint him? A. I think Mr. Croker.
Q. Do you know what his business is? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know what his business was before you appointed him?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you, at the time you appointed him, know what his qualifica-
tions for a clerkship were? A. I had seen him; I think he is a pretty
good clerk; he is a good clerk, so far as I know.
Q. Amschel? A. Amschel was appointed at the request of Mr.
Croker.
Q. Did you know what his qualifications for a clerkship were
before you appointed him; do you know what his qualifications are?
A. I understand they are very good.
Q. Do you know what his business is or was prior to his appoint-
ment? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever ask with regard to any of these people that I have
been reading the names of from the pay-roll of clerks for the pre-
servation of public records as to what their business prior to their
No. 80.]
2117
appointment was? A. No, sir; I did not; they pretty much all came
down from the other administration, and I assumed that they had
given satisfaction.
Q. D. J. Connell? A. Mr. Connell is a personal appointment.
Q. Who did you appoint him for? A. Well, on account of Alder-
man Flinn.
Q. Alderman Flinn in the first district? A. Yes, sir.
Q. J. J. Kirk? A. Kirk, I think, came down from the former
administration.
Q. Who is Kirk; any relation of Alderman Kirk? A. No, sir; no
relation.
Q. Will you tell us why you need two indexers, Connell and
Kirk being both indexers, in the work of the preservation of public
records alone, particularly in view of the fact that during Mr.
Reilly's time four index clerks were able to do all the
current business of the office? A. Well, the reason that those
index clerks are needed is in order to have the indexes prepared as
quickly as possible and inserted in the place where the old book was.
Q. It takes two men to do it? A. I do not know as that is an
increase over what my predecessor had.
Q. That is not the point; does it take two men to do it? A. I
think it does from what I know.
Q. As a matter of fact, two men do it? A. Yes; but the two men
are not working on the same book.
Q. I understand that they are not, of course, but could not one man
do it? A. One man could do it by occasioning a great deal of delay.
Q. Do you suppose that the preservation of the public records
involves a volume of business half as large as the entire current bus-
iness of the office three years ago was? A. With reference to the
public records, I shall explain how that is done.
Q. Explain it your own way? A. We are proceeding at the pres-
ent under the order of July 12, 1889, an order of the Supreme Court
made by Justice O'Brien on the recommendation of the former regis-
ter, and on the appointment of members of the profession to investi-
gate the recommendations of the register, and they reported, and on
that report this order is made; now there are twenty-five books still,
I think, left uncopied and in conformity with the order of July 12,
1889, so that as a matter of fact that work altogether depends upon
the recommendation of the register in the first instance to the
Supreme Court, the appointment of a commission by the Supreme
Court and an examination by that commission, with a report after-
2118
[SENATE,
wards to the justice, and on that report the justice makes the order;
I have made no request during my term yet.
Senator FASSETT.- That is the work to be done as laid out by the
court?
The WITNESS.-
Yes, sir.
·
Q. But the method of doing it, the court has nothing to do with?
A. No, sir; the method of doing it is this, I understand it was
settled at a meeting of the judges of the first department with refer-
ence to this work that five pages a day would be a day's work as far
as the copying of mortgages, etc., were concerned, and that seven
pages a day would be a day's work so far as copying the indexes are
concerned; if a person does not copy five pages of mortgages in a
day or does not copy seven pages of indexes in a day, he is not paid
for the day's work.
Q. If he does copy five pages in the one case or seven pages in the
other, then he is paid a hundred dollars a month? A. Yes, sir.
Q. These people are paid a hundred dollars a month for copying
five pages a day in the one case and seven pages a day in the other
case? A. It was under the arrangement of the judges of the first
department.
Q. When was that arrangement made? A. I think within two
years; I knew before I took office.
Q. Do you know who was the presiding judge at the General Term
at that time? A. I did not say the General Term, I said the judges
of the first department; Judge Van Brunt is the presiding justice.
Mr. IVINS. Now, if the stenographer will please read my last
question?
[The stenographer read the question, as follows:]
-
Q. Do you suppose that the preservation of the public records
involves a volume of business half as large as the entire current busi-
ness of the office three years ago was? A. I could not give any
information upon that point for the reason
-I have not assigned any
reason but for the reason that that is purely a matter of investiga-
tion by this commission, appointed by the judges of the first depart-
ment; I have made an off-hand look at the number of mutilated books;
of course, my recommendations would amount to nothing unless they
were agreed to by one of the judges of the Supreme Court.
Senator FASSETT.—I do not think you comprehend Mr. Ivins' ques-
tion. He wants to know whether, in your judgment, this work done
last year in preserving the old records would amount to as much in
the aggregate as the entire work of the office three years ago? A. I
No. 80.]
2119
could not say anything about it, because I don't know anything about
it three years ago.
Q. Who appointed J.. N. Lerscher? A. Lerscher was appointed
by me.
Q. Who was he appointed for? A. Judge Mitchell.
Q. What was Lerscher's business before you appointed him? A. I
think he was a law clerk.
Q. Judge Peter Mitchell? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know whether he is a law clerk now or not? A. I know
that he is not now.
Q. Do you know whether he does any other business than act as
reader in this department? A. I do not know what he does after the
office hours; I do not know anything about that.
Q. Who appointed J. O'Connor? A. I appointed J. O'Connor.
Q. Who did you appoint him for? A. I appointed him on the
recommendation of some of the men in the first ward.
Q. Who were they? A. Some of the members of the committee;
but you can say he is a personal appointment.
Q. What do you mean by personal appointment, as contradis-
tinguished from any other appointment; you have used the expression
"personal appointment" a number of times? A. I mean personal
appointment is an appointment I make on my own motion without any
recommendation from anybody except the recommendation of myself;
and the other appointments that may be made would come by
recommendation.
Q. There are two kinds of appointments, then, personal appoint-
ments and organization appointments? A. No; the distinction does
not extend that far; they are all organization men.
Q. But some organization men are appointed by you on your own
personal suggestion, and some are appointed by the suggestion of the
organization, as such; is that it? A. That would be the mode of
appointment, but they would be all organization men.
Q. Oh, yes; I understand that; but in some cases you let the organi-
zation select the men, and in other cases you select for the organiza-
tion; is that it? A. No; I do not think that is the general rule; I
have never adopted, that; I have never set myself above my
organization.
Q. Have you ever set your organization above yourself; A. No; I
have not.
Q. How do you arrange that equation to keep it so nicely balanced?
A. There isn't any arrangement about it at all.
2120
[SENATE,
7
Q. Who appointed L. P. Smith? A. Mr. Smith was there when I
took charge.
Q. Who asked you to retain him? A. He was there when I took
charge.
Q. B. F. Fitzpatrick, reader? A. Well, he was recommended, I
suppose -- he was there under Slevin, and I retained him; that is
about the answer to that [referring to Smith]; now, the next one.
Q. B. F. Fitzpatrick; is he the Mr. Fitzpatrick we were talking
about yesterday; the reader? A. Yes, sir.
Q. He is the son of Excise Commissioner Fitzpatrick, is he not?
A. Yes; I inquired about that.
Q. Well, what have you found about it? A. Well, I understood
that he was the son of Excise Commissioner Fitzpatrick; I have not
had a chance to speak to Fitzpatrick personally about it; I had a con-
versation with his father last evening, and he told me that his son
held a pardon from the Governor; that is about all I know about it.
Senator FASSETT.—What Governor-Governor Hill? A. I do not
know whether it is Governor Hill or not; I understood that he would
be here to-day, and that is the reason I did not make any inquiry
about it.
Q. Do you understand that while he was a police officer he had
killed a man and had been convicted? A. I did not go into that.
Senator AHEARN.-So far as that is concerned, the man has been
tried and pardoned.
Mr. IVINS. And convicted.
Senator AHEARN. And suffered. And I don't think it is proper
that that thing should be brought up. He has been pardoned.
Mr. IvINS.— Did you ask when he had been pardoned? A. No; I
did not do that; I spoke to Mr. Fitzpatrick last evening that I under-
stood that his son
Senator AHEARN.—This man is trying to do what is right, and is
doing what is right, and I don't think it is proper to bring that up.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. E. K. Parris; did you appoint him? A. No, sir; he was in the
office when I took charge.
Q. Did you retain him? A. Yes, sir.
Q. At whose request? A. There wasn't any direct request for him,
but I understood that Judge Fallon or Judge White was interested
in him; I understood so; I have not removed him.
Q. How many recording clerks at five cents per folio have you now
at work or under the employment of the office? A. Well, I could not
tell; of course, you know, Mr. Ivins, how that work is distributed.
No. 80.]
2121
·
Q. Will you send some one to find out how many are now employed
and how many were employed in September and May? A. Yes; you
understand that this is piece-work.
Q. Yes; I understand it is piece-work. A. So that one month there
might be more than others.
Q. Have you not put a number of persons at work on this piece-
work during the past few weeks who were not on it before? A. Well,
not a number; no.
Q. Well, how many have you? A. Probably one or two.
Q. Only one or two? A. I think so.
Q. Are there not more than one or two persons at work on this
piece-work now, who were not at work on piece-work in September ?
A. No; I think there are not over two or three; I don't remember any
more.
Q. Can you remember who these three are? A. I think one young
man's name is John Rice.
Q. Who did you put him to work for? A. I put him to work on
the recommendation of Mr. Patrick Kerrens.
Q. Who is he? A. A member of the general committee, living
down town.
Q. Who are the other two? A. That is the only one that I recall;
there may not be three; I am not sure; I recall that one.
Q. Did you appoint all of these recording clerks, or did you find
many of them at work before you went there? A. A great many of
them had worked there when I took charge of the office.
Q. Homer Nelson was at work when you took charge of the office?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. He seems to have done 1,114 folios in September; Charles Wache
did 1,100 in September; was he at work when you went in the office?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Thomas McDevitt seems to have done 1,188 folios in September;
George W. Houghton seems to have done 1,104 folios in September;
was he at work when you were in the office? A. Yes, sir.
Q. John J. Guilfoyle, was he at work when you went in the office?
A. No, sir.
Q. Guilfoyle seems to have done more work than anyone else; you
appointed him; who did you appoint him for? A. I appointed him;
he asked me if I could not do something for him, and I did it.
Q. What was his business? A. He was formerly in the dry goods
business.
Q. Now, I have read to the committee four or five names of those
[Senate, No. 80.]
266
2122
[SENATE,
who did the largest volume of work; Charles M. Boyd did 162 folios;
did you appoint him? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who did you appoint him for? A. Well, he is from the first
district; I appointed him on the recommendation of someone in the
organization.
Q. Hugh Brady, ninety-eight folios; did you appoint him? A. Yes;
and the reason of that can be explained; that is, do you dwell upon
the fact that the number of folios is small?
Q. No; I am simply taking the names of those whom I find to have
done the smallest number of folios. A. For example in the Boyd and
Brady case, they, no doubt, got their work-what month is that?
Q. This is September. A. They, no doubt, got their work in August
and probably lapped over.
Q. What do you mean by got their work; you mean an allotment
of work? A. The work was allotted to them, no doubt, in August and
then they continued up until the pay-roll was made up.
Q. Do you make allotments of work to the same man
will pardon me, I will explain.
A. If you
Q. Go ahead. A. Their work was allotted in August, and they
wrote till the last day of August; their pay-roll would show in August
what they did in that month, and then in September there would be
sixty-eight folios left, and in that case that would appear on the pay-
roll of September.
Q. That is, provided they got no further allotment of work? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. But if they got a further allotment of work, that would also
appear? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who did you say you appointed Brady for? A. Well, Brady
has been there sometime.
Q. Did you appoint Boylan? A. Boylan has been there some time.
Q. Did you appoint Barnett? A. Barnett has been there some
time.
Q. Did you appoint Cashman? A. I think he was appointed on the
recommendation of someone in the first district.
Q. Callahan; did you appoint him? A. I think so.
Q. On whose recommendation? A. I do not just recall.
Q. Cunningham? A. Cunningham is there.
Q. Did you appoint him? A. No, sir.
Q. Collins; did you appoint him? A. Collins was there.
Q. Did you appoint Cassidy? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you appoint Connelly? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you apppoint Dunlap? A. Dunlap was there; yes, sir.
No. 80.]
2123
Q, Did you appoint Dale? A. No, sir; he was there.
Q. Did you appoint Donnelly? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who for? A. I think Senator Roesch.
Q. Did you appoint Dodge? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who for? A. Martin B. Brown.
Q. Martin B. Brown the public printer? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you appoint Feis? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you appoint Finnessey? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you appoint Finnell? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who for? A. I don't recall just who.
Q. Did you appoint Fitzgerald? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Edward F. Fitzgerald? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who for? A. I appointed Fitzgerald for Tom Fitzgerald, over
in the second district.
Q. Did you appoint Flood? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you appoint Gaffney? A. No, sir.
Q. Guilfoyle held over? A. Guilfoyle I appointed.
Q. Did you appoint Houghton? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you appoint Griffin? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you appoint A. J. Kirk? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who for? A. Well, he is a son of Alderman Kirk, but he is not
there constantly; he is not there now.
Q. Did you appoint Lavner ? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you appoint Leavy? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you appoint McNulty? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you appoint McDevitt? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you appoint Murray? A. No, sir..
Q. Moore? A. No, sir.
Q. McFeigne? A. No, sir.
Q. McDonald? A. No, sir.
Q. McCanley? A. No, sir.
Q. McKanna? A. No, sir.
Q. McGraw? A. No, sir.
Q. McLaughlin? A. Yes; McLaughlin.
Q. Who for? A. I appointed McLaughlin on the recommendation
of Mr. McLaughlin, his father, who is a friend of mine.
Q. McGee? A. No, sir; he held over.
Q. Edward J. Murray? A. No, sir.
Q. Patrick Moore? A. No, sir.
Q. Nelson? A. No, sir.
Q. Nealon? A. No, sir.
Q. Norton? A. Yes; I appointed Norton.
2124
[SENATE,
•
Q. Who for? A. On the recommendation of somebody in the first
district; the committee.
Q. O'Callihan? A. No, sir.
Q. Francis C. Reilly? A. No, sir.
Q. Rodman? A. No, sir.
Q. Vincent? A. Yes; I appointed Vincent.
Q. For whom? A. I think, on the recommendation of Mr. Burke,
from the twenty-third district.
Q. Watts? A. Watts I retained myself.
Q. McFall? A. No, sir.
Q. Now, so far as these men who were retained are concerned, on
whose recommendation did you retain them, or at whose request? A.
Well, they were there under the former administration, and I made
no change.
Q. Did you retain them at the request of the organization or simply
because of the fact that they were there? A. They were there, and
for that reason I did not change.
Q. Did you make any inquiries as to their political antecedents
before retaining them? A. I do not think that I did that, sir.
Q. Do you know now whether they are Tammany Hall men or not?
A. Well, I think they are Tammany Hall men.
By Senator АHEARN:
Q. Mr. Register, have you ever appointed any person to a position
without first inquiring as to his qualifications, either you or your
deputy? A. No; we have not.
Q. You have always done that? A. Always; either Mr. Hanley or
myself inquired as to the qualifications of the person; if I did not do
it personally, I assume that he did.
Q. And he looks after the interest of the office in your absence?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And any person who is not there attending to his duties he
would notify you to that effect? A. I assume he would, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Mr. Fitzgerald, you receive a fixed salary? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that your compensation does not depend upon any piece-
work? A. No, sir.
Q. You are just there the official hours and get your official salary?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have quite a corps of assistants who also receive fixed
salaries? A. Yes, sir.
No. 80.]
2125
Q. This special department has been substantially under the control
of your political organization for a number of years? A. I understand
that to be so.
Q. So that you assume that the employes are largely acceptable to
that organization? A. I should assume that, Senator.
Q. Being in political control, you assume that other things being
equal it is perfectly justifiable to appoint members of that organiza-
tion to office anywhere? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you have acted on that assumption? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now in the absence of complaint in your department, do you
assume that each man is doing the duties for which he is paid? A. I
should assume that, sir.
Q. And you administer the office on that basis, if I understand
your testimony correctly? A. I administer the office not altogether
on an assumption, but I devote nearly all my time to it.
Q. You administer your office on the theory that in the absence of
complaint each one is doing his duty? A. Yes, sir; I think so.
Q. Now, will you tell us who would be apt to complain? A. Well,
I suppose of course you understand that the register's office, the
chief business of the register's office is with the lawyers?
Q. Certainly. A. And it is really a lawyer's office, and I suppose
that complaints would come from members of the bar if matters were
not conducted as they thought would be proper.
Q. But the employes would not be very apt to complain of each
´other, would they? A. Well, as a general rule, may be not.
Q. They are members of the same political organization and gener-
ally personal friends, are they not? A. Well, I suppose they are
political friends.
Q. They would not regard it as part of their duty to spy on each
other and report to you? A. Well, that I could not say, Senator.
Q. Well, they do not do that way, do they? A. Not that I know of.
Q. In the absence of complaints from lawyers there would not be
any complaints filed with you, would there? A. Well, there would be
naturally complaints, of course, from my subordinates, Mr. Hanley, or
those gentlemen who are supposed to perform their duties; I assume
that they would make complaints to me.
Q. In accounting for the falling off of the income of the office, you
attribute that largely to the title companies taking away the searching
business, was that a large volume of business? A. Searching, as I
understand it and I have not very much knowledge about it, because
we did not do much this year, but from information, I understand that
2126
[SENATE,
the chief volume of the business was searching; I guess this is so, is
it not, Mr. Ivins.
Mr. IVINS.-Yes.
>
Q. Now, have you any system by which to determine whether each
employe does each day a reasonable day's work? A. Well, there is
not any exact system about it; I am free to say this, that if I knew of
any employes who did not discharge their duties, I would relieve them.
Q. Of course, if your attention was called to the fact that any man
habitually disregarded his work, you would discharge him? A.
Undoubtedly.
Q. Have you any check so that you can tell, in the absence of com-
plaint, whether each man did his duty? A. I rely on my subordinates
to report.
Q. Do you know whether your subordinates have any such system?
A. I think Mr. Hanley has some such system.
Q. Do you know whether he has or not? A. No; I do not, to my
own knowledge.
Mr. IVINS.-Have you ever asked him to establish such a system?
The WITNESS.- No; I do not think I have, in so many words.
Senator АHEARN. Does Mr. Hanley supervise the work? -
The WITNESS. Yes, sir.
Senator АHEARN. Then he knows all about it, does he not?
The WITNESS.— Yes, sir.
Q. Of course, if the work is done, the lawyers do not care whether
it takes fifty men to do it or 100 men to do it? A. Well, I do not know
about that.
Q. It does not make any difference to the lawyers how many men
you employ, does it? A. I could not say; I think if the work was not
done properly they would make an objection.
Q. The only power interested in knowing whether you are getting
out of each one of your employes a full day's work is the power that
pays the bills, is it not? A. The city.
Q. The city; now have you made an effort to devise any method
by which you could reduce the cost of administering the office?
A. I think this with reference to the office, that after the next
year when this block system is put in vogue or placed in operation,
the expenses of the office will be considerably reduced; for example,
if all the searching of the city should drift to the title companies,
that department in the register's office could be absolutely closed
up, and the situation to-day in New York real estate in relation to
searching is this, the title companies offer an additional inducement
No. 80.]
2127
in the way of insuring the title; for example, they search the title and
pass upon it, and after passing the title, they insure it.
Q. We understand all about that? A. If that were done, if they
could get all the searches, of course, we would need no corps of
searchers.
Q. But the amount of searches done in your office in 1887, was four
times as much as it is to-day, and yet you have five-sevenths of the
amount of help; you only reduced your help two-sevenths. A. I did
not reduce it at all, the board of estimate would have charge of that.
Q. And for next year, in your provisional estimate, you ask for
$19,000 for that work? A. Nineteen thousand dollars have only been
asked for provisionally; that does not say that we will get it.
Q. How much do you expect to be allowed? A. That I could not
tell; that would be a pure discussion for the board of estimate; the
reason for making that application was simply this, that the board of
estimate and apportionment pass upon it and take the responsibility,
if the searching is not properly done for lack of force; of course, this
provisional estimate is not final or binding.
Q. Suppose you had an opportunity of getting this work done for
$6,000 a year, would you avail yourself of it? A. I should not hesi-
tate to say to the board of estimate that it could be done for that.
Senator FASSETT.- I have a communication here from Charles Blau-
velt, 745 West End avenue, saying that he will enter into a contract
with the city of New York, or with the register of the city and county
of New York, to make all searches that he may be required to make
for $6,000 a year, and that he will give a bond in the sum of $20,000,
with two sufficient sureties, in sums of $20,000 each. For this amount
he will do all the searching for the next year.
The WITNESS.-If Mr. Blauvelt can do that, I will very cheerfully
recommend the board of estimate and apportionment to avail them-
selves of it.
Q. If Mr. Blauvelt can do it for $6,000 a year, is there any reason on
earth why your searchers could not do it for the same sum? A. That
I am not prepared to state.
Q. You have estimated the cost at about three times that amount?
A. That estimate is not final; the estimate is just what the name signi-
fies; it is a provisional estimate to be discussed and passed upon by
the board of estimate and apportionment.
Q. Well, they did allow you for this year eight searchers? A. They
did allow me for this year eight searchers.
Q. At $2,500 apiece? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Six at $2,500, and two at $2,000? A. Yes, sir.
2128
[SENATE,
Mr. IvINS. In order that this may appear correctly on the minutes,
this letter should be inserted right here:
"NEW YORK, October 15, 1890.
To the Honorable the Committee on Cities of the State of New York:
GENTLEMEN.—I attended the sitting of the subcommittee of your
honorable committee yesterday, and heard the testimony of the regis-
ter of the city and county of New York in regard to the provisional
estimate submitted by him to the board of estimate and apportion-
ment of the amount required to pay the salaries, etc., of searchers in
his office during the ensuing year (1891), and do respectfully make
the following offer: I will enter into a contract with the city of New
York, or with the register of the city and county of New York, to make
all searches that he may be required, as such register, to make during
the year 1891 (the same service as is now performed by his corps of
searchers) for the sum of $6,000, and give a bond in the sum of $20,000,
with two sufficient sureties in sums of $20,000 each (the amount of his
official bond), for the faithful and proper performance of the work
within the time and in the manner prescribed by law. I have been
employed in the register's office twenty-five years.
Respectfully.
CHARLES BLAUVELT,
745 West End avenue, New York city."
Q. Your official bond is $20,000, is it? A. My official bond is
$20,000, two bondsmen.
Q. So that the bond he proposes to give is identical with your bond?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know who Mr. Blauvelt is? A. I have no personal
acquaintance with Mr. Blauvelt, but I know that he is a very estimable
gentleman.
Q. Do you know that he has had experience in the office? A. I do;
satisfaction clerk.
By Senator FASSETT:
*
Q. I want to ask one question; Mr. Fitzgerald, if you had this office
and could keep for your own all the fees that are now coming in, do
you not think you could get the work done for a good deal less money
than you had it done for last year? A. As I remarked before, a
reduction might be made in the searching department.
Q. That admits of an answer, yes or no? A. It admits of an answer
with an explanation; now, there is no doubt, I do not think there is
No. 80.]
2129
any dispute about it, that the papers of New York county are increas-
ing as the city grows; as the population grows, naturally there are
more transactions in real estate, and I think, except in the searchers'
department-
Q. Do you think this department has been administered last year
as economically as possible outside of the searchers' department? A.
I think it has.
Q. You do not think you could have dispensed with any services that
would have saved a dollar? A. I can not say now.
Q. You could not have dispensed with four of those custodians?
A. In the view of the law there really ought to be a custodian at the
elbow of each person who opens a book in the first place to see, that
alterations are not made.
Q. I was not asking about the law; I am asking about the practical
administration? A. I could not say.
Q. You could not dispense with a single custodian clerk? A. I
might.
Q. If you had to pay the bills, would you not have made an effort ?
A. I do not think I would make any more effort.
Q. It does not make a personal difference to you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In what direction? A. I think the money should not be paid
out hap-hazard.
Q. You do not want to have the reputation of having squandered
the city's money? A. No, sir.
Q. But financially it makes no difference whether you pay a
thousand dollars or a hundred thousand dollars? A. We depend on
the board of estimate and apportionment.
Q. Whatever you can get from the board of estimate and appor-
tionment you feel justified in making the expenditures, is that so?
A. No; I can not say that.
Q. The board of estimate and apportionment has to depend on
your estimate? A. Somewhat.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You say you travel on the lines of the board of estimate? A.
The board of estimate lays down the line of appropriation for the
office.
Q. You say you travel on the lines of the board of estimate and
apportionment so far as the appropriation is concerned? A. Not
altogether so; I believe if an expense could be saved to the city it is
my duty to do it.
[Senate, No. 80.]
267
2130
[SENATE,
Q. Now, whose lines do the board of estimate travel on, yours, do
they not? A. They have not as yet.
Q. They travel on the lines of the register, be he whomsoever he
may? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And every point of departure is your own estimate of running
your department? A. As you know they do not take the absolute
say-so in regard to the register's office.
Q. They never insist that you should take more than you ask for, do
they? A. No; it is quite the reverse.
Q. Consequently, it is true that neither point of departure is their
estimate, on which they usually make a reduction? A. Well, I do
not know about that, because I have not appeared before them.
Mr. IVINS.-Now, as bearing on this, I want to have entered at this
point in the record the provisional estimate for the year 1887, which
was an estimate made by Mr. Reilly who was the last of the feed
registers, and which estimate conforms virtually with the state-
ment which he had submitted to the State officers as to the
receipts and expenditures of his office for the year 1886, which is
as follows: Salaries, register's office, salary of register, $12,000;
salaries of deputy assistant, deputy searchers, bookkeepers, examin-
ing clerks, recording clerks, reader, custodian, watchman, messen-
gers, etc., $88,000; aggregate $100,000; that was the provisional esti-
mate for the year 1887.
Senator FASSETT.- That is to say, Mr. Reilly in going out made a
provisional estimate for the succeeding year when this law went into
effect?
Mr. IVINS.-Yes; and that called for $100,000. However, the appro-
priation as made was altered by adding the item of contingencies,
$1,000, and the final appropriation was $101,000; that was the appro-
priation for the year 1887.
Q. Now, have you ever heard that the office was not adequately,
properly and well administered during the year 1887, the first year of
Mr. Slevin's term? A. I never heard anything about it.
Q. Your provisional estimate is $153,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What have you included in your provisional estimate, if any-
thing, for the supplies of the office? A. Well, by supplies do you
mean libers ?
Q. Yes; I mean the total supplies? A. Do you mean the libers and
ink and stationery, and all that?
Q. I mean the libers, ink and stationery, and everything. A. We
do not include anything for that, because we get that from the board
of city record.
#
No. 80.]
2131
Q. How does the board of city record make its estimate for your
particular wants? A. The board of city record makes its estimates
on our recommendations, and I have not recommended it this year.
Q. So that there will have to be added as affecting your expenditure
in the office whatever sum you put in for supplies through the board
of city record? A. I do not understand that that is the rule; I
understood this, that the board of estimate appropriates so much
money to the board of city record.
Senator FASSETT.—Yes; but you haven't any provisional estimates
for supplies?
The WITNESS.
No; the way that is done is, we recommend to the
board of city record what we will need in the way of books, station-
ery, ink, etc.
Q. There will be an expenditure through your office of an addi-
tional amount for supplies? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you any idea in round figures what that might be? A.
I have not taken that up.
Q. What was it the last year? A. I do not know, because it was
under Slevin's recommendation that the appropriation was made,
Q. In any case, that will have to be added to what they appropri-
ate on your estimate of $153,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Added to the expenditure of your office? A. Yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT.-Do the board of city record send over your sup-
plies without any requisition from you?
The WITNESS.— No, sir; I have not made it as yet.
Mr. IVINS.-I think I can explain that. The board of city
record makes up its provisional estimate in the same that the
other departments make up theirs, but the board of city record is
an intermediate board. Before it makes up its estimate they have
to find out what the other departments will need, consequently, so far
as supplies are concerned, it is an appropriation made to the register's
office indirectly, through the board of city record; as I understand it,
they will file before those estimates are made up what they need in
the way of supplies from that board, and that board will include it in
the provisional estimate.
The WITNESS.-Yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT.— But that will not tell us what his supplies amount
to this past year.
The WITNESS.— Outside of the libers it is very trivial.
Mr. IVINS. We can not tell, because those things do not appear in
his books.
2132
[SENATE,
Senator FASSETT.-But his department requisitions must be made,
are they not, on the board of city record?
The WITNESS.—Yes, sir; Mr. Hanley makes requisitions from time
to time.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Those requisitions should show what supplies were used but not
what the cost of the supplies were? A. Yes, sir.
Q. This little item of contingencies, $500, what would that cover?
A. I do not know; it was put on the other; I understood this; for
example, in each department some person in office sends a copy of the
bills down, and we have on file in our office a copy of all the bills.
Q. You have a searcher named John Boyle; have you not? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. You raised his salary from $2,000 to $2,500 in March of this
year; did you not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why did you do that? A. Well, in order to equalize the salaries
of the searchers.
Q. Did you have any particular interest in John Boyle? A. No,
sir; beyond the recommendation of the eighteenth district.
Q. That is Mr. Croker's district; is it? A. I do not know as it is
called Croker's district; I think Seary or Keating.
Q. Then you had the interest that was incident to the fact that he
was recommended by the eighteenth district? A. I knew Mr. Boyle
was a good man.
Q. Was he worth any more in March than he was in February? A.
No; I think his salary should have been graduated with the others
from what they said about his experience and care; of course, you
understand that I am responsible for any errors; that is, I am respon-
sible after some litigation with the city.
Q. You do not want to say that you are responsible; do you? A.
I think, if it was a feed office, I should be responsible.
Q. You do not want to say that you think you are responsible? A.
Every searcher is under bonds to me, for the faithful performance of
his duty, in order to cover any mistake he may make.
Q. Then your liability is fixed by your own bond? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who is Robert A. White? A. Mr. White is, I think, an examiner
and was there when I took office.
Q. Who did you retain Robert A. White for? A. Well, I do not
know as there was any special request made as to the retention of
White; I understood that he was a friend of Mr. Cockran.
No. 80.1
2133
*
Q. Do you know how long Mr. Robert A. White has been in this
country? A. I do not know anything about Mr. White.
Q. Do you know whether he is a citizen? A. I do not know.
Q. Do you know whether he is a relative of Mr. Cockran directly or
indirectly? A. I do not know even that; all I know is that I under-
stood that he was a friend of Mr. Cockran.
Q. Has not Mr. White been shifted from one place to another in
the office since you have been there? A. Yes; his salary was
increased.
Q. Was his salary increased because complaint had been made of
him? A. No; there was no complaint made of him.
Q. Did not Mr. Cockran go to your office to see you about Mr.
White about that time? A. No, sir.
Q. Did not you talk with Mr. Cockran prior to the increase of his
salary? A. No, sir.
Q. Did no one talk to you in behalf of Mr. Cockran, prior to the
increase in Mr. White's salary? A. I do not recall it.
Q. What had Mr. White been doing prior to the increase of his
salary? A. I think Mr. White was certified copy clerk.
Q. Do you know how he was performing his duties? A. Well, not
specially.
Q. Do you know whether there was any complaint in or about the
office because of the way in which he is performing his duties? A.
No; I did not hear of any.
Q. Was it not a fact that he was thereafter sent upstairs and put
on other work? A. Yes; I sent him upstairs to examine, and for this
reason; I think that Mr. Cockran said that White's health was not
good, if I remember right, and that he would like it if he was out on
other work; I think so; I am not certain; Mr. Cockran would know
that.
Q. Is certified copy clerk's work as difficult as the examiner's work?
A. I think that they are both exact positions.
Senator FASSETT.-Both positions requiring exactness ?
The WITNESS.— Yes, sir.
Q. Did not Mr. White get an increase of salary when he went
upstairs? A. Yes, sir; his salary was made $1,300.
Q. Instead of what? A. Instead of $1,200.
Q. What did he get that additional $100 for? A. There wasn't any
special reason any more than he was made chief examiner.
Q. His health was bad, and he was sent upstairs; his salary was
increased? A. I did not say that; you spoke of conversations with
Mr. Cockran; the only conversation was that I think Mr. Cockran
1
2134
[SENATE,
+
said that White's health was not very good, but that was not any
reason for my action.
Q. Does Mr. White do any more work now for the $1,300, than he
did for $1,200 before? A. Well, I could not say that, because it is
different work; I do not think there is any relative comparison
between them.
Q. Did you ever hear that a complaint had been made by any
member of the bar, of the manner in which Mr. White performed his
duties? A. I did not; it was never brought to my notice.
Senator FASSETT.- Can complaints be made against men and still
not be brought to your notice?
The WITNESS. Any complaint made should be made to me directly,
and any complaint made to me directly, I have either answered
personally, or have written a personal note.
Q. You testified that when you took hold of the business, the record
of a discharge of mortgages was very far behind? A. Satisfaction
pieces; yes, sir.
Q. Is not the work just as far behind to-day in that department ?
A. I am not sure; I do not think so.
Q. What steps have you taken to find out whether it is as far
behind, or further behind, or whether it has been caught up with?
A. I think I have a memorandum here [looking among papers]; no;
I have not any information as to the relative position, but I under-
stood it was considerably reduced; I have been so informed; I have
not the memorandum here, but I will send for it; they are consider-
ably behind, you know.
Q. Is it not the fact that there are several thousand satifactions of
mortgages in the office not now recorded? A. I don't know whether
that is so, but I do know this, that they are not any further behind
to-day than they were last year or the year before or the year before
that.
Senator FASSETT.- That is the question he asked.
Q. That is just the question. A. They are not any further behind;
I think we have gained; I think there is a gain.
Q. You spoke of the fact, however, that the work was very far
behind, and that was the reason why you had to put certain clerks at
work on it? A. Yes, sir; I think the work was considerably behind;
I forget how many months.
Q. Now, as matter of fact, it is still considerably behind? A. Yes;
it is pretty hard to keep that work up.
Q. Now, without in any way suggesting that you are more respon-
sible than any other register has been in the premises, do you know
No. 80.]
2135
of any reason why your work should not be kept up, or is the work
such that it is impossible to keep it up? A. The work could be
pretty well kept up if you had quite a number of clerks at it; you
understand the satisfaction pieces take the very same course that the
deeds and mortgages and all other papers that are recorded at length.
Q. Certainly; will the staff which you have asked for in your esti-
mates be large enough and be able to bring that work down to date?
A. No; I think not..
Q. Well, is there any reason why you should not ask for a sufficiently
large staff to bring the work down to date? A. Well, in the request
in the provisional estimate, this item, "recording clerks at five cents
per folio, and clerks on discharge of mortgages," it was put in for the
purpose of allowing me some latitude to bring that work up.
Q. Now, that is just what I want to get; will you have the latitude
under that estimate with which to bring that work up? A. I think so;
I recall it distinctly now; it was put up in that fashion for the purpose
of giving me latitude.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. In the $40,000 item? A. Yes; that includes the recording of
papers to be presented.
Q. Hadn't you better see if you can't make a contract to allow
Blauvelt to run the whole office? A. That is a matter that might be
addressed to the board of estimate; I haven't any authority for that.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Within what time is a deed or mortgage now returned to the
party? A. I think probably two months and a half, and the reason
of that is this, we have had it in my term down to six weeks; now, the
reason that the return of the papers so far behind, is this, that we had
an unusual heavy month for real estate transactions during the
months of May, June, July and part of August; the papers were in
number very great indeed, and, for that reason, we have not been able
to get out those papers as readily, with the same, despatch as they
were gotten out at the commencement of my term; I had the papers
returned within six weeks at one time.
Q. You have considerable to do, from time to time, with these title
companies, do you not? A. Yes, sir; I never had anything to do
with them; you mean personally?
Q. They have a great many men employed in your office, have they
not? A. No, sir; they haven't, that I know of.
Q. Are not a great many of their clerks in your office pretty con-
tinually? A. Well, with reference to the title companies it is this:
2136
[SENATE,
That there are some men who go in there and overlook the records,
permitted to look at them, but so far as any relations that I have, I
have none whatever with them.
Q. Do you know who the managing man of the German-American
Title Comnpay is? A. I do not, sir.
Q. Do you know who the managing man of the Lawyers' Title Com-
pany is? A. I understood Mr. David B. Ogden.
Q. Do you know who the managing man of the third-what is the
name of it? A. The Title Guaranty and Trust Company, I think.
Q. The Title Guaranty and Trust Company? A. No; I do not; I
think one of the officers is Murray - Kelsey—I don't know.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Is not Mr. Olmstead an officer? A. No; Mr. Dwight Olmstead,
do you mean?
Q. You spoke of him so many times A. Oh, no; Mr. Dwight
Olmstead is not; he is engaged in this land reform; he has not any
interest in the title companies that I know of.
Recess until 2.30 P. M.
JAMES A. HANLEY, being called and sworn, testified as follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. What is your address, Mr. Hanley? A. Two hundred and forty-
five East Thirteenth street.
Q. You are at present deputy register? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you been deputy register? A. I have been
deputy register since the first of January, under Mr. Fitzgerald; I was
deputy register prior to that under Mr. Slevin, from the 1st of June,
1889, to the end of this term, thirty-first of December.
Q. Were you in the office prior to the 1st of June, 1889 ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. As what? A. As a searcher from April, 1887.
Q. Then you first went into the office about four months after
Mr. Slevin went into it? A. No, sir; I went there on the 1st of
January, 1884, under Mr. Reilly.
Q. And what office did you hold under Mr. Reilly? A. I was there
at first as kind of secretary to Mr. Reilly; looked after his personal
accounts, the checks and such things, drawing of checks and keeping
his accounts, banking his money.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Received the fees? A. No, sir; simply deposited them and keep
the books for them; kept his private check book.
No. 80.]
2137
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Will you describe to the committee your duties as deputy
register? A. Well, my duties of deputy register consists of receiving
all papers which are offered for record, examining them as to the
names of the parties, the proper execution and acknowledgment, and,
in cases where they have been executed elsewhere; certification by
county clerk or otherwise; I estimate the number of folios in the
paper, marking the folios on the outside of the paper; the entering the
time of receipt of the paper; the signing certificates to papers and
satisfaction, and receiving the fees for satisfaction pieces which have
been examined by the satisfaction clerk; receiving chattel mortgages
and entering the time of receipt on them, and receiving fees also for
them; receiving the fees for searches and signing the certificate
to them—a general supervision.
Q. You receive all the moneys? A. Yes, sir; either myself or Mr.
Fitzgerald, the assistant deputy.
Q. What does the assistant deputy do? A. His duties are some-
what similar to what mine are; he examines the paper in the same
way; sometimes I examine the papers and he receives the fees, and
other times he may examine the papers and I receive the fees; make
change, and he signs papers; I am engaged in examining papers
which are there for record.
Q. You and he are both there continuously throughout the entire
day? A. With the exception of such time as we are absent to lunch.
Q. Are you responsible for the work of the general staff of the
office? A. I believe I am responsible to the register for the proper
conduct of each man in the office, and report to him any complaint
that may be made to me, and anything that I may discover is not
that ought to be rectified.
Q. What is the system of the office with regard to the means of
determining the attendance of the other clerks in the office, and the
manner in which they respectively perform their duties? A. Well,
so far as those behind the desks in the main office are concerned, I
look out for them myself; in the index room Mr. Murphy is in charge
of the index clerks, and I usually make a tour of the building every
morning and ascertain from the heads of the different departments;
Mr. Murphy, for instance, has charge of the index clerks and keeps
up their work; Mr. Moore has charge of the custodians; Mr. Smith of
the examination of papers and the recording of papers, and Mr.
Bostwick, seeing that each clerk is there, and gets the papers and that
they are properly returned to him after they have finished recording
them in the liber.
[Senate, No. 80.]
268
2138
[SENATE,
Q. Do you keep any time-book in the office to show when the men
come and when they leave? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you any means for testing the amount of time that is given
by each of the subordinates in the performance of his duties? A. No
official method other than personal supervision.
Q. How is your office arranged; you are in a room by yourself; cut
off from the other clerks, are you? A. No, sir; they all pass by my
desk as they come in in the morning, and as they go out in the´
afternoon.
Q. So that no man can either come in or go out without passing
your desk? A. No, sir; nor leave the office; only one door; only one
means of egress or ingress.
Q. You have nine custodians there? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Whereas, during Mr. Reilly's term you had no so-called
custodians? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You were in the office during Mr. Reilly's term, were you not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who performed the service during that time that is now per-
formed by the custodians? A. At that time one custodian had charge
of the upper floor; there was a messenger, map clerk, who looked
out for matters on the lower floor; we had no third floor in use at that
time; it was found when books were subpoenaed and when we were
required to produce books on subpoena, that either the custodian had
to leave, or he had to employ somebody else to do it; the fees which
were paid for delivery of books at that time went to the employes of
the office who delivered the books; Mr. Reilly received none himself;
whereas, now we enter all those fees in the account book, and they
are turned over to the city treasurer, and the custodian who did
deliver the book-who went to court with the books
was obliged to
take one of the tally clerks, as they are called, or recording clerks,
officially, those who worked from time to time and were not engaged
there exercised the supervision during his absence or would go to
court for him.
Q. They always performed that duty quite satisfactorily, did they
not? A. No, sir; they did not; particularly in the index rooms; it
was found that it was impossible for one man to look out for the books
of the index rooms, and also in the record rooms; the books were all
arranged there, the grantors and grantees and mortgagors and mort-
gagees; if you or some other lawyer went in there looking for a
book sometimes you would find A-No. 1 for 1869 and B-No. 2, 1867,
or 1866, placed side by side, and you would have to go searching
through the room to find the book you wanted; whereas, now the
No. 80.]
2139
custodians are there, they hand the books to the lawyers and see that
they are replaced in their proper places and all the books are kept in
order on the shelves; you go there and in a moment's notice select
the book you want.
Q. Did that use to be a subject of complaint on the part of the law-
yers? A. Yes, sir.
Q. It takes nine custodians now, does it, to do that work which
used to be done in the manner in which you describe? A. Yes, sir;
there is one man in the conveyance index room, another man in the
mortgage index room, a man looks after the mortgage libers on the
second floor, a man looks after the conveyance libers on the second
floor, a man looks after the 800 libers on the top floor, and men who
look after the mortgage indexes on the ground floor and the mort-
gage libers on the ground floor.
Q. How much time does Hynes spend in the office? A. Well, I
could not state exactly how much time he spends there; he is there,
to the best of my knowledge and belief, from 9 till 4.
Q. How much time does Mendelsohn spend in the office? A. Men-
delsohn is there during the same period; sometimes he is away, goes
out to lunch, goes out to court; in the afternoons he has been there
as late as 7 or 8 o'clock assisting Young in marking off certificates of
satisfaction.
Q. How much time does Mr. Gilhooly spend there? A. He is
there same as the others are.
•
Q. Do you know a person named Valentine? A. I know a person
named Valentine; yes, sir.
Q. Was there a clerk in the office named Valentine, sometime ago?
A. A man called there who was to be employed in the office; sent
there on probation, Valentine; I don't know whether it is the same
party you mean or not.
Q. Do you know J. B. Kiernan? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know whether, at the time that Kiernan was taken into
the register's office, Valentine went from the register's office to the
office of the commissioner of jurors? A. I believe he did; yes, sir.
Q. Do you know whether Valentine is now in the office of commis-
sioner of jurors? A. I have not heard that he has been discharged.
Q. How much time does Gilhooly spend in the office? A. That is
the question same as I answered before; that he is there, to the best
of my knowledge and belief, all the time from 9 o'clock till 4, in the
index-room to which he is detailed.
Q. What is the best of your knowledge and belief; do you actually
see these men there during that time? A. I see them coming in and
2140
[SENATE,
going out; I do not see them all the time, because it is impossible for
me to leave the desk; I have to trust to the fact that they are there
all the time, and that no complaints are made, and my visits from
time to time to those different rooms; I assume the books are in their
proper places, and I assume the custodians are attending to their
books carefully.
Q. Is the volume of business of recording papers materially larger
than it was during the last year of Mr. Reilly's term? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How much larger, do you suppose, in the aggregate? A. I think
I have the figure here; it is about 5,000 papers and more have been
recorded than were recorded in 1889 than there were in 1886, and
the present rate at which the papers have been received up to date we
will have over 40,000 papers this year as compared with 35,169
in 1886.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. What is that, 40,000 this year as compared to the same class of
papers in 1886? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many in 1886-thirty-five? A. Over 35,000; 35,169 in
1886.
Mr. IVINS.-Shows an increase of twelve and a half per cent.
Senator FASSETT. One-seventh; a little over twelve and a half per
cent; fourteen per cent.
The WITNESS.- An increase of 12,000 over the first year of Mr.
Reilly's. term; that was the first year I was in the office.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Who was in the habit of certifying the rolls of your office for
the copying of ancient records during the years 1884, 1885 and 1886?
A. That was Mr. Reilly's term?
Q. Yes. A. Do you mean the clerk who had charge of that depart-
meut; the chief clerk, examining?
Q. No; I mean the judge. A. I don't remember, but I know that
Judge Donohue signed some; I don't remember
Q. Do you recollect of any judge other than Judge Donohue ever
having signed and certified any of those pay-rolls for the work done in
copying ancient records? A. I think that Judge Andrews signed
some of them, but I am not positive; I would not state that positively.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. What becomes of those certificates of the judges? A. Which do
you mean; those that are appended to the pay-rolls?
Q. Yes. A. All on file with the pay-roll in the comptroller's office.
No. 80.]
2141
Q. What becomes of those that certify to the necessity of the work?
A. Those are filed with the register.
Q. At that time those were merely formal, taken in accordance with
the statute? A. They were certified to by the judge in the same man-
ner, and other than that the register did not formulate the petition in
the legal verbiage in which it has since been handed to the court.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. After the expiration of Judge Donohue's term, who certified those
rolls? A. I can not state about that, because I did not have anything
to do with that part of it until last June, because I was a searcher in
the office; had nothing to do with that.
Q Until June of this present year? A. June, in 1889; I was not
deputy under Slevin until June, 1889.
Q. You have been deputy since June, 1889? A. Yes, sir; June first.
Q. Who signed and certified the first roll after you became deputy?
A. Judge O'Brien, I think.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Morgan J.? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Then who certified the rolls from that time? A. Judge O'Brien
certified some, Judge Andrews certified some, Judge Van Brunt
certified some.
Q. Are you sure that Judge Van Brunt certified some? A. Yes, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Since 1889? A. Since I have been deputy under Mr. Slevin.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Did you ever ask Judge Barrett to certify any? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did he certify any? A. No, sir.
Q. Did he refuse to certify them? A. He didn't refuse to certify
them, but he said he was the only judge sitting in court at the time,
and that he could not certify them without going over there and
making a careful examination of the work, and he didn't have the
opportunity of doing that.
Q. Did you take the books to him? A. No, sir.
Q. Did any one take the books to him? A. No, sir; we offered to
bring them over, but he didn't want to go on with the work; he said
he preferred that some judge who had been familiar with that work
would do it instead of himself.
2142
[SENATE,
Q. Were any ever certified after Judge Barrett refused to certify?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. By whom? A. By Judge Van Brunt, I think.
Q. Are you sure of it? A. I am not sure of it; I can tell on exami-
nation of the comptroller's office, from the roll; but I think Judge
Van Brunt signed after that, after we had had-well, Mr. Reilly was
county clerk and Surrogate Ransom and myself.
Senator FASSETT.-How would it be to have this witness look that
Mr. IVINS.-Yes; we will have to do that.
up ?
The WITNESS.—The rolls are all on file in the comptroller's office.
We had a consultation with Judge Van Brunt, Judge Barrett and
Judge O'Brien, I think, in the library of the Supreme Court.
Q. When was that? A. Sometime last year; I do not exactly
remember when it was; I think it was around October; September or
October.
Q. That was prior to the passage of the act of this past year which
dispensed with the certificate, was it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And was not the passage of that act incident to that consulta-
tion? A. I believe it was; yes, sir.
Q. So that the judges now no longer have to certify? A. They cer-
tify to the necessity for the work.
Q. But they do not certify to the correctness of the bill? A. Don't
certify to the monthly pay-roll.
Q. And that bill making that change was incident to this confer-
ence between the judges, was it? A. Yes, sir; I believe it was.
Q. Was that bill drawn on their suggestion or on the suggestion of
the register? A I don't know whose suggestion it was drawn on.
Q. Do you know who introduced the bill? A. Mr. O'Hara, I believe.
Q. Who is Mr. O'Hara? A. He was Member of Assembly from the
Eighteenth Assembly district.
Q. Did Judge O'Brien at any time refuse to certify? A. He did not
refuse to certify, but I think one month he said that he would prefer
to wait until the matter had been officially determined by Judge Van
Brunt and the associate judges as to what method should be pursued
in paying the clerks engaged in that work as different from what it
had been from the passage of the act in 1883.
Q. Did any judge, other than Judge Barrett, ever refuse to certify ?
A. I think at one time Judge Lawrence, who was sitting in chambers,
delegated Judge O'Brien to make the examination and certify the
work for him.
Q. Is it not the fact that that bill was passed because it was found
that the judges refused to certify? A. I could not say, sir.
No. 80.]
2143
;
Q. Did you ever have any talk with the judges about it; about the
certification?
Senator FASSETT.—Well, ask that question in another form, was the
bill passed until after the judges had refused?
The WITNESS.-The judges never refused.
Q. Well, they neglected to certify them? A. They expressed a
desire to be relieved of the responsibility and the bother of coming
over to the register's office and making an examination.
Q. Who suggested that bill? A. I don't know, sir.
Q. Don't know? A. No, sir.
*
Q. Was it not the result of this conference of judges? A. I believe
it was.
Q. What ground did they give for suggesting such legislation? A.
That they were so busy engaged in their duties here in the Supreme
Court it was impossible for them to go to the register's, surrogate's
and county clerk's offices every month, and make an examination of
the work of the clerks.
Q. Do you know Robert A. White? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long has he been in the office? A. I don't know how long
he has been there; he was there when I was appointed deputy by
Mr. Slevin, and had been under Mr. Slevin.
Q. Was he there before you were appointed deputy by Mr. Slevin ?
A. I think he was; yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember when he came there? A. I do not; no, sir.
Q. Do the representatives of the title companies use the office
very much in making their searches? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many men are there, as a rule, in the office, from the title
companies? A. I do not know, sir, but I think that there are thirty,
forty and sometimes fifty or sixty there.
Q. Do you remember that at one time an application was made by
the title companies for a mandamus to compel the register to allow
more than three employes of the title companies to occupy desks in
the office at one time? A. I remember there was such a proceeding;
yes, sir.
Q. You remember that that mandamus was denied by the General
Term and the General Term was sustained by the Court of Appeals
in refusing it? A. I do not remember that; I didn't know it was
carried to the Court of Appeals.
Q. Now, as a matter of fact, the title companies have more than
three employes at a time in your office, have they not? A. Yes, sir;
my impression is that the General Term instructed Mr. Reilly, who
was register, to admit the title company, the representatives of the
2144
[SENATE,
title company there; he endeavored to keep some of them out and
they claimed that they were entitled to more, and my impression is
that the decision was against Mr. Reilly; I think the case is reported
somewhere in one of the reports of the General Term.
Mr. IVINS. The case will be found in the ninety-ninth of New
York Reports, in its final form.
The WITNESS.-I didn't know there was any decision of the Court
of Appeals.
Senator FASSETT.— That is the Court of Appeals decision?
Mr. IVINS.—Yes; and that refers to the volume of General Term
reports in which it is found.
Q. These clerks of the title companies occupy a room which is used
practically exclusively for their own purpose, do they not? A. No, sir.
Q. Was not a large room fitted up for the use of the clerks of the
title company? A. At what time?
Q. Oh, sometime within the past year? A. No, sir.
Q. Eighteen months? A. No, sir.
Q. Was a room never fitted up for the use of the clerks of the title
company ? A. I don't think there was a room; I think at the time
that decision was rendered that some representatives of the title
company were allowed to make examinations on the top floor of the
building, in order to get them out of the way of the lawyers; there
had been so many of them there within the last few months that.com-
plaints had been made to the register that there was not an oppor-
tunity for the lawyers to make examinations.
Q. Was there not a room fitted up on the top floor for them to use?
A. I don't know as it was fitted up in any way; they were allowed to
go there and make examinations and take books up.
Q. Were not desks and chairs, etc., put in there? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who put those in? A. I do not know; sir.
Q. Did the register put them in? A. No, sir; I do not think he did.
Q. Title companies put them in? A. I think they did.
Q. By what right did the title companies, so far as you know, take
possession of a room belonging to the city, to put their property in
it? A. The room wasn't used for any purpose at all; simply storage
room and nothing up there but a lot of old ticklers and index books,
that had been used some thirty or forty years ago, and my impression
is that the advice of the register's counsel was that the best way
to do was to let some of them go up there and they would be out of
the way; wouldn't be any complaints made to him.
Q. Who was the register's counsel? A. I think he was Mr. Mahan.
Q. How does he spell his name? A. M-a-h-a-n.
No. 80.]
2145
Q. That is not the corporation counsel? A. No, sir; this was under
the fee system, under Mr. Reilly.
Q. Was that room fitted up under Mr. Reilly, during Mr. Reilly's
term? A. Yes, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
:
Q. Were these title companies doing so much business under
Mr. Reilly that they had to have a room for their purposes? A.
They were making copies of the records; yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Do they still use that room? A. No, sir.
Q. What use is that room put to now? A. That room has been
since Mr. Fitzgerald took charge of the office all of those chattel
mortgages, index books and other things that were there have been
stored away in the further end of the building in kind of a loft there
they have been put into, and the room has been cleaned up and
painted and refloored and racks have been put up there and most of
the recording copying clerks have been put up there, 800 of the
mortgage libers and the clerks engaged in copying the old records.
Q. Have you brought with you, at the request of the register, a
memorandum showing the number of satisfactions of mortgage now
in the office but unrecorded? A. I haven't got the number unre-
corded; I have got the number received since the first of January.
Q What we asked for was the number unrecorded; how many
have been received since the first of January though? A. Ten thous-
and two hundred and twelve.
Q. Do you know how many have been recorded since that time?
A. They are now recording the month of January and the month of
October and November of last year; the work was very far behind
when Fitzgerald took charge of the office.
Q. And the work is now still some nine months behind? A. About
that, I think; yes, sir; it was very far behind when he took charge
there, and Mr. Young, the satisfaction clerk, was engaged there in
marking off the record, put a certificate on the record; I think, some-
where around in the month of April.
Mr. IvINS.— No further questions I care to ask this witness.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Well, how did the amount, volume of work done in the office in
1886 compare with the general volume of the work done in the office
in 1889. A. With the exception of the searchers, the volume of busi-
ness very much increased.
[Senate, No. 80.]
269
2146
[SENATE,
L
Q. Yes; all their branches of business have increased, have they not,
except the searching? A. Yes.
Q. Was the searching a large factor of the business? A. It was
under Mr. Reilly and under previous registers.
Q. The title companies were organized and began doing business
when? A. During Mr. Dougherty's term, I think; during Mr.
Slevin's term the lawyers' company organized.
Q. How do you account for the decided and sudden falling off in
the amount of searching done in the register's office since 1886?
When Mr. Slevin took charge of the office in 1887 there was no
provision made for expediting searches; they had nothing to act
upon except the old statute, which was passed when the office was
first organized, allowing twenty days to the register for making a
search; most of the searches that were received most of the requi-
sitions received were wanted in less time than that; no provision was
made whatever under the Rosevelt act for expediting seaches
Q. Yes; but it was remedied in the winter of 1887? A. In May,
1887, and during that time, the work of searching got so far behind.
that the Lawyers' Title Company was organized and they undertook
that work, and they gave a guaranty same as the Title Guaranty Com-
pany does, and have formed a stock company, in which many of the
lawyers who did the largest business in the office are interested.
Q. But including the searching, then your volume of work in 1886
was not far different from what the general volume of the work is
to-day? A. Except that there has been an increase.
Q. How do you account for the fact that sixteen men could do the
work under Mr. Reilly in 1886 that it now requires fifty-one to do?
A. Sixteen men didn't do the work under Reilly in 1886.
Mr. FASSETT. What was that number, Mr. Ivins? I thought it was
sixteen — Mr. Reilly's pay-roll. Sixteen men did the same work that
now requires fifty-one to do.
Mr. IVINS - Sixteen were all that he returned.
The WITNESS.-Does that include the searchers?
Mr. IvINS.—Oh, no; that excludes the searchers and the recording.
clerks.
The WITNESS.-Well, there were some forty or fifty recording
clerks, and I think there were over twelve-and I think there were fifteen
or sixteen searchers; each one of these searchers employed an assist-
ant, and some of them employed more than one.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. My question was, how do you account for the fact that it requires
fifty-one men to-day to do the work that he did with sixteen men? A.
No. 80.]
2147
I don't think it does require fifty-one men now to do the work that he
had sixteen to do.
Q. I don't think it does either, but they are on the pay-roll? A.
I don't think there are some men there has been a change
Mr. IVINS.-We leave the searchers out in each case and we leave the
recording clerks out in each case; so that we set the work of the
recording clerks and the searchers apart for both terms?
The WITNESS.— One reason is this: That the delivery clerks who are
now on the pay-rolls, two delivery clerks, one at 1,500 and one at
1,200, one was designated as a delivery clerk under Mr. Reilly and
the other as a collector. At the present time all papers received in the
office are paid for when they are left. Under Mr. Reilly and the pre-
vious registers, a great bulk of the papers which were left for record,
were unpaid for; they were collected when the papers had been recorded,
and returned, and many large firms running monthly accounts with
the office; they had then a collector to deliver the paper and collect.
those monthly accounts, another clerk who delivered the paid papers.
In addition to that there was no necessity for keeping the cash-book,
and the same transcript of the cash-book to be filed with the comp-
troller; that is new; that was a very large increase in the volume of
work done because at that time the papers, very few of them, were
entered in the cash-book because very few of them were paid. Now
they are all entered in the cash-book.
Q. There are two reasons; any other reasons? A. Another reason
is that the index work has been increased, because the indexing has
been so far behind, it has been bequeathed from one register to the
other as a legacy.
Q. How far behind is the indexing work? A. I think on grantees
and grantors it was over a year and a half or two years.
Q. And you more than doubled the force of index clerks? A. Yes,
sir; to do that work
Q. Should not they have been able to bring it up in one year? A.
No, sir; not necessarily, because the volume of business has been
increasing right along and they have not been able to catch up with
the regular work.
Q. If a given number of clerks were able to keep up with the work
almost, so that they only lost a couple of months until the work had
got behind a year, double the number of clerks, it seems to me, ought
to have brought it up? A. They have got it up closer now than it
ever was before in the history of the office.
Q. You have got double the number of men; that is another reason;
any other reason? A. Another reason is there has been an increase
?
2148
[SENATF,
in the business, and an increase in the number of clerks at the request
of many lawyers who made complaints that they were behind, and
they ought to have their papers returned in quicker order than they
had been.
By Mr. IVINS:
A.
Q. Do you remember any of those lawyers; who they were?
No, sir; that was made under Mr. Slevin; I was not deputy at the
time the increase was made.
Q. How do you suppose we can find out who those lawyers were?
A. I don't know any means of finding out other than Mr. Slevin might
be able to tell you.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Has anything happened to make the work of each individual
employe any more difficult to perform under the present register than
under Reilly? A. Yes, sir; the duties of the tickler clerk are more
increased, because he has so many more papers to index.
Q. Anybody else? A. The delivery clerks; the index clerks the same
way; the chattel mortgage clerks.
Q. I ask you if there is anything to make the individual employes
work more difficult now than it was in 1886? A. I don't think there
has, perhaps, with the exception of myself and the assistant deputy.
Q. Have you any system by which you can tell whether each
employe in the register's office does his day's work properly? A.
The system I have is, that there is a man placed in charge of each
quota of clerks, and I hold him responsible.
Q. Does he make any report? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Every day? A. Not every day; no, sir.
Q. What kind of a report do you require him to make? A. My
practice is to visit the different departments in the office every day or
every two
Q. That is not an answer to my question; what kind of a report do
you require him to make? A. I require the index clerk and the
examiner and reader to make a written report.
Q. How often? A. Well, perhaps every month or so.
Q. Every month or so; is there any regularity about the report?
A. No, sir; whenever I think he ought to make a report, I ask him-
Q. Whenever you want a report, you ask him for a written report?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is there to stir up your attention to the necessity of any
report at any time? A. Well, may be I find the papers are not coming
No. 80.]
2149
down to be signed quickly, as I think they ought to be, I inquire of
the examiner the cause of the delay.
Q. Then in the absence of any difficulty in the work, you do not
require any report in the absence of any complaint? A. We don't
have any complaints except the fact that I make a complaint to the
examiners; I don't get papers down quickly enough to have them
signed and delivered.
Q. In the absence then of any delay in the return of papers, no
report would be required? A. No, sir; because my supposition is
that he is keeping up with the regular work as long as the papers
come down in the regular order.
Q. And it is not any matter of concern to you whether it takes ten
or twenty men to do the work, as long as the work is done; it is no
object for you to inquire whether a man is working six hours faith-
fully every day, or whether he is soldiering half his time, as long as
the work from any department comes to you within reasonable time?
A. Oh, no; I don't mean to say that; I make an examination in addi-
tion to that; I ask the heads of the departments; they are to report
to me; their instructions are, if any clerk is absent, he is to report to
me the reason for it.
Q. But there is no requirement under your organization of this
office, that the heads of departments shall regularly report the con-
dition of work? A. No, sir; I do not know that there is.
Q. Then you have not any system of checking up the amount of
work which each employe does each day in the register's office? A.
Other than that the head of each division is obliged to have his men
constantly at work, and is held responsible to the register for the
proper performance of that man's work.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. How do you hold him responsible? A. By ascertaining whether
the work is gaining in any way, or whether it is falling behind.
Q. That is the only way? A. Making a personal examination to find
out on the indexing work and on the examination work.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Do you do this with regularity; have you stated periods at
which you visit the different departments to see how the work is
going on? A. No, sir; I do not think it is advisable to have stated
intervals, because I think if I go there and catch them unprepared, I
think we are more liable to find out whether they are doing their work
properly or not.
2150
[SENATE,
Q. Have you ever caught them unprepared? A. Sometimes I do;
yes, sir.
Q. How many men have you discharged for neglect of duty during
this last year? A. I haven't discharged any.
Q. Is it your judgment that every man in that department is each
day doing his work fully? A. I think it is; yes, sir.
Q. Do you think any economy could be perfected in any department
except the searchers' department? A. No, sir; I don't think there
could.
Q. Tell me how it happens there is the wide margin of difference in
the cost of administration under Reilly and under Mr. Fitzgerald?
A. Well, as I said before, there wasn't the same number of examiners
and readers, there wasn't the same number of index clerks, not the
same number of custodians, because the business has very largely
increased, the number of papers recorded increased, the number of
books in the office increased.
Q. The number of papers only increased 5,000 a year, and
yet the number of employes has more than doubled? A. I think that
on Mr. Reilly's pay-roll all the employes of his office don't appear;
there are men who were detailed on other work.
Q. Do you mean to say that he falsified his returns to the Secretary
of State? A. No, sir; I do not; for instance, the certified copy clerk
don't appear on Mr. Reilly's return; there is now a certified copy clerk
in the office; during Reilly's term Mr. Murphy, who is the chattel
mortgage clerk, took charge of that and employed a man himself to
do it, and out of the fees which he received from Reilly he paid a man
the fees, and the man don't appear on the roll.
Q. There is some reason why that need not be done now, because
the State is paying all the fees. A. Can't pay any man fees.
Q. Then Reilly could substantially contract with a man at a given
sum to do all the work, and if that man could sublet part of his contract,
that is what it amounted to, is it? A. Yes, sir; Reilly had no
employes at all except his own personal employes; he was the only
person responsible.
Q. I was easier under the old fee system to administer this office
on an economical basis than it is now? A. Yes, sir; I think so;
everybody wants to make as much as he can out of an office same as
he does out of a business.
Q. And now all the register is concerned to do is to keep up the
work done so that the lawyers shan't complain too much? A.
Lawyers shan't complain.
Q. And the more men he can get at a reasonable salary, the more
No. 80.]
2151
offices there are to go around among the boys; that is about it, is it
not? A. No, sir; I think there has been a demand for those places
that have been created, on the part of lawyers; particularly the
examiners and index clerks.
Q. Of course there has been a demand; how many lawyers have
recommended men for places there? A. I don't know.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. How many lawyers have suggested the employment of addi-
tional examiners or index clerks? A. Well, I know Mr. Arnold spoke
about it.
Q. Mr. Arnold is a member of the city government, is he not? A.
Yes, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. President of the board of aldermen? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Member of the board of estimate and apportionment, is he not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. One of the men who makes the appropriations, is he not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was he speaking as a lawyer or speaking as a member of
Tammany Hall and a member of the board of estimate and apportion-
ment? A. Speaking as a lawyer; said there was many complaints made
by his clients, that those papers ought to be returned more quickly than
they were.
Q. Are they returned more quickly than they were? A. They have
been up until about a month or so ago when, owing to an error in the
requisition that was put into the board of city records, the papers
have fallen behind; Mr. Watson was there, and under Mr. Slevin put
in a requisition for libers.
Q. Are there any other lawyers besides Arnold who happen to be a
member of the appropriating board? A. I do not remember the
names exactly; I think Mr. Loveridge spoke about it.
Q. What Mr. Laverick? A. John C. Loveridge, counsel for the
East River Savings Institution.
Q. Anybody else? A. I think Mr. Kelly spoke about it.
Q. Anybody else? A. I don't know as I remember many more
names; they have been speaking about it from time to time, additional
lawyers; other people who have had papers there come there and
ask-wanted to know why we didn't have any more men employed
2152
[SENATE,
there; thought we ought to be able to return the papers quicker than
we did.
Q. Heard any complaints recently about the fact papers haven't
been returned promptly? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know whether there has been any increase in the requi-
sition for additional appropriations in order to enable that to be done
more promptly in the future?
Senator FASSETT.-That is in your provisional estimate.
The WITNESS.-I think we have asked for an increase in the index
clerks.
Senator FASSETT.- Undoubtedly have.
The WITNESS.-Asked for an increase in the index clerks to keep up.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. That is not for the purpose of returning papers; that is simply
to accommodate your office to the demands of the block system? A.
No, sir; I think for index clerks and the present work of the office we
have asked for an increase; in addition to that, we have asked for the
clerks on the block system.
Q. And alphabetical indexes also? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. That is the index clerks; have you a memorandum of the amount
of work done by the index clerks during the last year of Rielly's
term? A. No, sír.
Q. Is it possible to get that in the office? A. No, sir.
Q. Why not? A. I do not think that any memorandum is kept; any
official memorandum.
Q. Is it possible to go back through the books in such a way as to
ascertain what the volume of work done by the index clerks during
the year 1886 was? A. I do not think it is.
Q. Is it possible to tell what the volume of work done by the index
clerks was during the year 1889? A. I don't know that it is, unless,
perhaps, Mr. Murphy, who has had charge of that bureau for some
time, could tell.
Q. Is there any means of ascertaining what the relative amount of
work done by the two index clerks in your record department was as
compared with the amount of work done by the four index clerks who
attended to the business during the year 1886? A. The work of the
index clerks on the old records is totally different from the work of
the index clerks on the regular business of the office.
Q. I understand it is different in one regard, but was it radically
different? A. Yes, sir.
No. 80.]
2153
Q. Are they different classes of indices?
instances.
A. Yes, sir; in many
re
Q. Just describe that to us? Q. Well, the present system of indexing
is a system in which the index is arranged under four letters to one
column, four to another; for instance, under the letter "A" you would
have “Ab,” “Ac,” “Ad,” “Ae," in one column; another column, Ah,"
"Ai," "Aj," and so on; whereas, prior to 1869, the indexing was all one
name after another, the simple initial, and those books are in a very
much mutilated condition and had to be copied; and in a great many
instances the clerks were obliged to leave their books and go to the
libers and verify the page, it had become so thumbed and worn that
the page had been torn out, and in many instances they had to go
through the entire liber.
Q. Will you let some one go over and get one of the indices that was
made during the year 1886 and one of the indices that is now being
made by the index clerks; the old records? A. I don't think there
are any copying old index and old records now; I think they are all
engaged on libers.
Q. I don't care what they are engaged on, but the last one that was
done by the index clerk who was engaged on indices. A. Yes, sir; I
can; you want the original index from which the copy was made?
Q. Yes; I do not simply want the copy; I want the copy that was
made by the index clerks for the preservation of old records?
A. That wouldn't show it; that wouldn't show what the work is unless
you get the original here and show the condition of the book from
which the copy was made.
Q. Get two; the original and the copy, and then also get any one of
the indices that was made during 1886. A. One of the regular busi-
ness of the office?
Q. Yes. A. Regular index and one of the others, old one and a
copy.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. About the searches; I want to find out a little something about
it; Mr. Hanley says he thinks the office is administered as economically
as possible; do you know what ratio the number of searches made last
year bears to the number of searches made in 1887? A. In 1887; I
don't know in 1887; no, sir.
Q. Well, has it not fallen off about fifty per cent a year; that is, in
1887 it was fifty per cent less than '88,-'86 fifty per cent less than '87?
A. I don't think the falling off in 1887 was as great as it has been in
subsequent years.
[Senate, No. 80.]
270
2154
[SENATE,
Q. Eighteen hundred and eighty-eight over '87; '89 over '88; each
year has been fifty per cent? A. Pretty nearly.
Q. That is, in 1887 there were about four times as many searches
made as there were in 1889? A. I couldn't say positively about '87; I
would speak about '86.
Q. Well, about '86? A. Eighteen hundred and eighty-six, I should
say so; yes, sir.
Q. How does the number of searches compare? A. There are now
eight searchers employed, and at that time there were fifteen
searchers, I think, official searchers, and each of those employed an
assistant and some of them two or three assistants.
Q. There are now half as many searchers employed to do one
quarter of the business? A. Not half, because those assistants, those
clerks that the searchers employed were, in a good many respects,
searchers themselves.
}
Q. What were the searchers paid? A. They were paid in fees, half
of the fees; one-half went to the searcher.
Q. Do you know what it averaged; what a man would earn as a
searcher? A. Some of them earned as high as eight or nine thousand
dollars a year.
Q. Would that be an average earning for fifteen searchers? A. No,
sir; I should say $5,000 a year; in the neighborhood of $5,000, I should
think; may be a little more; may be a little less.
Q. With that they hired helpers? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, taking 1887, there were not any hired helpers, were there?
A. No, sir.
sir.
Q. There were twelve searchers then? A. I think so; yes,
Q. The figures as shown here show that there was four times as
much business done in 1887 as there was in 1889? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And yet the searchers remained the same in 1889 ? A. The
searchers are not the same now as they were in 1887.
Q. I am talking about 1889. A. You say that the number of
searchers in 1889 is the same as it was in 1887 ?
Q. Yes. A. Let me understand; do you mean the men or the
requisitions for search?
Q. I mean both; in 1887 there were four times as many searches
made as in 1889. A. Perhaps so; I wouldn't say positively; I don't
know, because I haven't the figures.
Senator FASSETT.—Well, the figures were shown here in about that
relation.
Mr. IVINS.-You have got those figures; they show that the num-
ber of searches ran down from 1888; that they were about 2,500 in
'88 and 5,118 in 1887.
No. 80.]
2155
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Five thousand one hundred in 1887 and about 1,200 in 1889?
A. I think there were more than 1,200 in 1889, because I think we have
received something like 1,200 this year-1,200 and over this year.
Q. Well, between 1,200 and 1,300? A. I think we had more than that
last year; I had a memorandum, but I don't think I have got it
with me.
Q. I will ask you the question in an entirely different form; has the
diminution in the number of searchers kept pace with the diminution
in the number of searches? A. Well, I don't know that it has.
Q. No; why not? A. Well, for the reason that no register wanted
to take the responsibility of saying that he should reduce the number
of searchers; he was an official employed by the city; he was liable
for delays in searches, and they preferred to let the board of estimate
and apportionment take the responsibility of saying that those
searchers should be reduced, and they reduced it four, I think, in
1887, and four last year.
Q. You don't mean four in 1887? A. Yes; I think there were four
men dropped the 1st of January, 1887.
Q. The reluctance of the register has been that he did not quite
want to take the responsibility of being economical in that depart-
ment? A. Didn't want to take the responsibility of delays in search-
ing; he was responsible for it and didn't want to cut off the number
of men employed, because he didn't know when the volume of busi-
ness might increase.
Q. Did you help make up the provisional estimate for the next
year? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You ask for $19,000 to employ searchers? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you expect that amount to be allowed? A. If the board of
estimate and apportionment follow the same custom they did last year
and the year before, they will probably reduce them.
Q. How much? A. I don't know.
Q. That is just the very amount they did allow for this year, is it
not? A. I think it is; yes, sir.
Q. That is the lowest sum which you are willing to recommend to
them as a proper sum to appropriate for that purpose? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How do you account for the fact that a gentleman comes for-
ward here to-day and offers to do the whole business for $6,000?
A. The gentleman may have facilities for doing the work.
Q. He has not any facilities that you have not, has he? A. He
may have.
Q. How could he have? A. He may have purchased some data
from some of the searchers employed there under the fee system,
2156
[SENATE,
which enabled them to do searches inside of twenty-four hours that
would take another man three days to do.
Q. Well, what do you think about it; has he got any such data?
A. I don't know.
Q. Are there any such data? A. I simply suggest.
Q. Well, why don't the city get that same means of doing business?
A. I don't know why the city doesn't get it; it was suggested.
Q. That would be very economical; would it not? A. Probably
would help out the searchers very much.
Q. About 300 per cent, according to your statement? A. Enable
them to do the searches very much more quickly.
Q. Is there any method by which a search equally as accurate can
be made in twenty-four hours, that under your system takes seventy-
two hours? A. May be made as accurate?
Q. Yes. A. May be made as accurate if the searcher has the data
at his command which he has personally made himself.
Q. Where can this data come from? A. It was accumulated from
year to year by the searchers who were in the office.
Q. From the material which belongs to the city? A. Yes, sir-no,
sir; not material which belongs to the city.
Q. Made from the public records; weren't they? A. Yes, sir.
Q. From records required by law to be kept in the register's office?
A. Yes, sir; prior to 1887.
Q. Is not it just as much better for your department to get that
data as for a private individual? A. No.
Q. Why not? A. Because some of the searchers who have that data
were men who had been employed there thirty or forty years, and they
had accumulated those data from time to time and kept them up, and
paid men to make copies of them and check them themselves, for the
purpose of getting business from lawyers, and at that time they were
really running a business of their own at the office.
Q. That data is now all owned and controlled by these title com-
panies? A. I believe a good part of it is; I think some of the searchers
sold their data to the title companies; I think Mr. Brinckerhoff
sold his.
Q. Mr. Fitzgerald testified that he thought a great deal of economy
could be made in the searching department; do you think he was
wrong? A. I think so, too.
Q. You think so, too? A. Yes; I say I don't want to take the respon-
sibility of saying the number of searchers should be reduced; I don't
want to advise the register to reduce that force.
Q. The force is now a good deal larger than is necessary for the
No. 80.]
2157
work they actually have to do? A. I think we could get along with
a less number of men.
Q. Do you think five cents a folio is a proper price to pay recording
clerks? A. I don't think it is; I think they ought to be paid more.
Q. You think the men who transcribed the ancient documents get
the best pay? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. How many folios to a page of a liber of mortgages or a liber of
deeds? A. I think there are about seven; I don't know positively.
Q. That would be about thirty-five cents a page? A. Something
like that; I think there are seven; I am not sure.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. The transcribing clerks get a little over one dollar and twenty-
four cents a page? A. We figured out at the time that examination
was made before the judges that they were paid at the rate of about
ten cents a folio.
Q. It does not figure up so on the record; it shows about sixteen
cents a folio.
Mr. IvINS.- To cover that, right here I want to call your attention
to this paper: "Mayor, aldermen and commonalty of New York
to Register Frank T. Fitzgerald, register of the city and county
of New York, to services in making copies of mutilated records, under
chapter 57 of the Laws of 1883, as per certificate of Hon. Morgan
O'Brien, justice of the Supreme Court, during the month of May, 1890,
$2,083.68."
Q. May, 1890, was the last month in which the judges certified to
the pay-rolls, was it not? A. I think so.
Q. This is the last certificate of the judges to the pay roll? A. I
think so.
Mr. IVINS.— That is accompanied by Form A, "general expenses.
Mayor, aldermen and commonalty of the city of New York to Frank T.
Fitzgerald, as register, for services, etc., $2,083.68; and Laws of 1882,
Laws of 1883, chapter 410; chapter 57, section 189. I hereby certify
that the above amount is correct;" which in this particular audit or
warrant is not filled in. Then follows " city and county of New York,”
the affidavit which is usually appended to all of the warrants and
audits in such cases, which in this particular case is not sworn. Then
there is appended to that the audit of the auditor of accounts or the
assistant auditor of accounts, David E. Austin, certifying to the
comptroller this account of Frank T. Fitzgerald as register, for the
2158
[SENATE,
preserving of public records, and then "my reasons for the allowance
thereof are, that I find the services were duly authorized at a fixed
rate of compensation and are certified to have been performed, signed
David E. L. Austin," etc.; and then is appended under date of June fourth,
Mr. Fitzgerald's receipt for the money. Appended to that is a state-
ment entitled "statement of copyists for the preserving of public
records, maps and papers, register's office, city of New York, for the
month of May, 1890," a statement showing the amount of work per-
formed in the office of the register of the city and county of New York
by copyists engaged in making copies of records pursuant to the
provision of chapter 57 of the Laws of 1883.
Q. First is John W. Burns, who appears to have written 152 pages?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is correct, is it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. One month, $100? A. Yes, sir.
Q. John D. Henderson, 115 pages, one month, $100? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Thomas Goland, 115 pages, one month, $100? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, to go back and connect this at this point with your testi-
mony, that is in excess somewhat of ten cents a folio, isn't it? A. I
think it is; I don't know; I will have to figure it out.
Senator FASSETT.-You can figure it very rapidly.
Mr. IVINS. He would have to have one of those records here for the
purpose of seeing what they average.
Q. They average seven folios per page, they have testified? A. I
don't say that, positively.
Senator FASSETT.-That is the testimony of our experts.
Mr. IVINS. That is the testimony of the experts and the testimony
of the register. The register testified that seven folios per page was
fixed as a page for certain classes of work, and five folios per page for
another class.
Senator FASSETT.- No; seven pages a day for indexes and five pages
a day for libers.
The WITNESS.-Yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT.- Five times twenty-four for instance, would be
more than 115. I don't see but those men fell below the minimum.
Mr. IVINS.-To go on, Theodore Bunderlich, 115 pages one month
$100.
Senator FASSETг.-I wish you would ask what this 115 page man
was working on.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Conveyances, sixty-six pages.
No. 80.]
2159
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. That would be less than five pages a day, wouldn't it? A. That
would be less than five pages a day for twenty-three days.
Q. Is that the number of working days there are in a month? A.
I presume so.
Q. You deduct holidays altogether and Sundays and Saturday one-
half a day? A. Yes, sir; we take the actual number of working days
during the month.
Q. And call a working day six hours? A. From 9 o'clock to 4.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Is the working day fixed by the pages or by the hours; if a man
were actually to do ten pages in one day and did nothing the next
day, would that go as two day's work? A. I don't know; if he fell
behind in his work he would be obliged to keep up to the average; to
make an average of five pages per day throughout the month.
Q. Suppose a man did his 100 or 110 pages in the course of the
month, he would get his $100 wouldn't he, whether he did that in ten
days or in twenty-three days? A. I don't know; if I knew he was
away during that time he would probably be expected to do other
work to make up for it.
Q. What other work could you oblige him to do? A. To copy
from another book.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Under this system if a man does the maximum amount of work,
he does not get any more pay than for the minimum amount of work?
A. Yes, sir; they get paid for the actual amount of work they do,
115 pages.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Mr. Burns did 152 pages and got $100, and Mr. Brady did ninety-
five pages and got eighty-three dollars, and Mr. Garvey did 115 pages
and got $100? A. Some of those men were engaged on indexes and
libers both; you will find this man here, part of that is index work
and part of it is liber work; he did a mixture of both.
Q. Tell us what he did, John W. Burns? A. Mortgages from
liber 125.
Q. That is index work? A. Yes, sir.
Q. One hundred and fourteen pages of index work? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that more difficult or less difficult than the work of copying
the libers? A. I should say it was about even.
Q. Then it does not make any difference? A. How do you mean ?
2160
[SENATE,
Q. It does not make any difference which he is doing so far as the
volume of work is concerned, if they are about even? A. The index
books, the pages are not so large, the pages are smaller.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. The number of words written is about the same? A. The
number of words; but it is more difficult to write in an index book,
because they have got to write them in a larger hand; everybody
can't write an index hand.
By Mr. IVINS:
=
Q. Is not it the fact that index writing is regarded as a nicer piece of
clerical work? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that if a man did 114 pages of index work and did it well, it
would be quite as much as if he did 114 pages of transcribing,
wouldn't it? A. No; I don't think it would, because he wouldn't have
done as much actual work.
Q. It would have taken as much actual time, wouldn't it? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. This is liber 1, grantor's liber 293 to liber 314, fourteen pages;
that was also index work? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then he worked on conveyances 455, pages 1 to 24, twenty-four
pages? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then in that case that man did 128 pages of index work and
twenty-four pages of liber work? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Being 152 pages all told? A. Yes, sir.
Q. For which he got his $100? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Wasn't that as difficult work, or more difficult work than this
that Louis Arnstein did, who did 100 pages of conveyance for $100?
A. I don't know that it was; I couldn't say, because I would have to
see the books; I don't know what those books were; I don't remember
what they were or the condition of them.
Q. I gave you Theodore Bunlerlich, didn't I? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Joseph J. Reilly, does that 121 pages belong to him? A. That
belongs to Arnstein, I think.
Q. Joseph J. Reilly, 115 pages, $100? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Louis Arnstein has 100 pages, and it appears there is another
121 pages that should be added to him of an index, $100? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Peter J. Garvey, 115 pages, $100; Patrick H. McKenna, 110
pages, ninety-five dollars and sixty-five cents; James Brady, ninety-
five pages, eighty-three dollars and thirty-three cents; John O'Connor,
141 pages, $100; John Arnchel, 115 pages, $100; Edward F. Starin,
No. 80.]
2161
115 pages, $100; David J. O'Connell, 115 pages, $100; out of thirteen
men on the first page, it appears that seven did just 115 pages of
work; how do you account for the fact that seven men out of thirteen
did just an even 115 pages of work in that month — is that a month's
work? A. I presume it is; yes, sir.
Q. And that is the actual number of working days? A. Just twenty-
three days at five pages a day would be 115 per month.
Q. Then in reality five pages a day is a day's work? A. Yes.
Q. And if a man did 115 pages in six days or ten days -
couldn't do it.
Q. Suppose he did it in fifteen days? A. He couldn't do it.
Q. Couldn't he do ten pages a day? A. No.
A. He
Q. Couldn't you do ten pages a day? A. No; not of that work; I
could not.
Q. What do you call a day? A. A working day, from 9 o'clock to 4.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Six hours? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Suppose you did ten pages in an hour? A. I couldn't work ten
hours at that; I don't think anybody could work ten hours steadily
at that work; a man's eyesight would not hold out long enough; he
would have to stop; those books are in very bad condition; they are
old and yellow and musty, and sometimes you have to use magnify-
ing glasses to decipher them.
Q. Second page, Edward Hogan, Jr., fifteen pages, thirteen dollars
and four cents; John B. Kiernan 115 pages, $100; Michael J. Curley -
there is nothing on the record to show what pages he did; it says F
1 grantor; are four grantor, D 1 grantor, T 1 grantor and F 2
grantee; there is no reference to pages? A. He was engaged in
writing in the liber number on indexes; those old indexes are
arranged according to liber numbers, not according to dates, and
those numbers were not put in by the clerks who kept the books;
they simply indexed them, and he put in the numbers afterwards; if
you have that book here, I will show what the nature of that work was.
Q. Eighty-three dollars and thirty-three cents; John Burns, exami-
ner, and Louis T. Smith, reader, worked on S 3 grantors, K 3 grantors
and G 1 grantors; is there anything on the face of this record which
contains the certificate of the judge, and of the auditor, to show what
part of those books they examined and compared? A. All of them.
Q. The entire book? A. Yes.
Q. You are certain of that? A. Yes, sir.
[Senate, No. 80.]
271
2162
[SENATE,
Q. For which Burns is extended $125, and Smith, reader, $100? A.
They were engaged in examining those books.
Mr. IVINS.- Bernard F. Fitzpatrick and Edward K. Parish, reader,
W 3 grantor, F 1 grantor, T. 1 grantor, are extended $100 each.
James J. Kirk and William J. Harrington, reader, F 2 grantee, P 2
mortgagor, C 2 mortgagor; Kirk extended eighty-three dollars and
thirty-three cents, and Harrington, $100. That is the pay-roll, foot-
ing up $2,083.68, certified. “I have examined this pay-roll, and certi-
fied that it is correct as to the calculations, extensions and proper
certification. E. Wilson, examiner of claims." Then follows the
register's certificate: "I, Frank T. Fitzgerald, register of the city
and county of New York, do hereby certify that the persons named in
the foregoing statement, were duly employed by me as register; that
they were actually employed during the period set forth in the fore-
going statement; that the services set forth were necessary for the
proper performance of the work of making copies of records and pur-
suant to the provisions of chapter 57 of the Laws of 1883, and that the
sum of $2,083.68 will be a reasonable compensation for the perform-
ance of such services. Frank T. Fitzgerald, register." That is
followed by this: "City and County of New York, ss.: Being severally
duly sworn and says, each for himself, that the services specified in
the foregoing statement have been in fact performed, and by due
authority, and that he has been actually employed, and has performed
services during the term of service therein stated; that no perquisites,
commissions or allowances of any kind have been, or will be paid,
either directly or indirectly, in consideration of the procurement
of such services, and that the full amount is now justly
due. Sworn before me this 4th day of June, 1890. John A. O'Brien,
notary public, New York county," signed by Messrs. Burns, Hender-
son, Goland, Bunderlich, Reilly, Arnstein, Garvey, McKenna, Brady and
the rest of the clerks named in the pay-roll. Then that is followed by
this certificate of the justice of the Supreme Court: "I, Morgan J.
O'Brien, one of the justices of the Supreme Court for the first judicial
district, do hereby certify that I have examined the work of making
copies of records in the office of the register of the city and county of
New York, now being done pursuant to the provisions of chapter 57,
Laws of 1883, as to the manner and form of execution of said work
and that I approve of the same, and I hereby certify that the amounts
set forth in the foregoing certificate of Frank T. Fitzgerald, register
of the city and county of New York, for the services rendered in said
work are reasonable for the services rendered. Morgan J. O'Brien,
justice, Supreme Court.". Judge O'Brien here says that he has
No. 80.]
2163
examined the work of making copies of record in the office of the
register as to the manner and form of execution of said work.
Q. Will you tell what examination he made? A. He came over
there to the office and examined the work that was done by the clerks;
that statement was handed to him with the name of the clerk and
the book which he had copied, and the original book, and the copy
were shown to him, and he went through them and made an examina-
tion of the work, each man's work.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. How long did it take him? A. I don't know; I should say an
hour or so; I don't know exactly what time.
Q. An hour, or was it two hours? A. I don't think it was two hours;
I never timed him; I don't know exactly how long it took him; he
came over there usually after 4 o'clock, because he couldn't get away
before that; sometimes he would come over in the morning before 10
o'clock.
Q. We are talking about this particular time? A. I don't remember
the circumstances of that particular time, other than he came over and
made the examination, how long he was there I don't know.
Mr. IvINS.— Will you allow me to interrupt this witness for a minute
while we swear Mr. David E. Austin. He wants to get back to the
department, and it will only take a minute for me to examine him on
the point that I want in regard to these pay-rolls.
Senator FASSETT.-Certainly.
[Witness withdrawn for the present.]
DAVID E. AUSTIN, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You are one of the auditors of account in the comptroller's
office? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I have here the pay-roll from the register's office for the pay-
ment of the clerks on the work of preservation of public records for
the month of May, 1890, to which your audit is appended; will you
tell what that audit means? A. Exactly what it states in it, that we
find that the services were duly authorized at a fixed rate of compen-
sation and are certified to have been performed.
Q. Your audit rests then entirely upon the certificate, does it? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. And if the certificate is regular your audit is simply to the effect
of the regularity of the certificate itself? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the auditor in this case has no responsibility whatever
beyond the responsibility for checking the regularity or irregularity
2164
[SENATE,
of the certificate which is behind him? A. That is all; we don't go
into the detail of the execution.
Q. Then, in that case the real audit is the audit of the justice of the
Supreme Court? A. Yes, sir; that is under the provisions of chapter
57 of the Laws of 1883.
Q. That applies equally, does it, to the audit on the pay-roll for
August, 1890? A. Is that the same pay-roll?
Q. It is the same sort of pay-roll? A. Yes, sir; it is precisely the
same thing.
Q. Except that in this case the auditor is satisfied by the certificate
of the register, in view of the amendment of the law? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the auditor has no further responsibility? A. He has no
further responsibility in that.
Mr. IVINS.-That is all I want in this witness.
FRANK T. FITZGERALD, recalled, further testified:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. I have here the pay-roll for the month of August, 1890, for like
services; this pay-roll shows John Burns, 784 First avenue, examiner,
term of service from August first to August thirty-first, one month,
rate per annum, $1,500, amount $125, receipted John Burns, and so on
for the rest of the clerks employed in this service; can you tell why
it is that the amount of work performed was certified on the old cer-
tificate, that is the certificate made by the justice of the Supreme.
Court, and the amount of work performed is not certified on those
certificates now made by the register under the amended law. A.
For the reason that under the original act of 1883, the matter was
entirely under the supervision of one of the justices of the Supreme.
Court; he was obliged under the law to make that examination, and
he required that statement to be appended there in order that he
might make the examination, and the comptroller required the same
thing; when the act was passed amending the act of 1883, giving
those clerks a standing as clerks of a city department, and having
them paid by the comptroller through the paymaster the same as
other clerks, the finance department approved of that form of pay-
roll without the certificate being sent in; the register, however,
requires the same amount of work to be done, and keeps a statement
in the office showing that each man has actually done that amount of
work the same as heretofore, the average on a liber of five days and
seven on an index; unless he does that amount of work and has been
present the full time he does not receive that amount of pay that is
prescribed by the board of estimate and apportionment.
No. 80.]
2165
Q. What book is that statement kept in? A. Book that is kept in
the office, it is kept by the chief of the department and submitted to
the register and to myself, a statement showing the work that every
man has done since the 1st of January, 1890.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. It amounts to this, doesn't it, if a man doesn't do his five pages
a day for a month, he does not get his $100? A. Yes, sir,
Q. That is the minimum work? A. Yes, sir.
Q. But if a man should do six pages a day for each day he wouldn't
get a cent more? A. No, sir; because their compensation is fixed.
Q. It is then a premium paid upon laziness, isn't it. A. No, sir;
it is not.
Q. What inducement is there for a man to do all the work he can
possibly do? A. Because it has been found from practical experi-
ence in the office that five pages a day is as much as any man can do
on that work.
Q. Is not then five pages a day fixed as the extent which the man
of least capacity can fulfill? A. No, sir; it is an average based upon
experience.
Q. There are about seven folios to a page? A. I think so.
Q. One hundred words to a folio? A. Yes.
Q. Thirty-five hundred words a day?
thirty-five folios.
A. Yes, sir; that would be
Q. That would be 3,500 words a day? A. That is right.
Q. And six hours is a day's work? A. Yes, sir.
up six
Q. If by any possibility a clerk was so able that he could fill
or seven of those pages a day, he wouldn't get any remuneration for
it? A. I don't know; we never had an instance of that kind occur.
Q. You never had such an instance? A. No.
Q. They nurse the job very carefully, don't they? A. No; I think
that is all they can do
Q. Isn't it a little singular that out of thirteen men each one of them
does just exactly five pages a day for the twenty-three days of a
month? A. That is what they are required to do, and what the judges
of the Supreme Court required that they should do.
Q. The justices of the Supreme Court fixed this limit? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And these men work according to that limit? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you think that is the most economical way to get the work
done? A. I think it is on that work; yes.
Q. Why wouldn't it be a pretty fair way to fix a price per folio.
which would be an adequate return, and then let these men work per
2166
[SENATE,
•
folio? A. Because you can't fix any price per folio on that work, for
the reason that the indexes you can't estimate by folio.
Q. Why not; you estimate it by the page; why not by the folio?
A. Because all the pages don't run the same.
Q. They will average up a thousand for a thousand pages; just
about so much? A. Some of those old books would have fifteen or
twenty names on a page, and some of them would have thirty-five or
forty; they might be very much crowded and very much obliterated.
Q. In those cases the pages that had a few names on would count
for just so much? A. Those men are put on there at the same work,
and it is not fair that one man should be put on a more difficult book
than another and get the same pay.
Q. Then if he did work by the word or folio it would be a good deal
fairer way than by the page? A. No; because a man is supposed to
take a book as it comes.
Q. You can't make more or less than 100 words in a folio? A. No.
Q. You can make more or less than seven folios on a page, can't
you? A. Not in that work.
Q. Then why do you tell me that there is not the same number of
folios on each page? A. I say that you can't make it any less than
seven folios, because you have got just exactly what is on the original
page, line for line and page for page.
Q. If books differ from each other as to the number of folios on a
page, the man that gets the book with the least folios on a page has a
soft job, hasn't he? A. They will all average about the same.
Q. Answer my question? A. I don't think he has any soft job; no.
Q. Then a man who does the least work does not have an easier
test than the man who does the most work? A. Not necessarily; one
man may have a more difficult work to copy than the other; it depends
upon the book.
Q. But so far as the quantity of work is concerned, seven folios is
more than five folios? A. Yes, sir; most assuredly.
Q. You can't make more than 100 words in a folio, can you? A. No.
Q. Nor you can't make less than 100 words in a folio? A. No.
Q. Then wouldn't it be a better way to give out that work by the
folio instead of by the page? A. It might be a better way but I don't
think it would.
Q. Why not? A. Because a man who has to do the most difficult
book, sometimes you would require a better clerk to do a more diffi-
cult book than you would for another.
Q. Is one book more difficult than another? A. No, sir; but the
condition of the original books.
No. 80.]
2167
Q. You don't make that distinction now, do you? A. No.
Q. You work page by page, whether the book is difficult or easy
now, don't you? A. Yes.
Q. What is the use of talking such nonsense; why wouldn't it be a
good plan to give those books out by the 100 words and let the man
get his pay for the amount of work he does? A. Because it was not
deemed so; the judges didn't do it.
Q. The judges didn't do it? A. And the register was bound to
follow their views.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. I asked them to bring me an index which had been copied from
one of the old indexes, and they have brought me grantors S 4,
register's office; that, I suppose, they have picked out quite indiffer-
ently as they have come across it; there is, evidently, no element of
selection in one form or another; it is the first one they bring, at any
rate; I open it quite by chance at a page which is number 797? A.
That is the liber number.
Q. That the liber number 797; these pages are not numbered?
A. No.
Q. They are numbered by the number of the liber? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I have counted on that page of this index every word, and I
have counted each initial as a word, and a page shows ninety-seven
words, each initial being counted as a word where the initial stands
alone, which is less than one folio, and nevertheless it is a page; now,
with that in view the repetition of Senator Fassett's last question will
be entirely in point?
Senator FASSETT.—This witness seems to be afraid of answering the
question.
The WITNESS.
No, sir; not at all.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Don't you think, in other words, that instead of trying a system
which the judges have passed upon, which combines the job plan and
the day plan, it would be better to pay a man, to fix upon a rate per
folio or a rate per page, and pay men for the work they could do?
A. I think it would; yes, sir.
Q. That is what I was trying to get at; so do I? A. Only for the
fact that the Legislature passed an act authorizing the board of
estimate and apportionment to supply salaries, and we have got to
act under a salary system, and it was submitted to the judges and we
have to follow their approval.
2168
[SENATE,
Q. Do you mean to say that the law requires that these men shall
be paid by salary irrespective of the work they do? A. No, sir; by
a salary fixed by the board of estimate and apportionment.
Q. The board of estimate and apportionment can pay them in any
way it pleases; can it not; either by job or by the day? A. Yes, sir;
but they have fixed a salary of $1,200 for the year for the men engaged
in that work.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. The day's work is seven of these pages; isn't it? A. Yes.
Q. Take this page, which I have opened at quite by chance, and
which contains ninety-seven words, initials being counted as words,
which is a fair sample, then seven of these pages would be less than
700 words, which would be a day's work, for which the men would be
paid approximately five dollars.
Senator FASSETT.- Four dollars and fifty cents.
The WITNESS.— Yes, sir.
Q. Do you think that it is possible to get that service rendered; do
you think it is possible to find clerks in the city of New York
dissociated from political organizations, well qualified to do their work,
who will consent to write 700 words for four dollars and fifty cents a
day? A. It may be possible; I suppose it is possible to get men to do
anything; I don't know that any register ever tried; they simply have
done as they were told.
Q. Who told them? A. The judges of the Supreme Court.
Q. Did the judges of the Supreme Court tell them to pay four dol-
lars and fifty cents a day for writing 700 words? A. They decided the
rate of compensation and the work to be done.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Didn't the judges of the Supreme Court do that after an
examination of the register at the time? A. I don't remember, because
I wasn't in the office at the time; it was in 1883, when Mr. Dougherty
was register that the act was passed, and each register has followed
the other.
Q. In other words; when a system is established in your office it
maintains itself, whether it is good or bad? A. I don't think so.
Q. The register does not feel called upon to institute any reform,
and whatever he finds in the office he is justified in retaining there?
A. No; I don't think so.
Q. That is the plan on which you run the office; isn't it? A. I don't
think so.
No. 80.]
2169
Q. Have you ever recommended to the board of estimate and appor-
tionment any more economical method? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever gone over your department to see if you couldn't
cut off some few thousands of expenses in it? A. I don't know that
I have.
Q. And you never made any recommendation to that end, have you?
A. No, sir; I have not.
Mr. IVINS. I don't think I care to ask this witness any more
questions.
Senator FASSETT.-I don't care to ask him anything more.
FRANCIS H. GILHOOLY, being sworn, testified as follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Where do you live? A. Two hundred and sixty-four Greenwich
street, at present.
Q. What is your business? A. I am custodian in the register's
office.
Q. What other business have you? A. I have business as agent and
superintendent for a place in Vesey street.
Q. What business is that? A. Wine and liquor room.
Q. Where? A. Ninety-eight Vesey street.
Q. When were you served with a summons in this matter?
A. After 5 o'clock yesterday evening.
Q. Are you sure it was after 5 o'clock? A. To the best of my
knowledge.
Q. Where were you when you were served? A. I was behind
the bar.
Q. At this place in Vesey street? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where had you been through the day? A. I was in the regis-
ter's office.
Q. All day? A. Pretty much all day.
Q. Where were you during the part of the day that you were not
there? A. I was up to see a sick child at my sister's, at 360 Green-
wich street.
Q. How much of your time do you spend in the register's office? A. I
couldn't tell exactly; I never kept a memorandum of the number of
hours.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Does one day differ from another as to the time you spend there
at the register's office- some days you are there longer than other
days? A. About the average.
[Senate, No. 80.]
272
2170
[SENATE,
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. What is the average? A. Three hours a day sometimes.
Q. What time do you go there? A. Nine to a quarter past 9.
Q. What time do you leave there? A. About a quarter to 4.
Q. How do you come to make three hours as the average?
didn't say three hours a day - in the morning.
Q. I understood you to say during the day? A. No, sir.
A. I
Q. What do you do during the day when you are there? A. Look
out for the books, put them in their proper places, and if anybody
asks for information where to find them, and to see that they are not
mutilated and are not taken out without permission.
Q. Do you go there every day? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you been every day this year? A. I have not been a
year yet.
Q. Then you say that, so far you have been there every day?
A. Not every day; not quite.
Q. How many days haven't you been there? A. I have not kept
any memorandum.
Q. Has anybody kept a memorandum? A. We always report there.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Have you ever been docked any? A. No.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Whom do you report to? A. To the office; I go up stairs to the
room and stay there until such time as I leave.
Q. Who do you report to? A. I don't report to anybody in par-
ticular; I go up stairs and they see me.
Q. How do you know they see you? A. I stand there for them to
see me.
Q. Do you call their attention to the fact that you are there? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Do they enter your coming and going? A. I couldn't answer
you that.
Q. Does anybody supervise the way in which you do your work?
A. I was told what my work was; I was told what my work should be
when I went there.
Q. And has anybody ever looked into the way in which you per-
formed it since you were told what it was to be? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who? A. The deputy register comes up to see that our books
are kept in proper place.
Q. You say you have not been there every day since the first of the
No. 80.]
2171
year? A. Well, I couldn't tell you that exactly; not every day; I
have been the majority.
Q. You have been a majority of the days? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you been there half the time? A. Oh, yes.
Q. Have you been there a quarter of the time? A. Yes; and more
than three-quarters.
Q. Are you sure you have been there more than three-quarters of
the time? A. Yes.
Q. You are perfectly prepared to swear to that? A. I have done so.
Q. What have you done with the other quarter of the time? A. As
I told you I report there in the morning and then after 5 o'clock I go
down to Vesey street; after office hours.
Q. Have you gone there three-quarters of the days? A. Yes, sir; I
believe I have.
Q. Have there been ten days in which you have not gone to the
office at all? A. Not to my knowledge; not in a month or two months.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. You couldn't stay away from the office without your knowledge?
A. No.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Has there been any one day that you have never gone to the
office? A. Not excepting when I have been sick.
Q. Have you been sick often? A. Not often; I am subject to
kidney disease.
Q. Have you been so sick that you have not been able to attend
to the bar? A. Yes, sir; I don't attend bar until 5 o'clock.
Q. Have you never been behind during the day in the forenoon;
I want you to answer that very thoughtfully and carefully. A. I go
there in the morning at 6 or 7 o'clock, and stay until half-past 8.
Q. Have you never been behind the bar between 10 and 12 o'clock
in the forenoon? A. I couldn't say?
Q. You must say? A. I couldn't exactly say.
Q. Are you prepared to say that you never have been behind the
bar between 10 and 12 o'clock in the forenoon? A. I might have been
there.
Q. Is it not a fact that you have been there? A. Perhaps I have.
Q. Don't you think that I can call witnesses to prove that you have
been there? A. That may be too, but I don't know how often.
Q. Will you tell us what right you had to be behind the bar
between 10 and 12 o'clock, when you ought to have been in the
2172
[SENATE,
register's office? A. On account of getting my meals; that is the only
time I go there.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Do you get your meals between 10, and 12 o'clock. A. Some-
times I skip them that way.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Then you have served liquors behind, 10 and 12 o'clock in the
forenoon? A. I couldn't say; I might have done it.
Q. In view of the fact that you are a clerk in the register's office,
and are expected to be in the register's office, would it make no
impression on your mind if you had been behind the bar serving
liquors during the time you ought to have been in the register's office?
A. I don't think it would during what time I was there.
Q. How much of your time do you actually, between 9 and 4 in the
day, spend behind the bar? A. I have never kept any memorandum.
Q. You do spend some time between 9 and 4 behind the bar, don't
you? A. Not every day.
Q. But some days? A. Some days.
Q. You wouldn't be at all surprised if I were able to call witnesses
here to prove that those days were frequent with you? A. You might
be able to do it.
Q. Have you ever told Mr. Fitzgerald that you spent part of the
time when he thought you were here behind the bar? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever told the deputy register? A. I have never had
any conversation with either one on that question.
Q. Do you know that the register has to certify, when he certifies to
your pay-roll, that you have spent all of your time and rendered all
those services? A. I can't say about that.
Q. Did you ever know that in view of the fact that you spend part
of your time behind the bar when you are supposed to be in the
register's office, you put the register in the position every time he
certifies your pay-roll, of certifying erroneously or falsely, did you
ever know that? A. No.
Q. Did you know that such an erroneous certification was punish-
able by law, and that you were putting your superior officer in that
position? A. I am not posted on the law.
Senator FASSETT.-He is evidently not posted on the law. I think
you had better ask him as to questions of fact.
Mr. IVINS.- I think it is very well for him to realize the position he
is putting his superior officer in and equally do to have his superior
realize the position he is putting him in.
No. 80.]
2173
Senator FASSETT.-I don't think it is our duty to do that. His
superior should do that.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. How much of your time do you actually spend behind the bar
during the time from 9 to 4? A. I have never kept a memorandum.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Even if you have not, you have a good memory, haven't you?
A. No.
Q. Your memory isn't bad, is it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you got a bad memory? A. Yes, sir; I have, indeed.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. How long has it been bad? A. Since I was born.
Q. You were born bad? A. No; not me, but my memory.
Q. Is your memory good enough to be able to recollect who is
using a particular liber in a register's office? A. I don't know each
gentleman by name; I couldn't call them by name.
Q. Is your memory sufficiently good to identify a book so as to see
that it gets back in place? A. Yes.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Your memory is good enough to know whether you are in the
register's office every day or not, isn't it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You can remember also whether you go down to the bar every
day, can't you? A. I don't go to the bar.
Q. You know you don't go there every day? A. Not to the bar; no.
Q. Take week after week, about how many days do you spend down
there at the bar when you ought to be at the register's office? A. I
have never spent a whole day at the bar.
Q. You go on at 5 o'clock, do you? A. I make my own time.
Q. But you don't go there before 5 o'clock? A. Six o'clock.
Q. When you go on at 6 o'clock, how long do you stay? A. Till 8
or half-past 8 in the morning.
Q. And then you go on the next morning at 6 o'clock? A. No; I go
on at 5 o'clock in the evening again, and stay until 9 or 10 o'clock, or
12 o'clock.
Q. You go on at 5 or 6 o'clock at night and stay until about mid-
night? A. Until 10, 11 or 12 o'clock.
Q. Then you do not stay after 12? A. Very seldom.
Q. The bar is required by law to be closed at 12, isn't it? A. Yes.
2174
[SENATE,
Q. It wouldn't do for you to acknowledge that you stayed after
law, you know? A. No.
Q. Then the next day do you go on at 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning?
A. Six o'clock.
Q. That does not give you over five hours sleep? A. Oh, yes; I don't
stay there until 12 o'clock every night; 10 o'clock is about the average.
Q. You see your lack of sleep would account for your having a
poor memory? A. I don't think it will.
Q. When you sit up till 12 o'clock at night you do not go on the next
morning at 6 o'clock at the bar? A. Just the same.
Q. Then you stay at the bar from 6 o'clock? A. Until the men get
their breakfast, and then I am through.
Q. What time do they get their breakfast? A. Between 6 and 8.
Q. And then after between 6 and 8 you come down to the register's
office? A. After I get my breakfast then I come over.
Q. How long does it take you to eat your breakfast? A. Twenty
minutes.
Q. That gives you time to get up to the register's office at 9 o'clock?
A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. As a matter of fact then between the bar and the register's
office you work from 5 o'clock in the morning till 12 o'clock at night?
A. Until 10 o'clock.
Q. You work from 5 o'clock until 10 o'clock? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is fifteen hours a day's work? A. Yes.
Q. Do you think that working fifteen hours a day's work you are in
condition to put in a good faithful, competent, able, six hours a day
out of the fifteen in the register's office? A. Yes, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. That is not very hard work in the register's office, is it? A. No.
Q. Your business is to sit there and see that they don't run away
with those big books? A. Yes.
Q. A man can't slip one of those big books up his sleeve? A. Not
very well.
Q. Do you get a salary in your regular business? A. Twenty-five
dollars a week.
A
Q. Twenty-five dollars a month? A. No; a week-thirty dollars
a week.
Then how much do you get from the register? A. One thousand
dollars a year.
No. 80.]
2175
Q. Since you have been at work for the register you have not had
to drop off any of your regular salary, have you? A. The men, I have
to give them something for staying my hours.
Q. What men, the men down at the bar? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How much do you have to give them? A. I give them no stated
price.
Q. Anything you have a mind to? A. Yes.
Q. You give them a little something now and then? A. That is it.
Then it amounts to just this, that you get your $1,000 from the
register and your $1,200 from your employers, so that you get a
$1,000 extra, and out of that you pay a little something to the boys?
A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Which row do you work on in the register's office where-
abouts? A. In the grantee and grantor books.
Q. What row do you have of grantee and grantor books? A. I
have the whole four rows.
Q. Who looks after those rows when you are at the bar? A. I am
not looking after them when I am at the bar; there are always
some few of us there; if one goes away the other takes his place.
Q. When you are there is the other fellow away? A. No.
Q. He is there all the time? A. They are there.
Q. Then what is the use of you? A. That is what I get paid for.
Mr. IVINS. That is all Mr. Gilhooly.
EMANUEL MENDELSOHN, being sworn, testified as follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Are you in the employ of the register? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where do you live? A. Ninety Greenwich street.
Q. How long have you been in the register's office? A. Since
February, I believe.
Q. Of this year? A. This year.
Q. And what do you do there? A. In general taking care of the
books, to see that they are in their proper places.
Q. You are one of the custodians so called? A. Yes, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Are you the chief custodian? A. No-custodian; I am on the
lower floor with the mortgagees.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. What time do you get there in the morning? A. About 9
o'clock in the morning.
2176
[SENATE,
Q. How late do you stay? A. Until 4 o'clock.
Q. Do you stay there from 9 till 4? A. Every day.
Q. Always? A. Always.
Q. Have you been there. every day since you first went into the
office? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Without an exception, except Sundays? A. Except Sundays,
Jewish holidays, or may be temporary illness.
Q. Do you include Saturdays in Jewish holidays? A. Yes.
Q. How many days of temporary illness have there been? A. I
couldn't tell that exactly.
Q. What was your business before you went in there? A.
Pawnbroker?
Q. Are you still a pawnbroker? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is your business still running? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you still attend to your business?, A. At times.
Q. Have you been obliged to employ any extra assistance in your
business because of your absence in this office? A. No, sir; but I
have extra assistance that I don't have to pay, a relative of mine.
Q. You still carry on your business accurately, however?
Yes, sir.
A.
Q. Just describe what a custodian has to do? A. It is the prin-
cipal rule to see that the books are in their proper places, to see if
anybody takes out a book that they are restored to the proper shelf,
that nobody mutilates the pages, and if there are any books required
at court, to bring them there.
Q. How often have you been to court in the last year a dozen
times? A. I couldn't tell exactly, I have been there several times.
Q. What is several, is it five or twenty-five? A. No; it is not
twenty-five that I have been there, I don't think; but I couldn't state
exactly how often.
Q. Is it a dozen? A. It may be about that much
Q. Probably about a dozen - not more?
not more?
be any more.
A. I don't think it would
Q. Whom do you report to when you go to the office? A. To nobody.
Q. Whom do you report to when you come away? A. To no one.
Q. Who helps you do this work of custodian? A. It requires no
help, as I can do the work myself.
Q. Who else is there? A. There are other custodians; they have
work to do for themselves.
Q. Then they help you do that which you can do of yourself, is that
it? A. They have their work to do, and I have mine to do; they are
in different parts of the building.
No. 80.]
2177
Q. Where are you in the building? A. In the main floor where
you come in.
Q. Do you never go out? A. Yes.
Q. Do you never go out for an hour or two at a time? A. I will
go out for lunch or at least for dinner.
Q. Do you ever go out except when you go for your lunch? A. Not
as I remember.
Q. Don't you go to you shop and look after your business during
business hours? A. No.
Q. You are perfectly sure of that? A. Yes; I will go down to my
house and have my dinner and then return.
By Senator FASSETT:
=
Q. Your shop is in your house? Q. Yes, sir; on a level with the
sidewalk.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Do you report to anybody when you go to your house in the
middle of the day-to anyone in the register's office? A. I may make
the remark: "I will go out for dinner.”
Q. You may make a remark, but are you required to make the
remark? A. It is not exactly asked; you can't expect that a man
stays all day without eating.
Q. I don't expect that at all. A. I say the office can't; I don't say
that you would.
Q. Although you have told us about a man who works all day for
no pay? A. It is a relative of mine, but he does it for pleasure; he
is in there and takes care of my interest.
Q. When you come back after your dinner, do you report to any-
body that you are there? A. Not particularly; I walk in and I
expect I will be seen going in.
Q. And you walk in and out as you think best, isn't that it? A.
Well, to some extent as I think best, as I walk in and out only in
proper time.
Q. The business is flourishing, isn't it? A. Which business?
Q. In Greenwich street? A. Well, not extra.
Q. It is as good as ever though, isn't it? A. No; not at all; not as
good as ever.
Q. Do you think that it is suffering for want of your presence? A.
I don't think it is; I don't think it lies on that ground if it does
suffer.
[Senate, No. 80.]
273
2178
[SENATE,
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Your absence does not make any difference to your business,
does it? A. No.
Q. By the way, is this pretty hard work this custodian work? A.
At times it is very hard indeed.
Q. What do you have to do? A. At times I have to work with the
satisfaction clerk marking off discharge papers or whatever you call
them-certificates.
Q. That is not work as custodian? A. It is work as custodian to
take care of the books and to see that the books are in their proper
place, so I will do it to be sure that they are in their places and at the
same time trying to do justice-
Q. How often do you have to lift up and down those books? A.
Those books, when I work with the satisfaction clerk it is done not
frequently, because he has to wait, when he gets the papers together
after the papers have been recorded they are marked off in the book,
and then, at times, he marks off may be 200 or 300 books.
Q. It wouldn't be impossible for a real lively man to keep track of
all the books in the office, would it? A. Yes; it would; it would be
impossible for him to do that.
Q. Two men could, couldn't they? A. No.
Q. They couldn't? A. No; because lawyers will take books and
place them in different parts where they don't belong at all.
Q. One good live man, if he didn't go to sleep, stationed at the door
could tell whether a man was lugging off one of the big books, couldn't
he? A. He could see whether a man carried off a book or not; but
he couldn't tell whose the book exactly is if anyone wants to get a
book.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Do you think that a man could steal that book out of the office
handily without its being observed by somebody? A. I hardly think so
Q. Do you think it takes nine custodians to prevent a book of that
kind being run away with? A. It is not keeping them from running
away at all, what a custodian has to do; but books may be mutilated
in the office when they are handled by outside people.
Q. What do you do to prevent the mutilation of books? A. If I see
anybody using ink I will stop him.
Q, How can anybody use ink; is there ink on the desk? A. No; if
he uses indelible pencils or they may have them in their pockets.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. An indelible pencil is not ink, is it? A. It may appear on the
book as ink when a pencil is used.
A
No. 80.]
2179
-
-
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Do you watch to see that nobody puts anything on a book at all?
A. Yes; it is part of my work.
Q. How many books can you watch at a time? A. A table.
Q. A whole table? A. Yes, sir; I stand on one corner.
Q. That keeps 'you walking up and down all the time? A. No,
sir; I can't be standing there all the time, because in the mean-
time I will have to look over the books again, because frequently
somebody asks for such and such a book, and if it can't be found I will
try and find it for them.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. I should think books ought to be always in their places, with
nine custodians? A. But they are not; lawyers will come in and use
a book and put it in the wrong place and the next man comes and
wants the book and it is not to be found.
Q. Are lawyers permitted to go to the shelves and take down the
books? A. Yes.
Q. I supposed the custodians took down the books? A. No, sir;
lawyers are permitted to take down the books.
Q. Then the main object of a custodian is to put up the books after
these bad lawyers have taken them down and mixed them up? A.
You use an expression I have not used; I don't say bad lawyers; I
don't say they all do it; but some of them will be careless about putting
back a book.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Do you know a custodian there by the name of John J. Moloney?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know the Hon. William Moloney formerly known as
Billy? A. No.
Q. Did you never hear of Billy Moloney? A. Yes; I have heard the
name.
Q. Do you know that John W. Moloney is Billy Moloney's brother?
A. No.
JAMES A. HANLEY, recalled, further testified:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Is John J. Moloney a brother to Billy Moloney? A. I don't know.
JOHN B. KIERNAN, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. What is your present occupation? A. Clerk in the judicated
record department, register's office.
2180
[SENATE,
Q. How long have you been there? A. Since April 1, 1890.
Q. What was your business prior to April 1, 1890? A. Clerk in the
commissioner of juror's office.
Q. Why did you leave the office of the commissioner of jurors? A.
I resigned.
Q. Weren't you suspended? A. Yes, sir; and reinstated honorably
on investigation.
Q. Who conducted the investigation? A. The commission of jurors.
Q. What were the charges for which you were investigated? A.
Merely a garbled account in one of the morning newspapers; nothing
more.
Q. A garbled account of what? A. Of an altercation of one Max
Mayer, at the Metropolitan Opera House, where I tried to serve a
paper on the theatrical manager, Henry E. Abbey, and he has tried to
stop the serving; but I served it.
Q. What was your reason for resigning? A. To better my position
$240 a year.
Q. Was it suggested to you that you should resign? A. No, sir; I
had the position secured three weeks before I had the altercation
with Mr. Mayer.
Q. Who secured it for you? A. The commissioner of jurors.
Q. Do you know Mr. Balentine? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was there a Mr. Balentine in the employ of the register? A. I
understood that he was; I don't know whether he was or not.
Q. Isn't it a fact that you went from the commissioner of juror's
office to the register's office and Mr. Balentine went from the register's
office to the commission of juror's office? A. Yes, sir; I heard that
was the way that it was to be.
Q. In other words places were swopped? A. Yes, sir; this way, that
the commission of jurors thought that my previous experience in the
register's office rendered me better able to fill the bill than Mr.
Balentine was, and Mr. Balentine said that he thought the work was
too hard, and he told me so.
By Senator Fassett:
Q. You got more pay in going up, and he got less pay in going
down, is that it? A. Yes; but he couldn't fill the bill in the register's
office, and he acknowledged it.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Could he fill the bill in the other place? A. Yes, sir; he was
detailed as near as I can get at it as a messenger, or something of the
kind.
No. 80.1
2181
Q. You and Mr. Balentine both come from the same district, do you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You are one of the copyists? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, will you describe what the work of a copyist there is;
what a day's work is, and how long it takes you to do a day's work?
A. Day's work is supposed to be five pages a day; some books are
very hard and some are very easy; I consider myself a fairly good
clerk, and it takes from four to five hours hard work to put in my five
pages on the book I have got.
Q. Is that on the average or on a hard book? A. That is hard
work, and if I put in more than five I feel it the next day; if I put in
six I feel it the next day.
Q. Don't you think anybody would? A. Well, any work of that
kind that you feel mentally next day, I think that you are doing a
pretty fair day's work.
Q. Suppose you were to do fifteen pages in two days, would that go
as three day's work? A. Well, as nearly as I can get at it I have got
a number of pages a day; if I happen to be home two days sick, or
three days or four days, I am not excused from my work; I must
make up that work if I have to stay till dark to do it.
Q. If you get that number of pages done it is nobody's business
when you do it, or how you do it; you get your pay for it, don't you?
A. If I have got 115 pages in, or whatever the monthly allowance is,
I am supposed to get my $100.
Q. And if you can do that 115 pages in twenty days that is your
own affair, isn't it? A. I never looked at it in that way; I considered
that I had to be at the office every day from 9 to 4, and I did so unless
I was physically unable to be there.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Suppose you did it in twenty days, what would you do with your
other ten days? A. I would work still.
How much money would you get for it? A. Nothing more.
Q. You never had that experience? A. No, sir; and I don't think I
could do more in a month.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You do your five pages a day? A. That is what I am required
to do; some days I do six, and sometimes on a rainy or a dark day I
can only do four, and that makes up for the balance of the day before.
Q. Was the investigation in the commission of juror's office taken
with a stenographer or was it simply an investigation by the com-
2182
[SENATE,
missioner? A. It was an investigation by the commissioner, and he
suspended me pending the investigation, and told me that if the
charges in the newspaper were proven he would not recommend me
to Register Fitzgerald.
Q. But as it is he did recommend you? A. He did when he saw I
was vindicated.
Q. Are you confident that this arrangement to shift you into Bal-
lantine's place and Mr. Ballantine into yours was determined on prior
to Mr. Mayer's complaint? A. Yes, sir; so the commissioner of jurors.
told me, and I will make an affidavit to that effect; the commissioner
of jurors told me so at least a week before the altercation occurred at
the Metropolitan Opera House.
Q. A week before the altercation, or a week before the publication
in the newspapers? A. A week before the altercation; the publication
was made the next day for the benefit of Mr. Mayer, who is always
trying to gain notoriety.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. What was the charge against you? A. One of the newspapers
said I endeavored to serve a paper and became boisterous in the lobby
of the Metropolitan Opera House, whereupon Mr. Mayer assaulted
me, which is not the case; Mr. Mayer attempted to assault me, but he
didn't make that mistake.
Q. That is all there was of it? A. Yes, sir; Judge Ehler issued an
order of court why Mr. Mayer could not be punished for contempt of
court; what disposition was made of it I don't know.
Q. That is all there was of the charge? A. Yes, sir; I think Mr.
Mayer was about three-fourths full of wine on account of it being
Patti's first night and I was only endeavoring to serve a warrant.
Q. That was the only charge made against him by anybody? A.
Yes, sir; that was the only charge.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. At any time? A. At any time in the commissioner of jurors'
office.
Q. Do you remember charges having been made against certain
clerks in the commission of jurors' office for having taken or attempted
to take money to secure the excusing of persons serving on jury? A.
I have heard that such happened there, but not during my time; I
never heard it during my time in the office.
Q. How long were you in the office? A. I went in the office, as
near as I can get at it, about November 15, 1
No. 80.]
2183
Q. Mr. Reilly went in on the 1st of May, 1885? A. Somewhere
about that time.
Q. So that this was after Mr. Reilly had been there some three
years and a half? A. Yes, sir.
Q. These things that I speak of you heard of as having occurred
prior to your going there? A. We always hear rumors of that kind,
that people have received money, but I do not know anything
further.
Q. Don't you remember that there was a good deal of talk and dis-
cussion in the newspapers about a matter of that kind, and that
certain clerks were discharged? A. It seems to me that I read some-
thing of that kind in the World, or some paper, that they had a man
removed who was supposed to take money, but I don't know those
things to be facts.
Q. Was that before your time, or during your time, that these
rumors were? A. I think it was before my time in the office.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. This man Mayer, you say, had a little trouble with you in the
lobby of the theater? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you go right after that trouble with Mayer into a neighbor-
ing saloon? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did you do over there with Mayer? A. Detective Sergeant
Heibelberg insisted that we part as friends; I did so, more to mollify
a drunken man than anything else.
Q. As a token of friendship, did you receive any three tickets or
passes? A. Yes, sir; I received a pass which I had in my possession,
which was never used; I will submit it if you want to see it.
Q. I don't want to see it? A. Well, that is the best proof you
know; I left Mr. Mayer, and after I left him, I was not any better
friends than before.
Q. You went through the pleasure of pleasing this drunken man?
A.'Yes; to satisfy Detective Sergeant Heidelberg.
Q. And the next morning accusation appeared in the paper?
A. Yes.
Q. And when did the pass entitle you to admission in the theater?
A. The following evening.
Mr. IVINS.-I find these other witnesses are not here. That will be
all for to-night.
Adjourned until 11 o'clock, October 16, 1890.
2184
[SENATE,
4
EXHIBIT No. 8 — OCTOBER 14, 1890.
REGISTER'S OFFICE, HALL OF RECORDS,
NEW YORK, December 31, 1886.
Hon. FREDERICK COOK, Secretary of State :
SIR.-In compliance with the provisions of section 1763 of chapter
410 of the Laws of 1882, I herewith transmit to you a statement
showing the amount of all fees charged or received by me for all
official services, together with the sums paid for assistance in the
performance of my official duties, and the sums paid for all other
expenses incident to the office.
An additional statement is herewith appended showing the amount
of all sums charged or received for services rendered for the county.
Said statement embraces the year ending on the 31st day of
December, 1886.
Very respectfully yours.
JOHN REILLY,
Register.
STATEMENT SHOWING RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES OF THE REGISTER'S OFFICE,
FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1890.
January.
EXPENDITURES.
Amount paid to searchers
Amount paid to employes...
Amount paid to recording clerks
Amount paid to Everson & Reed for stamp
•
•
Amount paid to Wortendyke & Son for ice
Amount paid to Tower Manufacturing Company for
rubber band..
Amount paid to Everson & Reed for repairing stamp...
Amount paid to Consolidated Company for gas
Amount paid to postage stamps..
Total....
RECEIPTS.
Amount received for searches...
Amount paid for 840 certificates..
Amount paid for papers recorded
Amount paid for 2,740 certificates to same.
$4,068 68
2,146 10
2,041 40
155
3 38
1 50
100
31' 50
5000
$8,300 11
$8,137 36
210 00
4,357 30
1,041 20
No. 80.1
2185
Amount paid for certified copies, etc...
Amount paid for 2,552 chattel mortgages...
Amount paid for satisfaction and certificates.
Total..
$204 06
459 36
894 82
$15,304 10
8,300 11
Balance
$7,003 99
February.
Amount paid to searchers
$3,785 95
Amount paid to employes...
•
Amount paid to recording clerks.
Amount paid to Skidmore for coal
Amount paid to Wortendyke for ice
Amount paid to Tower for pencils...
Amount paid to Consolidated Company for gas
Total..
Amount received for searches....
Amount received for 814 certificates to same.
Amount received for papers recorded.
•
Amount received for 2,416 certificates to same.
Amount received for certified copies, etc.....
Amount received for 2,093 chattel mortgages..
Amount received for satisfactions and certificates
2,040 55
1,776 50
108 50
3 38
3.00
33 07
$7,750 95
$7,571 90
203 50
3,802 50
918 08
153 40
376 74
684 38
Total...
$13,710 50
7,750 95
Balance
$5,959 55
March.
Amount paid to searchers
$5,342 67
Amount paid to employes
2,367 40
Amount paid to recording clerks .
2,354 65
Amount paid to Wortendyke for ice
300
Amount paid to Tower Company for rubber bands.
1 50
Amount paid to Fox & Kelly for crash.
3 75
Amount paid to blotters.
1 50
Amount paid to Consolidated Company for gas
58 80
Amount paid to postage stamps .
5 00
Total...
$10,138 27
[Senate, No. 80.]
274
2186
[SENATE,
!
:
Amount received for searches....
Amount received for 1178 certificates to same
Amount received for papers recorded.
$10,685 34
294 50
5,037 30
Amount received for 3,191 certificates to same
•
1,212 58
Amount received for certified copies, etc.....
Amount received for chattel mortgages.
263 50
464 76
Amount received for satisfactions and certificates
Total....
944 64
$18,902 62
10,138 27
Balance
$8,764 35
April.
Amount paid to searches
$6,199 12
Amount paid to employes..
2,451 02
Amount paid to recording clerks
3,144 30
Amount paid to Wortendyke for ice
3 37
Amount paid to Tower Company for bands..
4 50
Amount paid to Hopke & P. for soap.
3 95
Amount paid to Noe's Son for cleaners materials.
12 60
Amount paid to Gould for certificates
3 88
Amount paid.to Partridge for stools..
3 25
Amount paid to blotters.
2.00
Amount paid to Mott for cuspidores.
Amount paid to E. & R. for ribbon
Amount paid to Consolidated Company for gas
9 00
75
63 70
Total...
Amount received for searches...
Amount received for 1,147 certificates to same.
Amount received for papers recorded.....
Amount received for 4,105 certificates to same
Amount received for certified copies, etc
Amount received for 2,671 chattel mortgages
Amount received for satisfactions and certificates
•
$11,901 42
$12,398 24
286 75
6,698 60
1,559 90
191 80
496 78
1,183 54
Total...
$22,815 61
11,901 42
Balance...
$10,914 19
No. 80.]
2187
May.
Amount paid to searchers..
Amount paid to employes..
$5,503 91
2,372 57
Amount paid to recording clerks..
2,667 95
&
Amount paid to Wortendyke for ice
Amount paid to Everson & Reed for pads
Amount paid to postage stamps
Amount paid to Walter & Company for stationery
Amount paid to Tower Manufacturing Company for rub-
ber bands... . .
Amount paid to Consolidated Company for gas
Amount paid to E. & R. for repairing stamps
Total...
Amount received for searches...
3 25
80
5´00
19 50
3.00
41 47
100
$10,618 45
Amount received for 892 certificates to same.
Amount received for papers recorded.
Amount received for 3,512 certificates to same
Amount received for certified copies, etc
•
$11,007 82
213 00
5,690 30
·
1,334 56
Amount received for chattel mortgages
162 26
408 78
Amount received for satisfactions and certificates
1,056 22
Total..
$19,944 94
10,618 45
Balance..
$9,326 49
June.
Amount paid to searchers..
$4,901 83
1,331 07
Amount paid to employes.
•
Amount paid to recording clerks
Amount paid to subscription....
Amount paid to Wortendyke for ice.
Amount paid to postage stamps .
Total...
Amount received for searchers
•
Amount received for 933 certificates to same.
Amount received for papers recorded
Amount received for 3,172 certificates to same
Amount received for certified copies, etc....
• •
2,320 95
250
4 17
5 00
$9,565 52
$9,803 66
233 25
4,959 60
1,205 36
197 00
2188
[SENATE,
Amount paid to recording clerks.
Amount received for 3,104 chattel mortgages
Amount received for satisfactions and certificates
Total.
Balance...
Amount paid to searchers..
Amount paid to employes..
•
Amount paid to Gould for certificates.
Amount paid to Tower Manufacturing Company for rub-
ber bands....
Amount paid to Wortendyke for ice
•
Amount paid to Consolidated Company for gas
Amount paid to Walter & Company for stationery
Amount paid to Everson & R. for repairing stamp
Amount paid to Consolidated Company for gas
Total..
Amount received for searches...
$8,330 55
$3,945 31
2,329 05
2,200 00
4 00
3.00
4 33
•
$558 72
938 48
$17,896 07
9,565 52
31 62
9 50
•
1 25
7 12
$8,535 18
$7,890 62
Amount received for 745 certificates to same.
186 25
Amount received for papers recorded.
4,687 90
Amount paid for 2,877 certificates to same
1,093 26
Amount received for certified copies
175 36
Amount received for 2,504 chattel mortgages
450 72
Amount received for satisfactions and certificates
1,056 10
Total
$15,540 21
8,535 18
Balance..
August.
Amount paid to searchers
Amount paid to employes.
Amount paid to recording clerks
Amount paid to Tucker & S. for pads .
$7,005 03
$2,864 78
2,085 88
1,529 33
1 00
Amount paid to American News Company for blotters..
Amount paid to Wortendyke & Son for ice
Amount paid to Tower Manufacturing Company for
rubber bands
300
5 00
1 50
Amount paid to Consolidated Company for gas
•
Total..
5275
$6,496 26
No. 80.]
2189
Amount received for searches
Amount received for 566 certificates to same.
Amount received for papers recorded.
Amount received for 2,018 certificates to same
Amount received for certified copies, etc....
Amount received for 2,393 chattel mortgages
Amount received for satisfactions and certificates
Total...
•
$5,729 40
141 50
3,261 40
766 84
125 96
430 74
619 16
$11,075 00
6,496 26
Balance
$4,578 74
September.
Amount paid to searchers
$3,332 56
Amount paid to employes
2,121 07
Amount paid to recording clerks
1,617 75
Amount paid to postage stamps
5 00
Amount paid to Wortendyke for ice
Amount paid to Consolidated Company for gas
Total...
Amount received for searches..
•
Amount received for 669 certificates to same
Amount received for papers recorded...
Amount received for 2,136 certificates to same
Amount received for certified copies, etc.....
Amount received for 2,913 chattel mortgages
Amount received for satisfactions and certificates
5 63
•
7 87
$7,089 88
$6,665 12
167 25
3,449 50
811 68
165 36
524 34
•
650 14
Total...
$12,433 39
7,089 88
Balance.
$5,343 51
October.
Amount paid to searchers
Amount paid to employes...
Amount paid to recording clerks.
Amount paid to E. & R. for stamp.
$4,174 23
2,249 45
2,058 95
1 00
Amount paid to St. Clair for pencils.
Amount paid to Tower Company for rubber bands.
Amount paid for postage stamps.
1 00
3.00
5 00
Total....
$8,492 63
2190
[SENATE,
Amount received for seaches..
Amount received for 851 certificates to same.
Amount received for papers recorded.
$8,348 46
212 75
4,386 60
Amount received for 2,679 certificates to same.
1,018 02
Amount received for certified copies, etc..
175 76
Amount received for 3,135 chattel mortgages..
Amount received for satisfactions and certificates...
Total...
567 90
696 50
$15,405 99
8,492 63
$6,913 36
Balance..
November.
Amount paid to searchers
Amount paid to employes..
$4,886 30
Amount paid to recording clerks..
t
•
Amount paid to Consolidated Company for gas
Amount paid to Noe's Son for cleaners' materials.
Amount paid to Wortendyke for ice...
Amount paid Walter & Company for stationery.
Amount paid for postage stamps.
Amount paid to E. & R. for seal...
2
Amount paid to Tower & Company for rubber bands...
Amount paid to MacDonald for coal...
Total...
Amount received for searches..
Amount received for 951 certificates to same.
D
Amount received for papers recorded...
Amount received for 3,029 certificates to same.
Amount received for certified copies, etc....
Amount received for 2,986 chattel mortgages, etc..
Amount received for satisfactions and certificates.
2,465 04
2,328 95
25 12
3 34
5 63
4 50
5 00
1 75
1 50
23.20
$9,755 75
$9,772 60
237 75
4,959 10
1,151 02
200 56
537 48
Total...
Balance...
December.
Amount paid to searchers
Amount paid to employes
Amount paid to recording clerks .
Amount paid to Consolidated Company for gas
902 88
$17,761 39
9,755 75
$8,005 64
$6,437 59
2,420 78
2,544 05
15 00
No. 80.]
2191
Amount paid to Knickerbocker Company for ice.
$8 83
Amount paid to Mitchell for stationery
4 50
Amount paid to carriers for Christmas .
15 00
Amount paid to Consolidated Company for gas
41 49
47 90
250 00
•
•
$11,785 14
Amount paid to MacDonald for coal
Amount paid to Townsend & Malon for counsel fees
Total....
Amount paid for searches
Amount paid for 982 certificates to same
Amount paid for papers recorded ...
•
Amount paid for 3,292 certificates to same
Amount paid for certified copies, etc.
Amount paid for 3,078 chattel mortgages..
Amount paid for satisfactions and certificates
Total...
•
$12,875 18
245 50
5,418 80
592 56
188 76
554 04
955 16
$20,830 00
11,785 14
Balance..
$9,044 86
RECAPITULATION.
January
February
March.
April..
May..
$8,300 11
$15,304 10
7,750 95
13,710 50
10,138 27
18,902 62
11,901 42
22,815 61
10,618 45
19,944 94
June
July..
August
September
October
·
November
December
9,565 52
17,896 07
8,535 18
15,540 21-
6,496 26
11,075 00
7,089 88
12,433 39
8,492 63
15,405 99
9,755 75
17,761 39
11,785 14
20,830 00
Total...
$110,429 56 $201,619 82
110,429 56
Gross balance receivable
$91,190 26
Balance outstanding for the term ending December 31,
1886 .
11,040 49
Net amount received...
$80,149 77
2192
[SENATE,
STATEMENT OF AMOUNT PAID TO ASSISTANTS IN THE REGISTER'S OFFICE
DURING THE YEAR, 1886.
James A. Hanley, deputy register
Lewis H. Watts, assistant deputy register.
Michael Grady, tickler clerk..
John Pyne, collector
·
Edward F. Smith, examiner....
Michael F. Fitzpatrick, bookkeeper.
John A. Boyle, grantee clerk ...
$3,000 00
1,800 00
1,800 00
1,800 00
1,500 00
1,500 00
1,200 00
Henry W. Murphy, index clerk.
•
1,200 00
Frank P. Young, index clerk.
1,200 00
John J. Coyle, reader ..
P. H. Neeson, custodian.
Philip J. Fitzgibbon, watchman
Daniel L. Coyle, map clerk
Frank Watts, index clerk..
Horatio G. Molini, index clerk..
1,066 64
1,074 98
1,000 00
1,049 98
1,000 00
300 00
William W. Dunlap, index clerk
William J. Reilly, extra clerk..
Mrs. A. Coyle, cleaner.
100 00
35 50
360 00
Charles Blauvelt, satisfaction clerk..
5,291 01
William F. Loper, chattle mortgage clerk
1,101 89
Fees paid to Searchers in the Register's Office for the year 1886.
Stephen M. Anderson
$3,896 63
William H. Bell...
5,030 42
Warren P. Bell
2,507 20
George F. Brennan.
Wm. E. Brinckerhoff.
Edward W. DeGrove...
Edward T. Egbert .
Gideon Fountain
David Lennox..
P. H. McDonough
Charles W. Mack
David F. O'Connor,
3,577 80
4,832 33
1,310 38
5,353 65
•
1,580 99
1,934 06
2,339 18
8,531 53
3,776 96
John Pyne
286 55
Nelson Samson..
4,353 79
Nelson T. Samson
1,789 01
A. M. Ulman
4,342 37
Fees paid Recording Clerks for the year ending December 31, 1886.
George P. Elder...
$277 45
Ferdinand Lieber.
519 50
No. 80.]
2193
Thomas Fitzpatrick..
$521 65
Francis J. Thompson.
Edward A. Carland
Edward J. McCauley
James Anthony....
John T. MacDonald
Frederick H. Jones
Henry J. Cogan .
Michael J. O'Rourke
William J. Doyle..
499 15
322 10
481 85
131 10
320 40
35 55
885 75
•
626 50
•
467 50
Joseph Kenny.
Luther V. Hammond...
Edward J. Brady
83 40
586 80
16 50
John Moloney..
Edward A. Collins
Thomas Laughlin..
390 30
524 80
427 15
Charles Isabean
-
85 15
Isaace N. Wortendyke..
447 85
Bernard J. Costello
355 20
Theodore Wunderlich.
857 66
Hugh Coyne..
445 30
Edward J. Nealon..
495. 25
Jacob Feis.
19 25
William E. Merritt.
19 00
William J. Coffin..
377 95
Samuel Samson.
306 90
James J. Rogers..
Daniel O. Dougherty.
Hugh Brady
· •
Edward L. Carey
• •
417 10
206 45
496 15
46 55
Edward Hall.
William J. Watson
Horatio Moloni..
Thomas Duncan ....
Gardner H. O'Donnell.
Frank J. Houghtalin
William V. Brown.
John Gilson...
Joseph Meehan.
•
Frank Reilly.
Jacob Moore .
Andrew J. Kirk……….
[Senate, No. 80.]
207
80
29 60
48 60
26 30
49 70
66 25
628 00
499 60
380 15
142 50
36 55
184 55
275
2194
[SENATE,
John Murphy ..
Nicholas L. Fogarty..
Bernard Fitzpatrick.
Hugh McDonald..
Geo. Talbot ..
Luke J. Hackett.
John F. Sheridan.
Jacob Weingarth
John F. Cramer
George Coghlan
Michael Roche..
Patrick J. Leddy.
·
$264 10
546 45
463 30
789 30
569 75
783 75
894 25
529 00
382 35
466 95
441 00
670 25
•
John J. Morgan
133 85
Michael Clune.
Charles Gilmore..
Daniel Bostwick
Robert Hembold...
348 80
307 50
338 65
14 70
John J. Donnelly
671 40
David T. Long...
14 70
Arthur J. O'Leary
671 40
✔
John Healy
580 20
Mr. Leveen
John P. Boyd
George O. Clarke.
224 95
396 85
•
98 35
Edward Breeder
367 85
Charles J. Wiley.
390 75
Thomas F. Daniels.
418 00.
John Mulligan..
225 80
J. T. Oakley...
Charles Rosenstedt
435 90
72 15
54 20
324 75
Total....
$26,150 90
ADDITIONAL STATEMENT SHOWING THE RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES, ON
ACCOUNT OF CLOSING UP BUSINESS OF THE REGISTER'S OFFICE, FOR THE
TERM ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1886.
Expenditures.
James A. Hanley, deputy, two month's salary.
John Pyne, collector....
Frank McNicol, examiner.....
·
$500 00
150 00
125 00
No. 80.]
2195
John A. Boyle, delivery clerk.
John M. Sipple, delivery clerk.
Samuel Wagner, map clerk.
John Gilson, reader
Edward A. Carland, collector.
Luke J. Hackett, collector
Louis Suffner, collector.
Searchers fees..
Sundries, postage, etc...
•
Total...
•
$25 00
63 00
20 00
20 00
42 00
43 80
4 00
219 33
2 29
$1,214 42
Balance due for the term ending December 31, 1886.... $11,040 49
Expenditures as above. .
Balance...
Bad debts by papers not disposed of..
Net Balance...
1,214 42
$9,826 07
216 54
$9,609 53
NEW YORK, December 31, 1886.
To Hon. FREDERICK COOK, Secretary of State, Albany, N. Y.:
SIR.I herewith transmit an additional statement for the year 1889,
of the amount of all sums charged or received by me for services
rendered the city and county of New York in recopying mutilated
libers, maps, etc., pursuant to chapter of the Laws of 1883:
Amount appropriated by board of estimate and appor-
tionment for 1886 ...
$32,000 00
Amount expended for 1886..
31,999 48
As follows clerks, stationery, etc.:
Frank McNicol, examiner from January first, to Decem-
ber twenty-third..
$1,467 74
Simon P. Donnelly, reader, 10 months 15 days..
1,048 39
William F. Daly, reader, 10 months 15 days...
1,048 39
Samuel Wagner, maps, 11 months 20 days.
1,164 51
William J. Reilly, recording, 11 months 20 days..
John R. Farley, recording, 11 months 15 days.
Patrick Brady, recording, 11 months 15 days.
Edward Kelly, recording, 11 months 15 days..
Bernard O'Gorman, Jr., recording, 11 months 15 days...
1,164 51
1,148 39
·
1,148 39
1,148 39
1,148 39
2196
[SENATE,
•
•
James O'Sullivan, recording, 11 months 15 days...
Andrew J. Kirk, recording, 11 months 15 days..
James E. Costello, recording, 11 months 15 days..
Denis J. McCarthy, recording, 11 months 15 days
Bernard Fitzsimmons, recording 10 months 15 days.
Frank J. Houghtalin, recording 10 months 15 days.
Gardner H. O'Donnel, recording 10 months 15 days.
John T. Oakley, recording 10 months 15 days...
A. Schmidt, recording 10 months 15 days....
William J. Watson, recording 10 months 15 days.
Thomas F. Duncan, index 10 months 15 days.
A. Francis Cronhardt, index 9 months 15 days.
John W. Burns, index 9 months 15 days.
John Mulligan, index 9 months
Horatio G. Molini, index 8 months.
•
Thomas J. Reilly, index 6 months 12 days
Terrence Duffy, index 5 months 15 days.
George P. Elder, index 4 months 15 days
Edward F. Reynolds, index 4 months
Edwin F. Treharne, index 4 months.
Edward J. Hare, index 3 months.
Frank Watts, 2 months....
Thomas Dunlap, Jr., 2 months....
Margaret Dorsey, cleaner 12 months.
Salaries...
Thirty-one mortgage indices libers.
Nineteen conveyances.
Stationery
$1,148 39
1,148 39
- 1,148 39
1,148 39
1,048 39
1,048 39
1,048 39
1,048 39
1,048 39
•
1,048 38
1,048 39
948 39
948 39
948 39
900 00
•
800 00
638 71
548 39
448 39
400 00
400 00
300 00
200 00
200 00
360 00
$30,660 05
775 00
475 00
65 53
Fuel ...
Cleaning materials..
Total amount expended.
12.00
8 68.
$31,996 26
Unexpended balance in hands of comptroller of New York, three
dollars and seventy-four cents.
The statement covers the year 1886, to wit, from January first to
December thirty-first, inclusive.
Very respectfully yours.
JOHN REILLY,
Register.
No. 80.]
2197
STATE OF NEW YORK,
CITY AND COUNTY OF NEW YORK.
John Reilly, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that the foregoing
statement was prepared under his direction as register of the city and
county of New York, that said statement exhibits the receipts and
expenditures of the register's office, for the year ending December
31, 1886, and that said statement is correct.
JOHN REILLY,
Register.
Sworn to before me this 10th
day of January, 1887.
}
JAS. A. HANLEY,
Notary Public, City and County of New York.
Indorsed: State of New York, office of the Secretary of State.
Received.
STATE OF NEW YORK,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Of State.
}
SS.:
I have compared the preceding statement with the original remain-
ing in this office, and do hereby certify that the same is a correct
transcript therefrom of the whole thereof.
Given under my hand and seal this 15th day of April, 1890.
4
FRANK RICE,
Secretary of State.
THURSDAY MORNING, October 16, 1890.
The committee met pursuant to adjournment.
Present Senators Fassett, Ahearn and McNaughton.
MICHAEL COLEMAN, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Mr. Coleman, are you president of the board of taxes and assess-
ments? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you been president of that board? A. Since
1885.
Q. By whom were you appointed? A. William R. Grace.
Q How long were you in that department prior to your appoint-
ment as president of the board? A. About sixteen years.
Q. In what capacity? A. Chief deputy.
2198
[SENATE,
Q. As president of the board of taxes and assessment you are a
member of the board of estimate and apportionment, are you not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you also secretary of that board? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you are a member of the armory commission? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you also secretary of that commission? A. Yes, sir.
Q. As a member of the board of estimate and apportionment, do
you appraise real estate valuations in the case of purchase of land for
the use of the board of education? A. Well, I generally look and
examine nearly all the real estate that is purchased by the city for
city purposes.
'
Q. As a member of the armory commission, do you make appraise-
ments of real estate taken for armory purposes? A. I have purchases
since 1886, one site for the Ninth Regiment, and the other site for the
Seventy-first was condemned by order of the court.
Q. As president of the board of taxes and assessment, how
much of your time is demanded in performing the duties of your
office? A. As tax commissioner?
Q. Yes; and other offices that flow out of it by virtue of law
ex officio? A. I couldn't hardly tell you now; I am employed almost
every day between the hours of half-past eight and five, including
Sundays.
Q. And that service has been continuous for some twenty years
now? A. Over twenty years.
Q. At what time of the year does your board usually take its
vacation? A. We generally lay out the vacations for the clerks and
deputies about the first of July.
Q. That is because that is the lightest part of the working year, is
it? A. Yes, sir; because our books are obliged to be ready to be
delivered to the board of aldermen by the first Monday in July by
law.
Q. Will you now describe to the committee the constitution of your
office, telling the number of men in the working staff, the different
classes of work done by each class of employes or subordinates? A.
The number employed in the tax office is forty-five, three commis-
sioners, one secretary, twelve real estate deputies, one chief deputy,
two deputies for personal department, and twenty clerks, including
one law clerk, one map, one janitor and timekeeper, one typewriter,
one messenger, one surveyor and two assistants.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. How are the commissioners appointed? A. By the mayor.
Q. Are they appointed for definite terms? A. Six years.
No. 80.1
2199
Q. They do not have to be confirmed by the council any more? A.
Not now.
Q. Who are the other commissioners? A. Mr. Feitner and Mr.
Paris.
Q. How long have they been commissioners? A. Mr. Paris was
appointed by Mr. Hewitt, two years ago, in the place of Mr. Donnelly;
Mr. Feitner was appointed by Mr. Edson in 1884 and reappointed by
Mayor Grant; I should say this is the smallest number of any
employes employed in any tax office of any city with a population
of 600,000.
Q. That is your tax department has fewer employes than the tax
department of any other city in this country? A. Yes; including
those I have examined, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston.
Q. Having over 600,000? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Will you let me take that list you have been reading from? A.
Yes, sir. [Witness hands paper to counsel.]
Q. Before going into the names will you describe generally what
the duties of the commissioners are who stand at the head of this
list? A. The commissioners are directed by law to take and super-
vise the work done in the department, to make examinations of the
records, and the deputies are directed to assess, under directions,
and after the books are opened on the second Monday in January,
the commissioners are generally employed up to the first of May in
receiving the complaints and affidavits made by those who are
assessed upon the personal lists, both residents and non-residents;
after the first of May, when the real estate records are closed, we
then have thirty days, by law, in which to go over the complaints of
all kinds; we then, generally, are busy looking after the complaints
made upon the real estate and also the corporation.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. But generally your business is to assess both real and personal
property in the city limits for the purposes of taxation? A. Yes, sir;
that is principally the duties of the other commissioners and that is
my duty, besides attending to the other matters, that I am obliged to
attend by law.
By Mr. IVINS:
}
Q. What are the duties of your secretary? A. He attends to all the
clerical part in relation to that bureau; the banks are put under him.
Q. What bureau? A. The tax department; the banks are under
2200
[SENATE,
his direction in relation to receiving from each of the banks a list of
their stockholders and to receive affidavits from the stockholders who
can swear off their bank stock under the laws; he generally, then,
extends all the tax against each and every shareholder; he keeps the
records of all complaints and generally is busy doing clerical work
for about ten months in the year.
Q. What is his name? A. Floyd T. Smith.
Q. How long has he been in the department? A. He was appointed
by Mr. Wheeler in 1875, I think.
Q. You gave the names of your fellow commissioners? A. Yes, sir;
Mr. Feitner and Mr. Paris.
Q. I want to go back to them for a minute; whom did Mr. Paris
succeed? A. Mr. Edward C. Donnelly.
Q. By whom was Mr. Donnelly appointed? A. Mr. Hewitt.
Q. Are you qualified because of your experience and knowledge of
the office to say whether the service was improved by the failure to
reappoint Mr. Donnelly; whether the service sustained a loss by his
going out of it? A. Mr. Donnelly was a very efficient officer; very
efficient.
Q. Was not Mr. Donnelly one of the most efficient officers that you
have ever known, from your experience in the office? A. Always
reliable; thoroughly honest.
Q. Thoroughly informed? A. Thoroughly informed.
Q. Absolutely attentive to his duties? A. Absolutely attentive to
his duties.
Q. Whom did Mr. Feitner succeed? A. George Vanderpoel.
Q. Now, as to your real estate deputies; describe in general terms
the duty of one of these deputies? A. They are each parcelled out
a number of districts; Mr. Birmingham has the first, second, third,
fourth, fifth and sixth wards; Mr. Strahan has the sixteenth,
eighteenth and eleventh wards; Mr. Wagner has the twentieth and
twenty-first wards; Mr. Connelly has the nineteenth ward, on both
sides first and second volume; Mr. Murray has the first and second
volume of the twenty-second ward; Mr. Auten Reith from Eighty-
sixth street to One Hundred and Fifty-fifth, East river to Sixth avenue;
Mr. James D. Ames from Sixth avenue to the Hudson river, from
Eighty-sixth street to One Hundred and Fifty-fifth; Henry Bracken,
the twenty-fourth ward; James Degnan, the ninth, fourteenth, fifteenth
and eighteenth; Mr. Hauschall, the twenty-third ward; on the eastern
section, McAuen, the twenty-fourth ward; on the western section and
the upper part of Manhattan Island, north of One Hundred and Fifty-
fifth street.
No. 80.]
2201
Q. Now, the duties of any one of these deputies? A. They are
obliged by law to commence their work the first of the month.
Q. What work? A. To make examinations in their districts of the
values of the real estate; they are then obliged to report to the com-
missioners all changes made from the previous assessment, and those
weekly reports are made for the purpose of letting the commissioners
know how they are performing their duties; that is done up to the
first of December.
Q. You mean by that that they continue to send in weekly reports
from the first of September to the first of December? A. From the
first Monday in September to the first of December; then they are
allowed fifteen days to go over their districts to make a supplementary
report in regard to any improvement that might be commenced
between the first of September and the first of December.
Q. Can we readily get some samples of those reports? A. Yes, sir;
they are on record; anything that you want.
Q. They cease returning those reports of which you speak, the
weekly report, on the first of December; then what do they begin to
do? A. They then commence to make up their record books and copy
their field books, so as to open their books to the public on the second
Monday in January; in the meantime, they are obliged, before that
time, to make an affidavit before the justice of the Supreme Court that
they have made an examination, under the usual oath, that they have
examined every piece and parcel of property in their district, and
made a fair and honest assessment.
Q. Now, going back to the time when they are sending in these
reports between the first Monday in September and the first of
December, they are at work on their field books, are they not? A.
They are at work in their district on their field books every day except
Wednesday; they are obliged to be in the office every Wednesday to
meet whatever taxpayers might have complaints or for the alteration
of anything on their map in accordance with any deed produced by
parties who want to have such alterations made.
Q. Is it their practice to go through their several wards each man
with his field book and assistant, and look at each piece of property
in the ward? A. Go through each street in their district.
Q. And in so looking at each particular piece of property in the
ward, compares the valuation which he would assess it at with the
valuation which it was assessed the previous year? A. A fair ordinary
valuation in accordance with the valuations of the surrounding prop-
erty, and be guided by the assessment of the past year.
[Senate, No. 80.]
276
•
2202
[SENATE,
Q. Well, as to methods and mode of examination, we will take that
up later; these weekly statements then simply report the differences
as they appear, being the result of that investigation in the field?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then from the first of December to the second week in January,
they are busily engaged? A. Writing up their records.
Q. What records? A. The records that are to be opened to the
public from the second Monday in January until the thirtieth of April.
Q. What do you call those records? A. Those are the records of
all the real estate in their respective districts.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. That is a summing up? A. A summing up.
Q. Of the work they have been doing from the first of September to
the first of December? A. The first of January they have got to do
it; they generally get through by the fifteenth of December.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. What are those books known as? A. They are record books;
annual records of real estate.
Q. From the first of January until April, what do these twelve
deputies do? A. From the second Monday in January, when the
books are opened to the public up to the first of May, they are obliged
to be at their desks every day to give any information to any taxpayer
who would inquire or receive any complaint or application that will
be made by such taxpayers for reduction of the assessments of real
estate, where they think that they are unduly assessed or out of pro-
portion to the adjacent property.
Q. Do persons complaining of assessments appeal in the first
instance to the real estate deputies? A. They do; yes, sir.
Q. Now, suppose the real estate deputy were to be of the opinion
that the assessment entered in his field book and transcribed in the
record, was an improper, unfair or unjust assessment, would he have
any power to act for the purpose of altering that? A. No, sir.
Q. Then nothing can be done in case complaint is made to one of these
real estate deputies without an appeal being first made to one of the
commissioners? A. We have blank applications which I will send
over and get one for you that are furnished to each party that com-
plains; he can fill that up, or it will be filled up for him and let him sign
it; those are gathered together every five days; then they are entered
into an application book in case any of them should be lost so that
we can have a duplicate made and they are referred then after they
No. 80.]
2203
are recorded in the application book back to the deputy to make an
investigation and to answer the complaint that is made.
Q. For the deputy to answer the complaint? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then, in those cases the complaint to the deputy being so
entered and being so called to your attention without any further act
on your part, puts the deputy at once on his defence of the particular
assessment that is complained against, does it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you then call up the deputy and question him in regard to
that particular complaint? A. Those are all filed away, because the
commissioners are busy receiving the affidavits of those on the
personal record; those are filed away until the latter part of April,
or after the first day of May, and then they are taken up and the deputy
is called in and he has a written report on the back of the application
answering the complaint that has been made; that is examined by
the commissioners.
Q. The very deputy who is complained of is then the person to
whom the complaint is referred in the first instance? A. Yes, sir;
it is referred back to him.
Q. Now, suppose one of those deputies being complained of by a cer-
tain taxpayer for having over assessed his property, were to pay no
attention to the complaint, how would it come to your notice? A. I
can only tell you my experience that in ten years I might go back, I
have never heard over four applications or complaints being made to
the office that have been mislaid or lost.
Q. The deputy really takes the complaint by handing one of these
blank papers to the party and telling him to fill it in? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is not that about all there is of it? A. Wouldn't you like to
see one.
Q. Yes; we will send for one in a minute; now, after May what do
your deputies do? A. A little previous to the first of May as the
work is being summed up in regard to the complaints made on real
estate, we furnish each of the deputies with a book, called a receiver's
book, the same size, the same number of pages, in fact the same in
almost every way, for them to take an exact copy of their record-
book as corrected, so that they will be enabled to make and send those
receiver's books to the board of alderman upon the second Monday
in July; those books are the same books that are now furnished to
the comptroller whereby or where he can receive the tax and give
out the tax bills and tell each individual just what they are assessed
for; so we have three sets of books, a field-book, and record-book and
a receiver's book.
Q. And the receiver's book is a copy of the record-book? A. Yes, sir.
2204
[SENATE,
Q. Corresponding exactly with the book in your department, but
enabling the collector of taxes in the comptroller's office to make the
collection? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When are those books sent into the board of aldermen? A.
They are obliged to be sent in on the first Monday of July of each
year.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Your department does not collect the taxes? A. No, sir; have
nothing to do with receiving money there.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Your department is, in reality, more of an assessing department;
is it not? A. Altogether.
Q. And you are the real assessors of both real and personal prop-
erty for purposes of taxation in this city? A. For the purpose of
taxation.
Q. And the so-called assessors have nothing to do with the assess-
ment of either real or personal property for the purposes of taxation
for the support of the city government? A. Except this to take and
perform their duty in relation to making their figures about the ordi-
nary values.
Q. No; I say the board of assessors? A. Oh, no; they have nothing
to do with it; they are distinct altogether.
Q. Now, between the date in July, when these books are finished
and the time the real estate deputies go into the field again, what are
their duties? A. Well, we suppose, and the orders are given that
they shall take hold of their field books and their maps and compare
them each and every piece, and make corrections where it is necessary,
and, also, to take and review their field books in regard to anything
in the shape of new ownerships or new additions, or any subdivisions
that might be made; there is very little to do in our office between
the first Monday in July and the first Monday in September; very
little to do, indeed.
Q. You say to work at their maps? A. Yes.
Q. Do they themselves make their maps? A. No, sir; we have a
surveyor.
Q. You have a surveyor who makes all the maps? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who makes the alterations in the maps? A. The surveyor.
Q. He makes those on the requisition of the deputy or of the com-
missioner? A. On the requisition of the owner of the property after
producing a survey made by a city surveyor or the deed; no other
No. 80.1
2205
way; and no alterations made on any piece of property in arrears of
taxes or assessments.
Q. Your maps then simply show parcels as those parcels are desired
to be shown by the owners of the property? A. Ward numbers.
Q. So that if I own a block I may have it, if I so wish, divided up
into five or ten or fifteen parcels? A. If it is vacant; yes.
Q. If it is vacant? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Or I may allow it to lie in one single parcel if it is vacant? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. And the parcels numbers constantly do not in any sense repre-
sent the number of lots in the city? A. No.
Q. So far as improved property is concerned, each particular piece
is a parcel; is it not? A. Not in all cases; mostly, though not in all
cases.
Q. What would the exception be for a row? A. No; for instance,
take the Domestic Sewing Machine Building, situated on the south-
west corner of Fourteenth street and Broadway, that covers several
different parcels owned by different individuals, where they lease it
for a number of years; there we make one assessment for the entire
building, but we do not wipe out the ward numbers because they are
owned by different parties.
Q. Those cases are rare, are they not? A. Yes, sir; very rare com-
pared with a hundred and seventy-five thousand pieces that we have.
Q. Generally speaking, so far as each house or building is con-
cerned, it has a right number of its own? A. Generally.
Q. Now, is there anything on your records which indicates the
ownership of the property? A. We have a name opposite each piece;
whether that name is correct or not I do not know; we try and have
it correct.
Q. What means do you take to secure this correctness, if possible?
A. By parties coming in to inquire in rela tion to assessments, by
asking if they are owners.
Q. If I bought a piece of property from Senator Fassett and Sena-
tor Fassett has bought it from Senator McNaughton, and he had
bought it from you, it might nevertheless follow that that property
would stand in your name on your books for years? A. Without
anybody came down there to notify us.
Q. Until I came there and asked to have the name changed? A.
Yes, sir; we do not care anything about the names; I tell my deputies,
it is my instructions, never to look at a name; there is the property.
Q. And it is entirely immaterial as far as your work is concerned?
A. Don't care anything about the name.
2206
[SENATE,
Q. There is nothing in the law that requires you to pay any atten-
tion, directly or indirectly to the question of ownership? A. Noth-
ing at all.
Q. That is one of the reasons, is it not, that prevents the compila-
tion of statistics from your office showing how many persons pay
taxes on a certain sum and how many pay taxes on a certain other
sum? A. You can't get at it in our department; you can get in the
receiver's department.
Q. Can it be got in the receiver's department? A. Generally pretty
correctly.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. What is the receiver's office? A. Receiver of taxes.
Mr. IVINS. It is a bureau in the comptroller's office.
Q. Now, we will take up these deputies? A. Mr. Birmingham, I
believe, is the first I mentioned.
Q. How long has he been in the service? A. I should judge ten or
twelve years.
Q. By whom was he appointed? A. I think he was appointed by
Mr. Donnelly and Mr. Ashton and Mr. Vanderpoel.
Q. Do the commissioners appoint all the subordinates in the office?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. They appoint them by a majority vote? A. It is by civil service.
Q. Your office is a civil service office? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And all of them subject to competitive examination.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. That does not affect the deputies, does it? A. Yes, sir; every one.
Q. You said he had the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth
wards? A. Yes, sir.
!
Q. They are among the most important wards in the city, are they
not? A. They are the most important because they vary so in relation
to the style of property located in them.
A.
Q. The most important of those wards is the first, is it not?
The first; it has become so by the concentration of all business from
all parts going in there.
Q. What are the boundaries of the first ward? A. Liberty street
south.
Q. That consequently takes in all those large buildings which have
recently been put up? A. Mostly all of them.
Q. Has Mr. Birmingham during this entire time been in the ward,
in these six wards? A. No.
No. 80.j
2207
:
Q. Who preceded him? A. Mr. Roberts was there; he was
appointed minister to Chili.
Q. Was Mr. Birmingham at that time a deputy? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember what wards Mr. Birmingham then had? A.
He had the eighth, fourteenth, ninth and fifteenth.
Q. Now, who was the second man that you have named here, the
second deputy? A. Strahan, I named him second; he has the
eleventh, sixteenth and eighteenth; that, of course, takes in from river
to river and part of an L, running down as far as Rivington street;
from Rivington to Fourteenth, from the Bowery to the East river.
Q. How long has he been in the service? A. Perry was appointed
about two years now; he was in the office previous for several years,
between 1874 and 1881.
Q. As what? A. He was clerk first off and then a deputy, and he
was removed by Ashton I think in 1881, and then reappointed two
years ago through the civil service on application made by the tax
board for a deputy; the cause of that application was that we had a
gentleman who had charge of Mr. Perry's district by the name of
Martine, and in marching up Broadway one day with the militia he
was suddenly struck down, paralyzed, and we had to apply at once
for a man to take and complete his work.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. What was the cause of his removal? A. We never removed
him, we reduced him; we kept him on there, kept him on the pay-
roll while he was in the hospital, and after he came out of the hos-
pital we found that he was not capable of going on with his duties
and we reduced him to a position of deputy.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. I thought you said Strahan? A. You asked me about Perry?
A. No; I asked you about the second man you named; that is
Strahan.
Senator FASSETT. Well, we had better get this straight now.
Q. I asked you what districts Mr. Strahan had and then I asked you
how long he had been there? A. Strahan has the sixteenth, eigh-
teenth and eleventh; he has been there since 1874.
Q. Who is the third man? A. The third man is Wagner; he has
charge of the twentieth and twenty-first.
Q. How long has he been there? A. He was appointed in 1869.
Q. The next one? A. Connelly; he has charge of the nineteenth
ward.
2208
[SENATE,
Q. How long has he been there? A. He was clerk for six years,
appointed in 1873, was deputy in 1879, and has been deputy ever
since.
Q. Who next? A. Murray, he has charge of the twenty-second; he
was appointed in 1873, in the fall; Auten Reith, twelfth ward, he was
appointed in 1872; Ames was appointed in 1869; Bracken was appointed
in 1873; he had charge of the twenty-third and twenty-fourth wards
at the time the annexation took place; Degnan was appointed in 1885;
Hanschell was a clerk for several years, and when we subdivided the
twenty-fourth ward was made deputy several years ago, and when the
subdivision of the twenty-fourth ward was made we made application
to the civil service board and McAuen was sent down as the head of
the list; that was four years ago; that is all.
Q. Now, there is allotted to each of these deputies a clerk, is there
not? A. All of them have one clerk except the deputies of the
twenty-third and twenty-fourth wards; they have two clerks, because
they have a very large field-book and a large area to go over.
Q. What do these clerks do? A. They go out with the deputies;
they have the field-books and the clerk carries the map and the tape-
line, accompanies the deputies through the work in the field and assists
them in helping them to make up the record-book and receiver's
book while in the office.
Q. What is the salary of the deputy? A. Twenty-five hundred.
Q. What is the salary of the clerk? A. Fifteen to sixteen hundred.
Q. Now, which of these papers is the application for complaint?
A. This paper is the real estate application; we furnish those.
[Paper referred to marked Exhibit A of this date.]
Q. These are the applications for the reduction of assessments on
personal property, are they not; one resident and the other non-
resident? A. No; those are blanks altogether, resident and non-resi-
dent; there are other blanks for resident and non-resident of personal
property, for those engaged in business here. [Papers referred to
marked Exhibits B and C of this date.]
Q. Is there any notification sent out of the assessments that are
levied on real estate? A. Only notices given through the press that
the books are open for public examination and correction from the
second Monday in January until the thirtieth of April.
Q. Then in that regard the system differs from the one that prevails
in regard to personal property? A. It does; under the law it don't,
but in regard to the custom of the department it does, because we
call attention by sending out to each and every one on the personal
book that they are entered for so much; if not, the people would not
No. 80.].
2209
come there, and we would have a large amount of arrears to collect
which it would be impossible to do.
Q. Notifications are then sent for assessments of personal property,
but no specific notice of assessments of real property; that is the case,
is it? A. Yes, sir.
Exhibits A, B and C of this date are as follows:
EXHIBIT A - OCTOBER 16, 1890.
| N. B.- A separate application must be made for each ward.]
Page...
To the Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments :
The undersigned represents that he is the owner of real estate
known as No.....
ward designated on the ward map as No...
block No.....
street, in the...
. in
He finds that the same has been assessed on the assessment-roll of
1888, at a valuation of $ .....
•
Whereas, the same should
have been, in his judgment, valued at not more than.
to be in proportion to the assessed value of
adjacent property, and in accordance with marketable value thereof.
[Here state in detail the special facts upon which the application is
based.]
He therefore asks that the same may be reduced to the amount
stated.
New York,
Endorsed: Block...
..188..
Page.
Ward...
Applications for reduction of assessed valuation of real estate known
as ward No.....
t
street, asssessed at....
188..
.188..
New York..
The assessed valuation of the property referred to in this petition is
hereby fixed at $
Commissioner of Taxes and Assessments.
[Senate, No. 80.]
277
2210
[SENATE,
EXHIBIT-OCTOBER 16, 1890.
STATE OF NEW YORK,
CITY OF NEW YORK.
RESIDENT.
SS.:
.., being duly sworn, deposes and says,
that on the second Monday of January, 1889, he was the owner of the
following described shares of bank stock:
Shares.
Banks.
Assessed value.
Shares in all assessed at a total value of $.
That the full value of all personal property, exclusive of said bank
shares, owned by deponent and not exempt by law from taxation—
on the second Monday of January, 1889, did not exceed $. . . . . . . . . . ;
that the just debts owing by deponent on said date amounted to
*.
and that no portion of such debts has been deducted
from the assessment of any personal property of the deponent other
than said bank shares or has been used as an offset in the adjustment
of any assessment for personal property whether in this or in any other
county or State for the year 1889.
Subscribed and sworn to before me,
this .... day of
1889.
}
Commissioner of Taxes and Assessments.
EXHIBIT
OCTOBER 16, 1890.
NONRESIDENT.
STATE OF NEW YORK,
SS.:
CITY OF NEW YORK.
+
, being duly sworn, deposes and says,
that on the second Monday of January, 1889, he resided in the county
State of
of ....
owner of the following described shares:
·
and was the
Shares.
Banks.
Assessed value.
No. 80.]
2211
Shares in all, assessed at a total value of $.
That the debts due by..
Monday of January, 1889, amounted to $.
on the second
exclusive of
the portion of such debts which has been used as an offset in the
adjustment of any other assessment for personal property, whether in
this or any other county or State, for the year 1889.
Subscribed and sworn before me, this
....day of...
1889.
Commissioner of Taxes and Assessments.
Q. Now, you have one chief deputy; who is he? A. Mr. Bell.
Q. Is the general executive officer subject to the commissioners?
A. Subject to the commissioners-the general executive officer-in rela-
tion to most of the real estate, but I utilize him, because I make him
look after things in relation to the armory board; he is a clerk of the
armory board; the armory board consists of commissioners without
any salary; we are not allowed anything for stationery or ink, but we
manage to get along.
Q. How long has Mr. Bell been in the department? A. I appointed
him when I was made commissioner, because I have known him for
twenty years.
Q. What was his business prior to that time? A. He served his
time in the Morgan Iron Works; he was a machinist and then became
a draftsman, and we needed such men in the cffice.
Q. You have one deputy for personal property; who is he? A. Mr.
Bell is the deputy for the personal department.
Q. You have' on your memorandum one chief deputy and one
deputy for personal property? A. That is Mr. Cadwell; he was
appointed in 1864, I think,
Q. What are his duties? A. Supervising the corporation; looking
after the personal department.
Q. Twenty clerks, including law clerk? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What does the law clerk do? A. He looks after all bills while
the Legislature is in session and calls the attention of the com-
missioners to anything that might effect the local government; he
helps the secretary and files all the papers and assists in the personal
department whenever we are short of help or crowded.
Q. Who is the law clerk? A. Taggart; he was one of the chief
clerks under Mr. Hewitt, and Mr. Hewitt found him a very valuable
man, and we were short of a man and he was recommended.
Q. Is he a lawyer? A. He is a lawyer; yes, sir.
2212
[SENATE,
Q. Is he not in any other business? A. Not that I know of; I
believe he was connected with the Evening News, but whether he is
now or not, I don't know; I know he is a very attentive man, and he
is there during the hours between 9 and 4 every day.
Q. One map clerk; who is he? A. The map clerk is a man named
there are two men that divide that responsibility; one is Connor, and
the other is an old Irishman, who has been there for some time; I
know his name very well, but can't just think of it; Barney Riley.
Q. What do the map clerks do? A. They take the maps out of the
safe every morning and lay them on the counters, and as any tax-
payer comes in and wants any reduction, or if there are any alterations
he wants to have made, they go to the surveyor with them, and they
generally look after the custody of the books, records and maps.
Q. What are they paid? A. One thousand two hundred and $1,000,
I believe.
Q. They are not skilled employes at all, are they? A. No; Connor
is a very good, intelligent man, a very well educated man; Riley is not;
Riley was there several years before I was made commissioner.
Q. Is he intelligent enough to do his work? A. Oh, yes; we use
him as a messenger, and we use him for everything.
Q. One janitor and time-keeeper; what do you pay him? A. Well,
he is the same one; Connor does that; the work is divided between
those two men, time-keeper, custodian, janitor, messenger; we have
two men for all that work.
Q. Two assistants; what is meant by that? A. Assistants for our
surveyor.
Q. Well, you say here two assistants? A. That is the surveyor's
department; there are two; the two are obliged to keep renewing the
old maps; the maps are not in a very good state of preservation; they
are used a great deal, and they need to be renewed very often; any
complaints that are made in regard large plots of land up town,
they are obliged to go there and make alterations.
Q. Henry W. Vogel I find on your pay-roll as your surveyor? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. How long has he been surveyor? A. Well, I had him appointed
in place of Mr. Black; Mr. Black had been there for a good many
years, and we wanted most of the work done in the surveyor's depart-
ment in the twenty-third and twenty-fourth wards, and I found that
Vogel had done most of the work in the park department, and so I
asked him to come over and do the work for us, and so I had him
appointed in place of Mr. Black; I did not know who he was at the
time; he was recommended very strongly.
No. 80.]
2213
!
Q. Is this one of the field-books [referring to book]? A. That is a
map.
[The field-books are not produced, either being in the field at,
present, or being locked up, each deputy being responsible for his
own field-book.]
Q. The record of assessments is a fac simile of the field-book, except
that the latter is in ink, the former being in pencil; that is correct, is
it? A. Yes, sir; all being in pencil except the ward numbers, the
ward numbers being always in ink.
Q. Now, I produce record of assessments in the eighth ward, 1890;
I turn to page 84, entitled "Spring street, south side;" the first
column is, owner or occupant, description of property; first column,
size of lot, second column, size of house, third column, stories high,
fourth column, houses on lot [meaning number of houses on lot,] the
next column is the street number, the next column the ward number
the next column value of the real estate, the next column corrected
amount, the last column remarks; now there are certain red figures
in the remarks column; the red marks in the remarks column are
references to maps; is that correct? A. Our indexes for pages on maps.
Q. The size of lot is entered here; how is that determined? A. By
the sizes given on the map, taken from the production of the deed
from time to time.,
Q. Under the column "size of houses," I find the word "covered;"
that means that the entire parcel is covered? A. The entire parcel.
Q. I find opposite the name J. Redmund, the size of lot to be
twenty by twenty-five? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then the size of house, twenty by forty-eight, showing what part
of the lot is covered by the building? A. Showing that the rear part.
Q. Now, in expending the value of real estate, as in this specific
case of J. Redmund, which is No. 330 Spring street, the extension
$6,500 is made? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That covers both land and buildings? A. Land and buildings;
the ordinary marketable value of the property.
Q. Now, in reaching this valuation, is a separate valuation first
made of the lot and then a valuation of the building on the lot? A.
Not generally.
Q. The true valuations are made together? A. They are both
combined.
Q. Is there any system in the office whereby valuations in any cases
are arrived at first by determining the value of the land and then by
determining the value of the buildings on the land? A. Not for
assessment purposes.
2214
[SENATE,
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Is this column, "value of real estate," supposed to contain a
statement of the full value of the property or its assessed value?
The assessed value.
A.
Q. What ratio does that stand to the market value? A. There is a
question as to that, Senator; I claim that in nearly all cases our rates
on the ordinarily marketable value of property, where there is no
object for the party to specially hold the property, that the valuation
is eighty per cent; this is so in most all cases; there are some cases
above and some below that.
Mr. IvINS.-That will have to be taken up later. That is all technical
matter at present.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Now, I have a book which is marked, "Record of applications for
reduction of taxes, 1889, 1890;" this is the book in which applications
for reduction that you have referred to are entered? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That book shows in the first column, the date; second column,
name; third column, street or avenue, in which the number is given as
well as the name, or number of the street and avenue; ward number;
the assessed valuation, that is, the valuation at which the property is
already assessed when complaint is made; the next column shows the
amount of reduction claimed, the next column shows corrected
valuation; now, I find here a series of entries in that column in red
ink; the letter "C," which is opposite the first three enteries on this
page, stands for what? A. Confirmed the original assessment.
Q. Opposite the fourth column, I find that the assessed valuation
was $6,500, the reduction claim was $2,000, and I find the corrected
valuation written $6,000? A. Five hundred dollars was taken off.
Q. No memorandum is made of the amount of reduction allowed,
except so far as it appears by a comparison of these two columns?
A. That you will find upon the blank application.
Q. Now, in what form will you find this on the blank application?
A. That application is recorded and put away, and upon the back
of the application is marked $5,000, and the commissioners name is
attached to it.
Q. What commissioner's name? A. Well, my name is there.
Q. Does it contain names of all the commissioners or the name of
any one commissioner? A. Well, I do not know about all three; I
know mine is there.
Q. Well, is that reduction the act of the board or the act of the
individual commissioners? A. Well, I suppose I make that reduction
myself.
No. 80.1
2215
1
Q. What is the practice, that is what I want to get at; are these
reductions theoretically the act of the board or the individual com-
missioner, or practically the act of the board or the individual com-
missioner? A. They have been the customary act of the board.
Q. But any commissioner may make a reduction? A. And show it
to the other commissioners.
Q. And if the other commissioner confirms it, that becomes the act
of the board? A. Yes; two out of three.
Q. As a matter of practice, are these reductions shown by one com-
missioner to the other? A. They are handed in bunches after one
commissioner acts on them to the other commissioner, because they
would not be legal unless signed by more than one.
Q. It is a rule that they are signed by more than one commissioner?
A. As a rule they are.
Q. Do you suppose there are any cases where they are not signed
by commissioners? A. I rather think not.
Q. If there was, would it be a case of accident? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I find the date of decision marked in here; that is the date of
the decision of the original commissioner in the first instance? A. In
the first instance.
Q. In other words, it is not the date of the legal act of the board as
a board? A. No, sir.
Mr. Ivins.— Now, I show the committee the map book in order to
show the manner in which these maps are kept. [Producing book.]
This is the map book of the fifteenth ward; the first map is an out-
line map of the ward, which is an index page for the maps which
follow the index page, and shows that map 1 includes the blocks
between Norwalk street, Division street and Hester street; map 1
shows those; then it shows the number of parcels.
Q. Now describe to us what these numbers are; the numbers in red
ink are the ward numbers? A. Yes, sir.
Q. The numbers in black ink are the surveyor's numbers? A. The
sizes.
Q. Now, where is the building shown on those? A. The building
is not shown.
Q. That is because there are no buildings? A. Oh, no; the build-
ings are examined by the deputy, and then the sizes of the buildings
are put on the record.
Q. The size of the building does not appear on the map, nor the
class or character of the building? A. No, sir.
Q. You have some map for the guidance of the commisioners that
contains that information? A. Insurance maps.
2216
[SENATE,
Q. What are insurance maps? A. They are maps found in all the
insurance companies in the city.
Q. The insurance companies then take your maps as a basis? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. And for their own use mark the character, size and style of the
building on the map? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then you have duplicates of the insurance maps? A. We
have one complete set collected each three months.
Q. By whom are these insurance maps kept? A. They are kept by
the chief deputy and furnished by Ferras and Brown.
Q. Anyone can buy them? A. Anyone can buy them.
Q. The red numbers, which are the ward numbers, you say are
never changed? A. They are never changed without the production
of the deed upon application made by the owner of the property.
Q. Upon application of the owner? A. Upon application of the
owner; for instance if two pieces are covered by one building, pro-
vided the property was free and clear, the numbers could be changed.
Q. On the other hand, if the owner took three of those lots and put
up four buildings and wanted four numbers instead of three you
would subdivide it? A. Then we would subdivide it.
Q. What record do you keep of ward numbers? A. We do not
keep any record of ward numbers except the record made here
Q. I have here "new buildings and alterations, 1889" [producing
book]; is this the book to which you referred as the book in which
entries have to be made showing the changes in assessments ? A.
All new buildings and alterations of every kind and description are
recorded upon this book.
Q. The book being divided first into wards, and then in each ward
there is a column for street or avenue, new buildings or alterations,
showing the character of the new building, or the character of the
alteration, showing the location of the building, showing the cost of
the alteration or the new building? A. And the ward numbers on
which the new buildings are.
Q. Now how do you arrive at the cost? A. We get that from the
application made by the owner to the building department of what-
ever the cost of the new buildings or alterations will be.
Q. Every person altering or building in the city has to file with
the building department not only a statement of the proposed
alteration or building, but an estimate of the cost? A. An estimate of
the cost.
Q. And then these costs are on those estimates and not on actual
costs? A. They are placed there on the owners estimate, subject to
our examination when the work is done.
No. 80.1
2217
Q. Do you ever make such examination when the work is done?
A. Three times during the year.
Q. That is, you do not mean to say that you examine each building
three times? A. We watch the progress of that work.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Is the amount of cost, as thus developed, added to the amount
of assessment? A. Not in all cases.
Q. Well, what are the exceptions? A. If a gentleman wants to
order a tenement-house into a store, and tears out a lot of partitions
and rebuilds it all over again, it might cost him $4,000 or $5,000, still
it does not add that much to the value of the building at all; if a man
has to put on a new roof—
Q. In case of repairs and alteration you only add what you think
has been added to the merchantable value of the buildings? A. To
the market value of the buildings.
Q. In case of new building, is the amount added to the previous
assessment? A. Not in all cases; if there was a private house in a
tenement location, and there was a depreciation in value for several
years, and they had been assessed a certain amount, and they would
tear down that building and put up a tenement-house in its place, we
could not assess the full value of the tenement-house, because we
would have to deduct what we had already assessed the private
house for.
Q. But where new buildings are placed upon a lot? A. Then we
take the marketable value of the buildings and the land.
Q. Do you determine that by the application that is filed with the
building department? A. That is one of the elements to be consid-
ered; if a man has made an honest application, we are guided
considerably by it; if we find that he has not made an honest
application, we are not guided at all by it.
Q. Do you ever assess a building for less than the amount on the
application handed in to the building department? A. We find very
often that a man puts up a house in an isolated neighborhood where
there is no travel or no improvements, he puts up a building there,
and we do not attempt to assess it at the cost of the new improvement.
Mr. IVINS. The assessments for this present year are very much in
excess of the assessments for last year? A. Yes, sir; both on the
real and personal property.
Senator FASSETT.—What do you mean by that?
Mr. IVINS.-The aggregate of assessed valuations for the purpose
of taxation. Now, I have here a statement which I will prove by Mr.
[Senate, No. 80.]
278
2218
[SENATE,
Tate when he comes, but which can be taken, as proved already,
because it is a transcript from the books; I will take this for the
purpose of asking the commissioner a few questions on that point.
Q. Now the total assessed valuations of real estate for purposes of
taxation in this city in the year 1880 were $942,571,690; now, whát
was the total assessed valuation in 1881?
Senator FASSETT.-That was only the real estate valuation.
Mr. IVINS.-I am only taking real estate valuations; we have not
touched personalties in any way.
Q. The assessed valuation for that year was $976,735,000, being an
increase of $34,164,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was the total assessed valuation of real estate in the year
1882? A. One billion thirty-five million two hundred and three
thousand eight hundred and sixteen dollars.
Q. Being an increase of $58,000,000? A. Whatever it is.
Senator FASSETT.-About that.
Q. What was the total valuation for 1883? A. One billion seventy-
nine million one hundred and thirty thousand six hundred and ninety
dollars.
Q. That was an increase of $43,926,000 over 1882? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was the total valuation for 1884? A. One billion one
hundred and nineteen million seven hundred and sixty-one thousand
five hundred and ninety-seven dollars.
Q. That was an increase of $40,630,000, was it not, over 1883? A.
Whatever it is.
Q. What was the valuation for 1885? A. One billion one hundred
and sixty-eight million four hundred and forty-three thousand one
hundred and thirty-seven dollars.
Q. It was an increase of $48,681,000? A. Whatever it is.
Q. Eighteen hundred and eighty-six? A. One billion two hundred
and three million nine hundred and forty-one thousand and sixty-five
dollars.
Q. Which was an increase of $35,497,000? A. Yes.
Q. Eighteen hundred and eighty-seven? A. One billion two hun-
dred and fifty-four million four hundred and ninety-one thousand
eight hundred and forty-nine dollars.
Q. Which was an increase of $50,550,000? A. Yes.
Q. Eighteen hundred and eighty-eight? A. One billion three hun-
dred and two million eight hundred and eighteen thousand eight
hundred and seventy-nine dollars.
Q. Which was an increase of $48,327,000? A. Yes.
Q. Eighteen hundred and eighty-nine? A. One billion three hun-
No. 80.]
2219
dred and thirty-one million five hundred and seventy-eight thousand
two hundred and ninety-one dollars.
Q. Now, will you tell us 1890? A. One billion three hundred and
ninety-eight million two hundred and ninety thousand and seven
dollars.
Q. Now, what was the increase in real estate valuation in the year
1889 over the year 1888? A. I have not figured it.
Senator FASSETT. It was about $28,000,000.
The WITNESS.—It was somewhere around $28,000,000; these figures
are right. [Referring to paper.]
Q. I find by reference to statements made in the comptroller's office
that the total increase in valuation for 1889 was $93,139,277; does that
include the increase in personalty as well as realty? A. Personalty
and corporations.
Q. As well as realty? A. As well as realty; there was about
$60,000,000, I think, on realty; the balance was upon corporations and
real estate; there was about $67,000,000 upon personal and about
$26,000,000 upon corporations; the balance on real estate.
Q. Now, the increase on realty was $28,759,000 in 1889 over 1888
was it not? A. Yes.
Q. And in 1890, over 1889, it was $66,711,000? A. About that.
Q. Now, the total assessment in 1890 for real estate purposes is
shown by these figures, which we have made to be $1,398,000,000,
which is a net increase during the past ten years of $455,000,000? A.
I suppose that is right; I have not figured it.
Q. I will prove that when I prove the tables; being an increase of
$455,000,000 in real estate values according to your assessments during
the past ten years? A. Yes.
Q. Of which $455,000,000 about $95,000,000 appears to be the increase
during the last two years? A. Pretty near that; yes.
Q. Ninety-five million dollars increase in real estate values in the
last two years out of a total increase in the last ten years of
$455,000,000?
Senator FASSETT. Just about $95,000,000.
Q. Of this total increase of $455,000,000 in the last ten years then,
twenty per cent has been made in the last two years? A. Yes.
Q. Well, now will you explain to the committee how it is that twenty
per cent of the entire increase for ten years appears to have accrued,
during the past two years; is that corresponding with any actual
increase in values? A. Well, that can be explained.
Q. Explain it, please? A. For the past several years improvements
have been going on steadily north of Fifty-ninth street upon the west
2220
[SENATE,
side, and north of One Hundred and Sixteenth street, upon both sides
of the city, and while they were going on gradually for several years,
about three years ago the fever took in a lot of new builders, specu-
lators and men who generally see what is going to take place ahead,
who jumped in and bought large plots of land on the west side where
the parks were being laid out and improved, and as they found
customers taking their property as fast as they improved it, it
encouraged them to buy more and about two years ago the entire
west side north of Fifty-ninth street was almost one mass of building
materials, and upon every block was started new improvements.
Q. That is what is known as the nineteenth ward, is it not? A.
The twenty-second ward; the nineteenth ward has been lying dead
for several years.
Q. I find that the increase in valuation in 1890, over 1889, in that
ward appears from your books to be $6,979,000? A. In what ward?
Q. The twenty-second? A. The twenty-second ward, $6,000,000;
yes, sir.
Q. That was over 1889? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in 1889, the increase over 1888, was $4,341,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in 1888, the increase over 1887, was $8,605,000? A. Yes,
sir; that is the year they started in there.
Q. And in 1887, the increase over 1886, was $9,856,000; now what
was the year they started in? A. They started in three or four years
ago, just about that time.
Q. Let us refer to the west side north of Fifty-ninth street; what
ward is that? A. The twenty-second.
Q. Now, we find that the increase in 1890, over the assessments of
1889, was not so large in that ward as the increase in 1887 over the
assessments of 1886? A. That is very easily accounted for, for this
reason that in 1885, 1886 and 1887, they had almost monopolized the
west side west of the park, and in 1889 and 1890, they were obliged
to go further up and strike into the twelfth ward to get into a new
field for operations.
Q. Then the fact remains that this increase of $95,000,000, which is
twenty per cent of the total increase for the last ten years, and which
increase of $95,000,000 has occurred within the last two years, is not
to be accounted for in any way by growth or development in the
twenty-second ward, because the increase for the last two years in
the forty-second ward is not so large as the increase was for the years
1887 and 1888? A. No; it is going further up now.
Q. Now let us take the next ward north? A. The twelfth ward.
Q. What are its boundaries? A. North of Eighty-sixth street by
No. 80.]
2221
the Harlem river on the east side, and the Hudson on the west, up
to Spuyten Duyvil.
Q. Going right across the entire city? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Taking in the entire city north of Eighty-sixth street? A. Yes,
sir; up to the Kingsbridge road.
Mr. IVINS — Now, I will put on the record here the increases during
the last ten years in that ward. I will give them in round figures for
the present purposes. They will appear accurately when put in
in detail.
Q. The increase in 1881 was ten and one-half millions? A. In
that ward?
Q. Yes. A. Yes.
Q. The increase in 1882 was $11,800,000? A. Yes.
Q. The increase in 1883 was $6,000,000? A. Yes.
Q. The increase in 1884 was eleven and three-quarter millions, the
increase in 1885 was six and three-quarter millions, the increase in
1886 was 12,000,000, the increase in 1887 was 24,000,000, the increase
in 1888 was eighteen and one-quarter millions, the increase in 1889
was eleven and three-quarter millions, and the increase in 1890 was
20,000,000; it appears, then, that the increase of 20,000,000 in 1889
was not materially larger than the increase of 18,000,000 in 1888? A.
Oh, no; I will have to explain to you there, in relation to the twelfth
ward, and also in relation to parts of the twenty-second ward, if you
go back ten years; if that property was reachable by rapid transit,
instead of the increase being $20,000,000 the increase would be
$50,000,000; there is an increase in one year, and there is then a relapse,
and you will find that the great increase in one, and the small increase
in the next year, is because they build too many buildings; those lots
are mostly improved by speculators who buy large blocks and improve
them all at once; very few individual owners go in there and build;
in regard to the development of the north part of New York, we are
suffering severely because we can not reach it, and we want to
reach it.
Q. We are suffering severely for want of rapid transit? A. If you
people will take a look around the city instead of investigating these
small matters
Q. Do you think this is a small matter; this increase? A.
The increase would be $225,000,000, provided we had proper
accommodations.
Q. I find that the increase in the years 1887 and 1888 aggregate
$42,000,000; I find that the increase in the years 1889 and 1890, in this
particular ward, only aggregates $31,000,000? A. That is all right.
2222
[SENATE,
*
Q. That is all right? A. Certainly.
Q. Very well; then the increase in this particular ward during these
last two years does not in any sense account for the fact that the
increase during the past two years has been twenty per cent of the
total increase of the past ten years? A. Because there have been
other increases right throughout the city.
Q. That is what I want to get at; but we have taken two now of the
rapidly developing and improving districts? A. The most improving.
Q. And we find that during the past two years $95,000,000 out of
$445,000,000 of increase has occurred, nevertheless, we find that that
is not due to the increase in the twenty-second ward because the
increase during the past two years has not been so large in the second
ward as it was during the preceding two years? A. No; the increase
has been more distributed during the past few years.
Q. Now, we find in the same way that this exceptional increase dur-
ing the past two years is not accounted for by an increase in the
twelfth ward, because the increase in 1887 and 1888 in the twelfth
ward was larger than in 1889? A. Yes.
Q. What is the other most rapidly developing ward in the city? A.
As far as the costs of improvements are concerned, the chances are
that the first ward is the one, provided we could assess the new
improvements as finished, it would show that there is more money
being spent there in regard to new buildings but they go on so slowly
that we have to assess them in progress until such times as they are
finished, because it would be a hardship to assess those persons, to
assess the buildings at the full value without them receiving any
benefit from their property.
Q. Now, I find that the aggregate increase in the first ward for the
years 1888 and 1887 was about eight and one-half millions? A. Yes.
Q. Whereas, for the years 1889 and 1890, it was only eight and
three-quarter millions? A. Yes.
Q. Then, that ward, which is the third most rapidly developing
ward A. It was then.
Q. [Continuing.] Does not account for this exceptional increase ?
A. No; because at that time, three years ago, they were improving
along Wall street, and there were very large buildings belonging to
corporations, the Standard Oil Company, the Equitable building and
large pieces of property along the line of Cedar and Pine, and other
buildings; they were being finished, and they were assessed, and it
made a very large increase in that ward; outside of all new buildings,
the concentration of business there and the terminus of the rapid
No. 80.]
2223
•
transit roads all being there, all this had its effect; and then a great
many people from Jersey and Brooklyn, who were obliged to live out
of the city are hiring offices down there, and people who had old build-
ings found it to their advantage to build new ones for the purpose of
competing with the others, and therefore the increase in 1887 and
1888, and for several years before that, was very large.
Q. Now, the aggregate increase for the entire city during the years
1887 and 1888, was $98,000,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. The aggregate increase for the entire city during the years 1889
and 1890 was $95,000,000; now, we will take the first ward; the increase
in the first ward during the first period of 1887 and 1888 was more
than twice as great as the increase in the first ward has been during
these past three years? A. Yes; I can tell you the reason why.
Q. I do not care to have the reason why? A. Oh, no; I must tell
you the reason why.
Q. Well, then tell me if you must? A. I will tell you; in 1886 and
1887 the Mutual finished their building, and it took up the entire
block, and that compelled alterations all around Liberty and Nassau
streets; the extension of the Mills building; Central Trust Company
was finished that year.
Senator FASSETT.— Quite a number of those big buildings came to
completion that year?
The WITNESS.-Yes, sir.
Q. The fact is there was very much greater development those two
years, 1887 and 1888? A. In the finishing of new buildings.
Q. Bringing those new properties within the field of assessment?
A. Yes.
Q. More than there has been during the past two years? A. Yes.
Q. Then, so far as the first ward is concerned, this very large.
increase of $95,000,000 is not due to increase in the first ward? A.
Only partly.
•
Q. I mean as compared with the increase for the years 1887 and
1888; not at all, is it? A. The ratio; we have to change as we find
the property; next year the third ward may show an increase on the
completion of the large buildings there; all property in the second
ward is changing and increasing in value, except along the line of
the railroad.
Q. What is the boundary of the second ward? A. Liberty, John,.
Fulton, Spruce streets, Broadway and the river.
Q. What was the increase in the second ward in 1887 over 1886 ?
A. I did not bring that.
2224
[SENATE,
Q. Have you not got that here? A. No; I only brought the last
year of the assessment; it is all here, though, in detail [referring to
paper]; you can get it from one of the reports.
Q. The increase in 1887 was $199,200? A. Yes.
Q. Was there not a decrease there of $71,000 in '88? A. In
regards to that, after the books had been closed, perhaps may be
the corrected valuation showed that we did find that the property
was over-assessed, and made a decrease from the previous year of
$71,000; that is so.
Q. The increase in 1889 was $564,000? A. That might be.
Q. And the increase in '90 again was $622,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, will you tell us how it happens that there is an increase of
about a million two hundred thousand in the last two years, while
there was a decrease in '88 over '87 of 71,000? A. That is very easy
explained indeed; the property in the first ward has become so valu-
able in regards to the purchases there, and held by large owners and
owners who don't sell real estate, and controlled by corporations, that
those who want to work upon the border of it, and get as near as pos-
sible, are obliged to go on the second and third ward; that has only
taken place this last two years; they are obliged to go as near to the
center as they possibly can without being damaged for it, and the
consequence is, the second ward is commencing to feel the effects of
it, and the third ward is commencing to feel the effects of it, and so
it will continue, as those wards are taken and controlled by large
owners and property owners, and corporations, and rich people who
don't sell real estate, which we have lots of them, same as the
Hoffmans, the Goelets, the Armstrongs and the Astors and Loril-
lards, and all those people I can name; there is lots of people here.
who keep purchasing from time to time, and who never sell.
Q. What is the third ward? A. Its boundaries are Liberty, Read,
Broadway and the river.
Q. The increase in the last two years in that ward appears to be
about double what the increase was during the preceding two years?
A. Yes; same reasons exactly.
Q. What are the boundaries of the fourth ward? A. They come
in Spruce, Catharine, Chatham Square or Park Row to the river.
Q. Why is it that the increase during the past two years in that
ward is about double what the increase was in the two preceding
years in the same ward? A. Well, the opening of the bridge, which
is, of course, ancient history now, but at the same time the advance-
ment of property right along the line of the bridge there, and open-
ing up on Park Row, the new World Building, the Times Building
No. 80.]
+
2225
and the Potter Building, and the concentration of all large offices
down there, has had its effect upon Park Row, and property has
advanced there very rapidly within the past two years; large manu-
factories are getting in around Rose street, and property is advancing
so that we are obliged to take notice of it.
Q. Now, I find that the increase has been considerably larger in the
fifth ward in the last two years, than it was in the preceding two
years? A. Yes.
Q. Well, why is it that there has been a larger increase in the fifth
ward in the last two years, as compared with the preceding two years?
A. The opening up and paving, and improving along the line of Hud-
son and West Broadway, the concentration of the grocery business-
Leggett's, Thurber's, and those people who are obliged to follow that
large trade have improved there; there have been several exchanges
opened there and large buildings around St. John's depot; although
land has improved, the buildings there have depreciated, but the
water fronts and piers have become very valuable and there mostly
the increase has gone on; we find that the water fronts are being con-
trolled every year by parties who will pay more for them than almost
any private party can afford to pay, and upon those values we are
obliged to follow the assessments; that has been mostly in the fifth
ward this last two years.
Q. Now, in the sixth ward I find that the increase for the past two
years is only about half as large as the increase for the preceding two
years, was it? A. Yes.
Q. Why is that? A. Well, the sixth ward is stationary this last two
years; the agitation of the improvement along the line of Elm street
and Crosby street which has been before the board of street openings
for the past two years, has kind of stagnated things there so that people
are afraid to build or improve for fear they won't be on a proper grade;
we couldn't take and tax their property very heavily because they
were in an uncertain state.
Q. Now, in the seventh ward I find that the increase for the years
1887 and 1888 was only $834,000, but during the last two years that
the increase over and above that $834,000 has been $2,570,000? A.
Yes; a strange thing.
Q. That shows one of the most remarkable advancements in the
whole list, does it not? A. Yes, sir; it is a very queer thing.
Q. Why is it? A. The new mode of improving the tenement houses
in tenement locations, allowed by the board of health to be built eight
foot deep, four families upon a floor with a stairway in the center, has
encouraged a class of people over there, Hebrews and Bohemians and
[Senate, No. 80.]
279
2226
[SENATE,
Germans to vie with one another in the relations to the purchase of
gound where old buildings were on, and there, to the great surprise
of everybody, ground has advanced twenty-five to sixty per cent within
the last three years, and the improvements over there would almost
carry out the increase that we made, although I was not fully in accord
with that.
Q. You were not fully in accord with it? A. No, sir; I was not.
Q. Just state what your position was with regard to it? A. Well, I
felt as if perhaps maybe that the owners of property ought to have
been treated a little more leniently; it was occupied by a poorer class
of people, who depreciate property very rapidly, and without that
a person has some experience with them, they are to take and be
guided by the sales that are made, which, in a great many cases are
false, or where there is very small cash; I protested, to a certain extent,
against that increase there; I did not feel as if it was justified.
Q. I find that the increase in that ward in the last ten years has
only been $4,244,000 but of which sum $2,570,000 is the increase for
the past two years? A. A great deal of that was new improvements;
there was a great deal of new improvements, a lot of old houses torn
down, and more than two-thirds of that increase was for new improve-
ments, but still, for all that, it was, I thought, rather pressing them.
Q. Generally speaking, have real estate values in the seventh ward
advanced as much in the last two years as real estate values have
advanced in the nineteenth, twenty-second and twelfth wards? A.
Oh, they have advanced a good deal more than they have in the
ninteenth, but not advanced as much as they have in the twenty-
second or twelfth.
Q. And although they have not advanced as much as they have in
the twenty-second or twelfth, the ratio of increase on the assessment
list appears to be very much larger; is that the fact? A. Well, they
are larger because, perhaps, may be they were assessed a little below
what they ought to have been assessed, but now I feel as if they had
been pressed a little too hard; I rather protested against that.
Q. How is your protest recorded? A. Well, I called the matter up
several times; we had no power to direct the deputy to assess below
a fair, ordinary marketable value; we could only recommend; and I
wrote the last thing I done I wrote a letter, because you can read
the letter; I took a copy of it yesterday; I didn't know at the time I
wrote the letter-[presenting letter to counsel).
Q. Did the writing of this letter grow out of the assessments in the
seventh ward or grow out of the assessments generally? A. Well
you will see; I am pretty busy at that time of year.
Mr. Ivins read the letter referred to as follows:
No. 80.]
2227
"DEPARTMENT OF TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS,
COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE,
STAAIZ ZEITUNG BUILDING, TRYON ROW,
NEW YORK, December 18, 1889.
Commissioners Michael Coleman, president, Thomas L. Feitner, Edward
L. Parris:
(Copy.)
Mr. BELL.-On account of the numerous other business engagements
that I had to attend to since the provisional estimates have been passed
upon, and in getting ready for the final estimates, also in work apper-
taining to the finishing of the Eighth and Twenty-second regiment
armories, I have been unable to give as much time as I would like to,
to the details of this department. This morning in going over the
reports of the deputies, I find that the increase made in the seventh,
tenth, eleventh, thirteenth and seventeenth wards should be especially
re-examined, as, in my judgment, this species of property should be
treated with great leniency, as it is occupied mostly by the poorer class
of tenants, and is subject to rapid depreciation.
I think the deputies' increase should be somewhat modified before,
the opening of the books, as to let the property remain at the pro-
posed valuation of the deputies for the coming year would, in my
opinion, be great hardship upon the owners of such real estate.
I have called the attention of Mr. Birmingham to the concentration
of large and important buildings being erected in the lower part of the
city to be occupied by corporations, and also to the rapid increase of
land surrounding them; I have also called the attention of Mr. Deg-
nan to the assessments of his district, especially those parts of the
fifteenth ward in the line of business moving upwards; also, to the
water fronts and that property surrounding the new market in
the ninth ward; I have also called attention to Dr. Ames and Mr.
McAuen of the improvements in their districts on the west side, and
to that section opened up by the finishing of the new bridge.
I wish you would see that Mr. Murray is following up closely
the buildings in progress, and also examine particularly that section
by and between sixty-sixth and Eighty-sixth street.
I think Broadway, between Seventeenth street and Forty-second
street, should be looked after.
Sales along the line of Sixth avenue should not be taken as a crite-
rion in all cases as the basis on which the deputies should act.
Certain sales have been made and very high prices obtained, because
great rivalry in competition compel the parties who purchase the
2228
[SENATE,
property to pay more than what would be considered a fair marketable
· value; still it must be considered that this avenue is in the center of
the city, and the land will always maintain a very high price and will
always be considered a first-class investment where parties will be
satisfied with a lower rate of interest upon their investments.
I am disappointed that the weekly reports of the deputies have not
been examined as heretofore, and be sure to keep this information away
from the deputies, as if they find that their work is not examined by the
commissioners and followed up as it has been heretofore, they may
become careless and neglectful, and the work will not be pushed
forward as rapidly as it is necessary, in order to have the books prop-
erly examined before the second Monday in January in accordance
with the law.
The numerous changes, necessary in the twelfth ward, recommended
by you some two years ago, have kept the new surveyor from making
much progress in carrying out the block system, but, as you have
stated, the law must be changed before we commence.
Yours, respectfully.
MICHAEL COLEMAN.
Q. Now, I will take up the wards which you specifically refer to here
in addition to the seventh ward which we have already touched;
following the lines of this letter we pass from the seventh ward to the
tenth? A. That increase was mostly upon the two important streets
there; we found along the line of Grand street there that the people
were vieing with one another in regard to getting locations, where
the property had been tied up for years in the hands of owners, where
they did not feel disposed to sell; the prices offered by those people
on account of the good will of their business and being there so many
years, compelled them to pay a great deal more than what an ordinary
person would pay, but still we were obliged to take the prices that
were paid and increase in proportion.
Q. Well, I find as matter of fact that the increase in that ward
during the years 1889 and 1890 were only about half as large, not-
withstanding, as the increases in the same ward during the years 1887
and 1888? A. Yes.
Q. And still that the increase was too large? A. I felt, you know,
as if-
he don't confine himself altogether to those two avenues, but
he had gone over the entire area; the tenth ward had always been
pretty well assessed; it has never been low; the property there has
always commanded fair prices, but it required a great deal of atten-
No. 80.1
2229
tion and a large percentage of the income to keep it in thorough
repair.
Mr. IvINS.— I want to correct the statement which I just made with
regard to the increase there being smaller for the years 1889 and 1890
than it was in 1887 and 1888, the fact being that the increase in 1887
was $325,000 and in 1888 $386,000? A. That is nearer right.
Q. In 1889 the increase was $229,000? A. That is all right.
Q. But in 1890 the increase was $1,949,000? A. Nearly $2,000,000.
Q. An increase of nearly two millions of dollars in the last year as
compared with an increase of about a quarter of a million dollars the
year before, as compared with an increase of about a third of a million
dollars in 1888? A. Well, I called attention to it in that letter.
Senator FASSETT.- The seventh ward and sixth ward are the first
two wards you have found where the increase in 1889 as over against
the increase between '87 and '88 was in proportion to the total
increase.
Mr. IVINS.-We have found that in the first ward, which has been a
rapidly developing ward, and in the twenty-second ward and in the
twelfth ward, all three of which have been rapidly developing wards,
the increase has not been proportionally as great in the last two years
as it was the two years before.
Senator FASSETT.— Nor in proportion to the total increase of the last
two years over preceding years.
Mr. IVINS. Yes, but we now find that in the seventh ward and in
the tenth ward there has been an increase during the past two years
proportionately very much larger than the increase during the pre-
ceding two years.
The WITNESS.—We are shifting in New York very rapidly; you
can't sit here and determine whether we are right or wrong without
an examination.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. It appears then in this way: That the assessed valuation of that
ward for the year 1890, total assessed valuation was twenty and three-
quarters millions of dollars; that is, the tenth ward? A. That is right.
Q. And of that sum of 20,000,000, two millions and a quarter is
increase in the last two years? A. The main increase was last year.
Mr. IVINS.-In other words, the increase in property valuation in
that ward, all around, so far as appears on these assessment-rolls, has
been ten per cent, gross, in the last two years.
Senator FASSETT.—And about nine-tenths of that the last year.
The WITNESS.-Yes; about nine-tenths the last year; yes.
2230
[SENATE,
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Or nine per cent in the last year? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, as matter of fact, have property values in that ward
increased nine per cent in the last year? A. I could not say that they
have, but that would be no reason why we should not increase it, if
they have not; if we found the assessments of 1889 lower than what
they ought to be in proportion to the assessments of other properties
throughout the city, whether the increase was ten or whether it was
twenty, we should equalize it with other wards, but I claim that we
have perhaps gone a little too heavy upon those wards; I have claimed
that right through —I don't intend to defend all the assessments in
our office; I do all I possibly can to try to equalize them and try to
correct them and try to teach them if I know how.
Q. Speaking of equalization, if you find it necessary to make an
equalization of this kind this year it would be due to the fact that
you had not assessed property the year before, would it not? À. It
would be due to the fact that changes would advance property in cer-
tain locations; we don't stand still in the city; we shift every month.
By Senator FASSETT:
2
. Q. Every large building makes a change so much? A. Certainly,
of course.
Mr. IVINS. That is perfectly understood.
The WITNESS.-Two years ago you could go down to Liberty street
and take and buy property in the neighborhood of twenty dollars a
square foot; the Jersey Central of New York started a large building
and you couldn't buy it at fifty dollars a foot.
Q. To make it concrete, put it in this form: If the real estate in the
tenth ward were to-day sold at the market rates, in your judgment,
would it sell for nine per cent higher than it would have sold a year
ago? A. It would sell higher because real estate is becoming the
only solid safe investment, and there is no part of the word where it is
so safe as it is in the city of New York.
Q. Does not that apply just as much to the first ward, twelfth and
twenty-second? A. No; not at all; there is a line you can draw to the
tenth ward, along the line of the Bowery which is a great thoroughfare,
and Grand street, which is the old business street, has not yet reached
its limit of values, and the corners through the tenth ward are sought
after by investors and people are getting satisfied with the lower rate
of interest.
Q. Is investment, in reality, at the market price, a better invest-
ment in the seventh ward than it is in the first ward? A. That is
No. 80.1
2231
according to who owns it and controls it; there are people who
wouldn't own a tenement house in the seventh ward, while a banker
would take it and take three per cent, who did business in the first
ward; talk about real estate here, and I'll put you in the hole.
Q. You said this was accounted for because of that increased value
of real estate as an investment? A. Yes.
Q. Now, is not real estate in the first ward just as good an invest-
ment, if bought fairly at the market price, as real estate in the
seventh ward or tenth ward? A. According to what you consider
the market price, and according to who owns it.
Q. You get a great many "accordings" in there. A. Yes; that is
it exactly; there are so many elements in the real estate.
Q. We must get back to your own proposition; is real estate invest-
ment, in the seventh ward, a better investment than real estate invest-
ment in the first ward? A. Generally speaking, an investment is an
investment-
Q. Well, that's what I thought; that is exactly what I thought. A.
And it is altogether owing to how a man feels about investment in
relation to its income; some are satisfied with a small share of income,
while others are not quite so satisfied with a small income, but are
willing to labor and get a large one; to take care of a business house
in the first ward, where you have one tenant, a larger tenant it is
much easier for a man, a rich man, to take three and one-half per
cent than for him to get five or six for a tenement house in the
seventh ward; it is altogether according to what people consider an
investment.
Q. Is it due to the fact that real estate investment in the seventh
ward is considered so much better than real estate investment in the
first, that the increase in the seventh ward has shown a very marked
percentage in the last year, and that the increase in the tenth ward
has shown almost ten per cent in one year? A. Yes; it is considered
so by those who seek after that kind of property in the tenth and
seventh; I know there has been a rush made for it by a class of
people who had small accumulations in savings banks, getting a low
interest upon it, and they thought perhaps may be by laboring and
taking a large piece of property, with a very large crowd upon it, liv-
ing in it and taking care of it, that they could become landowners,
and get a better rate of interest for their money.
Q. Is that rush for those investments shown by an increase along
the line of the tenth ward, in market values of ten per cent during the
last year? A. I should judge in some parts perhaps, may be it would
be five per cent.
2232
[SENATE,
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. That is the maximum? A. That is the maximum; I wouldn't
say ten.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Now, so far as market values are concerned, has not the increase
in market values in the average for real estate in the first and the
twelfth wards been as great as the increase in market values in
the seventh and tenth wards? A. Been far ahead of it.
Q. Notwithstanding which fact A. But you must understand
that the increase in the twelfth ward and the increase in the first ward
are for different purposes; the increase in the first ward is for people
who don't stand for forty or fifty thousand dollars for a location; large
corporations with large capital; according to the increase of the
twelfth ward, is upon the basis for an investment or for a sale.
Q. In the first and twelfth wards the increase in market values has
been greater than the increase in market values has been in the
seventh and tenth? A. Generally speaking, yes.
Q. Nevertheless, the assessments do not show so great an increase
in the first and twelfth wards, as compared with two years ago, as
they do in the seventh and tenth wards? A. They should not hardly
two years ago, because the seventh and tenth wards has shown more
improvements and more new buildings this last year back than they
have for several years previous to that; that is the reason why the
increase was there.
Q. Is not this the fact; that the increase in assessments now appear-
ing on the books really bears more heavily upon the older and less
rapidly developing portions of the city than it does upon the newer
portions, like the twelfth ward, or than it does upon the rapidly
developing portion like the first ward? A. Well, I should say for the
care that that kind of property requires, and for the rapid depreciation
which it is subjected to, and the rate of interest that you receive from
it, that it does bear more heavily upon them.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. That was the cause of your protest, was it not, Mr. Coleman ? A.
Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You did not express that in terms here, but that was really the
occasion of it? A. Oh, yes; I have had large experience in both of
those; I have had large experience in all those things, and I know.
No. 80.1
2233
*
Q. You do not say that particular thing here, but that is what your
protest was founded on when you wrote this letter? A. Yes.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. You would not write a formal protest like that unless you felt
there had really been some very serious mistake made? A. I felt as
if perhaps may be it might have been an error in judgment.
Q. We do not suppose it would be an error from any other cause?
A. No.
Q. You don't think there was a willful determination to injure
certain classes of property as over against certain other classes?
A. Oh, no.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Now, in the eleventh ward? A. That ward has been increased
more this last year than it has for five years, I guess.
Q. That is what I want to show in the figures; the increase in the
years 1887 and 1888 aggregated $568,000, and during the past two
years the increase was $2,940,000, and during the last year alone the
increase was $2,691,000? A. Yes.
Q. But during the year 1890 the increase is more than five times as
large as the increase was for the two years, 1887 and 1888. A. That
is so.
Q. And out of a total valuation of $20,000,000 there has been an
increase of $2,691,000 in one year this last year? A. Yes.
Q. In other words, there has been an increase of thirteen per cent in
the assessed valuation in the eleventh ward in the past year? A. Yes;
I am sorry to say there was.
Q. Where is the eleventh ward? A. The eleventh ward is bounded
by Rivington street, Avenue B and Fourteenth street and the East
river.
Q. That is an old part of the city, is it not? A. More valuable
almost for business and for rental purposes twenty years ago than it
is to-day, and received its death blow when they killed John Roach.
Q. But notwithstanding the death of John Roach, the taking away
of that element of prosperity, the fact that it was worth more for
building and business purposes twenty years ago than it is to-day,
the values have been increased thirteen per cent in the last year?
A. There was some justification in regards to increasing it, because in
all the years gone by I would always try to direct the deputy in
charge of these wards where business had gone away from, like the
[Senate, No. 80.]
280
2234
[SENATE,
eleventh, which was a home of the shipbuilding and iron founders, to
treat that ward very leniently, but the deputy last year knew more
than I did, so
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. This had to be done by a vote of two of the commissioners ?
A. No; the commissioners have nothing to do except it is to correct
erroneous assessments; the assessments in the eleventh ward is not
above the market value, and as long as the deputy assessed only the
market value the commissioners have no right to make him reduce it.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Then it is possible in certain wards the assessment shall be on
the basis of the full market value and in certain wards the assessment
shall be on the basis of ninety per cent, and others eighty per cent?
A. That is a matter of judgment.
Q. Is it possible for that to happen? A. It is possible, but it aint
so; it aint so; the eleventh ward—there has got to be some new life
put into it; it is into dry rot; the closing of the old Morgan iron
works, the Novelty works, the shipping going away from there, has left
the docks vacant and going to pieces, and now there is a large number
of yards and storage places along the line there that will not be
hardly needed, and there is no life there; for that reason I done all
that I possibly could to get the deputy to take the situation in; I
couldn't do any more than try and teach him; that is all I could do.
Q. Yet, notwithstanding the fact that you say that property is not
so valuable for building or business purposes as it was twenty years
ago, for the last ten years the property has steadily been increased in
assessable values? A. Yes.
Q. There has never been a decrease? A. There has never been a
decrease.
Q. And notwithstanding such increase right along for this entire
time, which has aggregated four and one-half millions of dollars in the
last ten years, that more than one-half of the ten years increase has
happened during this one single year? A. As the years go by there
and as the old foundries and workshops disappear, new tenement-
houses go up; that increase from a hundred to two hundred thousand
dollars each year is all for new improvements, but there has been no
general increase; taking the entire ward, until this last year, and this
last year there has been a general increase upon every piece of
property.
[Recess until half-past 2.¯
No. 80.]
2235
HENRY M. TATE, recalled, further testified as follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Mr. Tate, have you made an investigation of the department of
taxes and assessments? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And this is your report [showing paper to witness]? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have made these figures up from a careful study of the
books in the department? A. The reports of the commissioners —
report of the department of taxes and assesssments.
Q. And the statements contained therein are to you known to be
correct and accurate transcripts of the accounts as shown on the books
of the reports? A. Yes, sir; the pay-roll was taken from the comp-
troller's office.
Q. You say the pay-roll was taken from the comptroller's office?
A. Yes, sir.
[Report marked Exhibit No. 1 of this date.]
MICHAEL COLEMAN, recalled, further testified as follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Mr. Coleman, is this a correct statement I now present to you of
valuations and amount of taxes from the year 1805 to date? A. To
the best of my knowledge and belief.
Q. Made up from the records? A. Made up from the records.
Mr. IVINS.-I will offer that as Exhibit No. 2.
[Paper marked Exhibit No. 2 of this date.]
The WITNESS.— I will have copies of it made and sent to you.
Q. Now, Mr. Coleman, I find by reference to the comparative state-
ment prepared by Mr. Tate, that the increase of values in the thir-
teenth ward for the years 1887 and 1888 was, in round numbers,
$705,000; that for the years 1889 and 1890 it was, in round figures,
$2,190,000; I find that the total increase in valuations in that ward for
the past ten years has been only $3,520,000, and that the increase
during the past year alone has been equal to more than half of the
entire increase for the past ten years? A. That is so, sir.
Q. How do you account for that? A. The deputy, in going through
the wards this past year, from the sales that was made there in differ-
ent parts of the ward, felt as if there should be a general increase
made throughout the ward; it is a part of the city-
Q. Who was that deputy? A. Mr. Perry.
Q. When was Mr. Perry appointed? A. About two years ago.
Q. At whose request was he appointed; which commissioner? A.
I do not know; he came from the civil service.
2236
[SENATE,
Q. Came from the civil service? A. Yes; I don't know anything
about that; it was a section, from 1839 in New York up to 1852 — that
was a mechanical section.
Q. You mean it was a district in which mechanics and artisans
lived who worked? A. Yes, sir.
3
Q. What were its boundaries? A. Grand street, Rivington street,
Norfolk street and the Bowery; the values there changes same as
they did in the eleventh ward; the shipping interest and the foundry
interest and the oyster business that had been carried along there
for a great many years had rather moved to other sections; the dry-
dock that was there years ago had been shipped down at the foot of
Pike street, and Brown & Bell's old ship-yard had gone out of
business there was nothing there to take and raise values for a
number of years back, but about two years ago the class of people
who commenced to get into the seventh ward and improve the
property there, and commenced to pay large prices for it, went over
the boundary line into the thirteenth ward, right across Grand street,
and they commenced to speculate and operate there, and that was the
cause last year of this large increase, that in the judgment of the
deputy that it was below the marketable value of the property
surrounding it.
Q. You think that the property in that district is as valuable to-day
for business, residence or manufacturing purposes, as it was twenty
years ago? A. The marketable value of the property from 1868 up to
1872, in the thirteenth ward, was as high then as it was at any time
since that up to about two years ago; about two years ago values
commenced to change there, and perhaps now they have got upon the
basis of what they were in 1871.
1
Q. Now, I find that during the last ten years, notwithstanding that
fact, there has been an increase in the assessed values of $3,520,000 ?
A. That was caused by old buildings that was occupied by one family,
by a class of people who lived downtown who were successful in
business, who vacated their old property and moved uptown, and
instead of rerenting it in the same state, they tore it down and put up
tenement-houses, and those increases in the last few years were almost
all for new improvements.
Q. Is it your judgment that the property in the thirteenth ward has
increased more in the last year than it did in the preceding ten years
altogether? A. Well, perhaps, may be not; you must remember that
the values in that section of the city have increased very slowly since
1879; when the tide turned after the panic of '73; it was six years
before things commenced to look bright in any part of the city.
No. 80.] -
2237
1
Q. Let me ask you right there, when was the highest tide of real
estate values in New York city, so far as you know? A. Well, they
ran about from '71 in the fall to December '72.
Q. Have real estate values ever been higher since that time?
A. Oh, yes; they have been higher in certain parts of downtown,
where large corporations have combined together, and on the west
side of Central park and also in the twelfth ward; although the elevated
railway might be a flimsy structure and it might do special damage, but
it has been a godsend to New York.
Q. Leaving out the first ward, west of Central park and north of Cen-
tral park, have real estate values in the rest of the city reached the
high-water mark of 1872 since that time? A. I think perhaps they have
right in the throat of Broadway, north of Fourteenth street and south
of Twenty-fifth street; there large buildings have gone in since that
time Arnold and Constable's, Lord and Taylor's, Sloan's, and
hotels-Bartholdi, and lots of those places that concentrated a class
of business around there that perhaps might be that property, held
same as it was by large holders of real estate, would bring more to-
day than it ever did bring before in New York, and also along the
line of Sixth avenue.
Q. Generally speaking, going over the whole island, however,
would you say that Manhattan Island, according to the average
market prices, taking all parts of the city together; the parts where
there has been an improvement, together with the parts where there
has been a decrease, as compared with 1872, is of greater market
value than it was under the market of '72? A. Oh, yes; it is of
greater market value; there are certain parts that has depreciated
very much indeed; for instance, take that section east of the park
and north of Sixty-fifth street, as far up as One Hundred and Fifteenth
on the line of Fifth avenue, fronting the park; there has been rather
stagnated and depreciated values there since 1873; the west side has
taken the turn there and has carried everybody to it.
Q. Now, that has been counter-balanced by an increase in values
in other parts of the city? A. Oh, yes; it has not decreased, the
entire ward, because the improvement between the river and Fourth
avenue has kept up values there so that we could show an increase
every year.
Q. Now, do you believe then that the aggregate of all real estate
values in New York city is to-day larger than the aggregate of all
real estate values in New York city during the high markets of 1871
and 1872? A. Oh, yes; oh, yes; by far, because you can see by the
amount of building that has gone on north of Seventy-second street-
2238
[SENATE,
>
by the tapping of those new roads -new parts of the city up there,
and by the manner in which people were compelled to move out of
the lower part of the city and go up town and erect their bulidings,
and the way speculation has been going on north of Seventy-second
street; the entire city is worth a great deal more than it was in 1872.
Q. That is due, is it not, virtually, to the bringing into the city
of new regions for building purposes? A. Oh, yes; a great deal,
certainly; a great deal, indeed.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. The city has a larger area? A. Double...
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. That increase is almost entirely due, is it not, to the increase in
the area of the city and to the building up of the new parts of the
city? A. Well, the increase is, as far as the area is concerned, since
'74 up to three or four years ago; the people now are crowded in the
river; they can't find accommodations within their means in the
city, and for the last four years they have been going over
into the Twenty-third and Twenty-fourth wards there and erecting
small houses and small homes, which shows an increase there.
Mr. IVINS.-Now, for the purpose of pointing that out, I call the
attention of the committee to the fact that in 1872 the assessed valua-
tions of realty in New York city were $794,000,000 as against
$1,398,000,000 for the present year, and while on that comparison, let
me call your attention to this fact, Mr. Coleman, it appears that in
1872 the personal estate subject to taxation and upon which the tax
was levied, was $306,000,000?
The WITNESS.-Yes.
Q. As against which there is only $298,000,000 to-day? A. I am
surprised that under the present law that we hold anything like
$298,000,000; it is a tax now of the people every year they ought to
be educated to avoid; we only catch the widows and the orpans, who
have no protection and those who are too honest to swear off or too
ignorant to know how to take advantage of the law.
Q. It is not due to the fact there has been a decrease in personal
estate in New York city during this time? A. No, sir; there has been
a large increase since that time.
Senator FASSETT.- Have you any information on which you can base
an estimate as to the relation and percentage of personalty that is
taxed and the personalty that escapes taxation in this city?
No. 80.]
2239
·
Mr. IvINS.— I think if you will defer that question we can bring that
all out. I have a preliminary statement about that, when we come to
personal taxes.
Senator FASSETT.- It will not do any hurt if he can answer that
now, and bring it out afterwards.
The WITNESS.—To answer that you would have to answer it in such
a way that you would know how the answer was given, if you mean
what is and what is not protected by law.
Mr. IVINS.— That is not what he means. What he means is, how do
you get at the aggregate; how do you make an estimate of the
personal property in New York city, to begin with?
The WITNESS. I will answer that question.
Mr. IVINS.- Now, if the committee will excuse me, I would rather
that should not be answered now because it is a very long question
and full of very difficult matter.
Senator FASSETT.
It is very interesting.
Mr. IVINS.- Very interesting, but it throws us right off of this point
of the inquiry.
Senator FASSETT.- Very good. We will take it up in a different
order of proof.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Do you know of any particular reason why this apparently
tremendous increase should have occurred in the Thirteenth ward this
year, as compared with last? A. Only the reflections of values that
the deputy thought in his opinion affected the land within the
Thirteenth ward, and also the manner in which parties sought corners
there and went upon the principal streets, such as Grand street, and
also upon the principal corners that are in that ward, and also the
number of improvements and new buildings erected during the past
two years in that ward.
Q. Have there been twice as many improvements in that ward this
year as there were last year? A. Oh, yes; last year there was
Q. Have there been six times as many? A. Last year there was
about $600,000 worth of new improvements alone in that ward.
Q. Six hundred thousand dollars worth of new improvements? A.
New improvements.
Q. But the increase was $1,805,000, so that leaves $1,200,000 to be
accounted for. A. Well, when a man takes and puts in an application
to the building department, generally, who is a safe man and a proper
man and intends to hold his property, he puts it in a little below what
2240
[SENATE,
the property will cost; they have that purpose in view for the purpose
of evading taxation, or misleading, to a certain extent, and then all
lands surrounding new improvements are affected by the improvement
that goes up, and we certainly must follow the value of those lands.
Q. You said Mr. Perry made these assessments? A. Mr. Perry;
yes, sir.
Q. Who made the assessments in the seventh ward? A. Mr. Perry.
Q. Who made the assessments in the tenth ward? A. Mr. Perry.
Q. Who made the assessments in the eleventh ward? A. Mr.
Strand.
Q. How long has Mr. Strand been in the department? A. Appointed
in 1874.
Q. In the seventh ward I find that the increase of assessments for
the years 1887 and 1888 was $1,101,000? A. Yes.
Q. I find that for the year 1889 the increase of assessments was
$289,000? A. Yes.
Q. But for the year 1890 the increase was $5,745,000? A. Yes,
large increase.
Q. Making an aggregate of $6,034,000 increase in 1889 and 1890
over the increase of $1,101,000 of 1887 and 1888; I find that the total
increase in valuations in that ward for the last ten years has been
$8,319,000, of which total increase, for ten years, $5,745,000 appears in
one year, namely, last year; now, can you account for that?
A. Yes;
I can account for it; the seventeenth ward, on 1879 to 1881, showed
no increase whatever; upon the turning of the tide
Q. Where is the ward? A. The seventeenth ward is bounded by
Rivington, Fourteenth, Avenue "B" and Third avenue.
Q. Joins the thirteenth? A. Joins the thirteenth on one side
only on a corner; it joins the eleventh on one side and joins the tenth
upon the other, the eighteenth on the north; in 1881 things com-
menced to turn all over the city and the increase on property in that
German district was very slow indeed; I think, perhaps, may be the
ward was a little low for the past two years in proportion to what
it should be assessed, and there is no doubt but what Mr. Perry had
some grounds to increase it considerable, but still it is increased so
much that I wrote a protest in regard to the way in which it was done.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. This is part of the territory covered by your protest? A. Yes,
sir; the ward was assessed in 1887, 1888 and 1889 rather low..
Q. Now, I find that the total assessment for that ward was
$41,000,000? A. Forty-one million; that is right.
No. 80.]
2241
Q. And I find that five and three-quarter millions of that forty-one
millions were added in the last year? A. Well, you must take into
consideration -
Q. Now, has property in that ward actually increased twelve and
one-half per cent in value between the years 1889 and 1890? A. No;
it has not, but if we were low in 1889, lower in proportion than that
we should have been with the surrounding wards, the deputy should
not have kept it low; out of that $5,000,000 there was $1,000,000 of
improvements, new buildings.
Q. That will account for $1,000,000 of it? A. That will account
for $1,000,000.
Q. Now, was there an improvement in the market value of other
real estate there except the improvement incident to this $1,000,000
in increased values because of new buildings? A. There was a large
appreciation in the seventeenth ward this past three years; Fourteenth
street and Third avenue, north of Houston street, certainly has
increased very much; along the line of Third avenue there all the
property has increased, the same as it has upon all important avenues
of the city this last three years.
Q. Do you think that the property values of the seventh ward has
increased as much this last year as the property values of the first
ward from new buildings and all other causes whatever? A. In certain
sections; you can't take the first ward against the seventeenth ward
only in certain sections; there is certain property in the first ward that
has not felt any increase whatever; take Market street and Stone
street, and along the line of South street; property in South street, in
the first ward, was worth more thirty years ago than it is to-day.
Q. Haven't there been more improvements in the first ward in the
last year than there have been in the seventeenth ward? A. Yes; as
far as money value is concerned, there is.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Quantitively? A Yes, sir; concentrated in large buildings.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. If there has been 1,000,000 of increased values because of
improvements in the seventeenth ward, don't you suppose there have
been 2,000,000 of increased values in the first ward? A. I would
like to look at the building-book to find that out; the improvements
in the first ward are different kinds of improvements; they are con-
centrated there in one mass of buildings, built for office purposes;
[Senate, No. 80.]
281
2242
[SENATE,
built by corporations who spend more than any one man would spend
for his own special use.
Q. One of the illustrations of that, during the past two years, has
been the enlargement of the Equitable building; has it not? A.
Yes.
+
Q. Then, another illustration is the building of the Union Trust
Company; is it not? A. Yes; but at the same time we have had
them this last two or three years on the books in progress; we couldn't
change ahead and know what was going to be done by the men.
Q. You had the United States Trust Company on the books com-
pleted; didn't you? A. Yes.
Q. That was one of those very large and very fine buildings? A.
Yes;, and the Union Trust Company.
Q. How do you account for it that the increase in values for the
purpose of taxations of real estate, only appear on your books at
$3,608,000 in the first ward, and stand at $5,745,000 in the seventeenth
ward? A. Because the first ward was assessed perhaps nearer its
marketable value according to the ideas of the deputy, than what the
seventeenth was assessed near its marketable value, according to the
idea or judgment of the deputy; that is the reason.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. That is, it depended upon the judgment of the deputy? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. In the absence of complaints by the owners, any district in the
city is at the mercy of the deputy, largely? A. Well, we generally
hear of it.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. When you filed this protest you said this, this morning: "In
going over the reports of the deputies, I find that the increase made,
and the seventh, tenth, eleventh and thirteenth wards should be
especially re-examined, as in my judgment this species of property
should be treated," etc., etc.? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were they re-examined? A. If they were, there were no reduc-
tions made, except perhaps in a few isolated cases.
Q. Do you know whether they have or not? A. I do not.
Q. Did you call the attention of the board to this fact? A. That
was spoken of in the meetings of the board several times during the
past three or four weeks before that letter was written.
Q. Prior to the writing of this letter, you had discussed this matter
in meeting? A. Yes; we felt a little alarmed about it.
No. 80.]
2243
•
Q. Who were we? A. The commissioners.
Q. Feeling a little alarmed about it, what did you do?. A. I wrote
that letter to Mr. Bell, because I was engaged.
Q. This was during the period of the year, up to December
eighteenth, when you were getting out the final estimates? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. And that took you the entire day, as a member of the board of
estimate and apportionment? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you regarded your duties, as a member of the board of
estimate and apportionment, as quite as important as your duties as
tax commissioner? A. We have to be there in all matters; I am
obliged to be there.
Q. In other words the volume of the duties of one position at that
time virtually excluded you from the possibility of devoting yourself
to the details of the other position at that particular time? A. I
couldn't do it.
Q. But you discussed these matters in the board; in what form did
the discussion come up? A. The chief deputy, Mr. Bell, spoke several
times to the commissioners in regard to the increase made there, and
in going over his weekly reports with the deputies, telling us that the
percentage was very large; that the wards had not been disturbed
for several years before this way.
Q. When you say "this way," you mean to any such extent? A.
To any such extent; but an increase had been made every year, never-
theless? A. Oh, yes; an increase had been made every year.
Q. And what was supposed to be at the time, to be a fair increase?
A. It was supposed to be a fair increase in regard to the thirteenth
and the eleventh; the seventeenth would perhaps haves tood a little
more increase in 1888, and 1889, than what we gave it.
Q. What was done in the board — Mr. Bell talked about it? A.
Nothing was done in relation to making any reductions; I talked to
Mr. Bell, and finally I thought the best way I could do was to write
him a letter, and show that letter to the deputy, and see if they
couldn't take and modify the figures.
Q. Why did you address that letter to the deputy, instead of enter-
ing it on the minutes of the board? A. I don't know; I do lots of
things that way.
Q. Did you call the attention of the other commissioners to these
facts? A. They knew it, the same as I did.
Q. Feeling that, what steps did you take other than the particular
one of writing this letter to Mr. Bell, to compel a re-examination? A.
2244
[SENATE,
Nothing, except to discuss the matter with the two commissioners;
we were helpless to a certain extent, because we knew in looking over
the books that Mr. Perry had not exceeded his duty in placing his
property above the marketable value of what it would sell for, and
therefore we felt that we had no right to take and do otherwise than
to try and see if he couldn't modify his ideas as to the value, so that
this property would not be assessed at a higher basis of value than
other property throughout the city, or to change them so much in
one year.
Q. Haven't you the power to compel an equalization where one
deputy assesses at a comparatively higher rate of values as estimated
on the property value than another deputy does? A. We have after
the books are opened; but the complaints were so few in relation to
this large increase, to the number of people who are living in that
ward that there was no necessity for going over the ward to reduce
it again.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. That is, you have not any power to change the figures while they
are still in the field book? A. No, sir.
Q. But only from the first of September? A. From the second
Monday of January to the thirtieth of April.
Q. On complaints? A. On complaints.
Q. You have no power then to take the different wards and
equalize them previous to that time? A. We have the power; but I
don't know where the justice would be in accordance with our oath
of office to take property that is not assessed over what it would sell
for and reduce it; we try and do what we can to equalize it.
Q. There are twenty-three wards, and out of the twenty-three wards
fifteen deputies assess on the basis of seventy-five per cent and the
rest have assessed on the basis of eighty-five per cent? A. Oh, no;
that would be a matter of adjustment between the commissioners and
the deputies; the deputies would take and bring in a few sales there
that would show that his property is not assessed over seventy-five
per cent, and although we might differ with him, still we wouldn't be
able to prove it.
Q. And you wouldn't have any power to act arbitrarily? A. No.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Now, the nineteenth ward has been one of the rapidly develop-
ing wards of the city, has it not? A. Not lately.
Q. Well it has been? A. Yes; between 1866 and up to 1879, the
No. 80.]
2245
nineteenth ward did show a tremendous increase each and every
year, more than any other ward in New York.
Q. I find that in 1887 and 1888, the aggregate increase in valua-
tions in the nineteenth ward was thirteen and three-quarters millions?
A. Yes.
Q. In 1889 and 1890, however, it is only in round figures seven
millions? A. Yes, that is right.
Q. So that there has been a very marked decrease in the growth
in that ward during the past two years as compared with the growth
of the preceding two years? A. Oh, yes.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Providing the estimate is a fair test of that growth, and is as a
matter of fact besides? A. There has been a marked decrease in the
new improvements that have been going on in the nineteenth ward
since the west side has caught the tide.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Out of this $95,000,000 of increased assessments in the last two
years, it appears that the greater part of the increase has been every-
where in the old and less rapidly developing parts of the city, and has
not been in the new and more rapidly developing parts of the city;
does not that appear from the very matter that we have been going
over? A. Tell me the parts that you have mentioned, then I will
know exactly.
Q. The seventh ward? A. The increase in assessments in the
wards lying between Catherine street and Fourteenth street, and east
of the Bowery, shows more of a marked increase for assessment pur-
poses than it does in the nineteenth ward.
Q. Or in the twelfth ward? A. Or in the twelfth ward?
Q. Or in the twenty-second ward, or in the first ward? A. That is
in proportion to the improvements that are made there; yes, sir.
Q. Now in the twenty-fourth ward- that is the upper end of the
city, is it not? A. Yes.
Q. I find that there was a decrease in 1889, from the figures of
1888, of three-quarters of a million? A. Yes; that is because of the
new parks.
Q. But in 1890, there was an increase over 1889, of two millions and
a half? A. Yes; that is all right.
Q. How do you account for that? A. Last year the court con-
firmed the action of the park commissioners in deducting about one-
eighth of the entire area for new parks, and we were obliged to take
2246
[SENATE,
that off of the assessment-rolls, while last year we caught a little of it
by the new improvemenfs that were starting in different parts of it.
Q. There seems to be a great fluctuation; here in 1887, the increase
was half a million? A. What ward?
Q. In the twenty-fourth ward; in 1888, the increase was two
millions and a third ? A. Yes.
Q. In 1889, there was a decrease of three-quarters of a million.
Q. And in 1890, there was an increase of two millions and a half?
A. Yes.
Q. How do you account for that great fluctuation, increasing and
decreasing in values in a period of four years? A. the lines were changed
by an act of the legislature during these years, and parts of the land
that was lying in the twenty-fourth ward were turned over to the
the twenty-third ward, and therefore it showed upon the record that
we had to take that land that was transferred at the twenty-third
ward off the twenty-fourth ward.
Q. That would only appear in one year? A. Only in one year.
Q. What year was that? A. That was four years ago, when that
decrease showed.
Q. That decrease didn't show four years ago? A. Whatever time
it was.
Q. That decrease showed only one year ago in 1889? A. Then I
would explain that by the parks being taken out; there were several
new parks taken out.
Q. The parks are still out this year? A. No; not now; they were
confirmed last year.
Q. They are still out? A. Yes, sir; certainly.
Q. And notwishstanding the fact that they are still out, it will show
an increase of two millions and a half there last year? A. Why
wouldn't we; because all pieces of property surrounding and having a
frontage on those parts jumped up to three times the value of what
they were three years ago.
Q. But was not that equally true of the particular year that they
were taken out in 1889? A. No, sir; because we didn't know they
were taken out just at the time when we had power to reduce or
increase; it was right in the midst of summer; we can only make one
assessment each year.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. That made the assessment so as to figure it out about the
average assessment, and in the meatime the courts came in and took
out those lots devoted to the parks? A. Yes.
No. 80.]
2247
Q. And when that was taken out it brought you way below where
you had been the year before? A. Yes, sir; and then we jumped up
to see if we couldn't get a little of it back.
Q. The next year you made it good and a little more? A. Yes.
By Mr. IVINS:
;
Q. Have you got the statements of the tax rates for the last few
years? A. Yes, sir; you will find it there for the last thirty years.
Q. I find that the tax rate of 1.97 for this year is two points higher
than the tax rate of 1.95 from last year; as a matter of fact, in 1888, it
was 2.22; now, as a matter of fact, although the rate is this year 1.97
as compared with 2.22 in 1888, are the taxes of the city of New York
actually less in the aggregate to-day than they were then? A. To
the present generation perhaps may be the money that they pay out
now at the present time, for those who hold real estate, they might be
a little bit less.
Senator FASSETT.—Put your question in a little different shape.
Q. That involves an entirely different point; does the aggregate of
moneys paid in taxes to-day exceed or is it less than the aggregate of
moneys paid in taxes in 1888? A. I will have to figure what ought to
go in the budget before I could answer that correctly.
Q. If you will tell us what you mean by saying what ought to go
into the budget? A. Up to this year the board of estimate and
apportionment always paid to the sinking fund the interest upon the
bonds held by the sinking fund, and this year they did not; and up
to this year the board of estimate and apportionment always appro-
priated the full sum of money that was placed on the city by the State
Comptroller for the amount of State tax as reported by the State
Board of Assessors; this year they did not.
Q. By how much? A. Oh, a million and a half.
Q. Between a million and a half and two millions, wasn't it?
SENATOR
It was a little over a million and a half?
The WITNESS. Yes. And there is also another item there of a bill
that was passed by the Legislature but was not signed by the Gov-
ernor. There were some that were vetoed by the Governor. We
figured that our proportion of the amount that was signed by the
Governor for State purposes was so much, and we only appropriated
that sum, whereas, if we had appropriated the full amount that we
were called upon to appropriate, it would be about $700,000 to
$800,000 more.
Q. Now, as a matter of fact, although the tax rate appears to be
1.97 per cent as against 2.22 of two years ago, is it not the fact that
2248
[SENATE,
the city is to-day actually expending more money out of appropriation
accounts than it spent two years ago? A. Yes.
Q. It is ? A. Yes.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Then it seems that in addition to the failure of the board of
estimate and apportionment to pay the interest on these bonds as
they formerly did, there is something over 2,000,000 that was not
included in the bill on account of the action of the city authorities in
reference to State taxes; is that right? A. That is a separate item.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Is not this true that the present tax rate of 1.97 has produced by
this process, first I mean as compared with the tax rate of 2.22 of
two years ago, first, by adding $145,000,000 to assessed valuations?
A. For the two years.
Q. For the two years, and increasing the assessed valuations on one
hand, decreasing the apparent expenditure on the other, first by going
to the sinking fund for a part of the moneys to be spent for adminis-
tration, and by refusing to put into the budget a certain proportion
of the State taxes? A. That is so, but I still justify that we were
right in doing it.
Q. The question being apart as to whether you were right or
whether you were wrong, is that so? A. That is so.
Q. That apparent low tax rate then arises from this fact that you
have increased the dividend and decreased the divisor? A. That is
true.
Q. And left a small quotient? A. That is true.
Q. The quotient, however, is only apparent, is it not? A. We will
have to make it up.
Q. Is not it a fact that every man who goes to pay his taxes to-day,
except in very rare cases where there has been a marked depreciation
in the value of property, has to draw his check for a larger sum than
he did two years ago? A. Oh, no.
Q. Why not? A. Because it is not taken out of him individually;
it might be taken out of him in the future, provided he owns the
property.
Q. It is taken out of him individually, isn't it, in all regards
except this, to the extent that money is borrowed from the general
fund and money is borrowed from the sinking fund and money
is withheld from the State taxes with the object of decreasing the
levy? A. I don't say with the object.
No. 80.]
#
2249
Q. With the effect? A. It had the effect.
Q. With the effect of decreasing the levy? A. It had the effect; yes.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. What did you mean by saying, when Mr. Ivins was asking that
question, that you would have to make it up? A. The courts, I
believe, up to the present time, the latest decisions, claim that the
board of estimate and apportionment had no right to draw their own
conclusions about the bills that were approved and unapproved, and
also in relation to the matter now before the court in relation to the
State Board of Equalization, so far the decisions, up to the present
time, have been against us, and I am afraid that New York will suffer
as she has always suffered heretofore by being made to pay a larger
percentage than what she ought to.
Q. That is, you think these amounts that you thought you had
escaped must be made up in the levy at some future day? A. I am
afraid so, or issue bonds, which is the same thing.
Q. It is only borrowing the future? A. Yes, sir; it is only borrow-
ing the future.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Is it, in your judgment, material one way or the other to the
taxpayer what the rate is if the actual expenditure for city govern-
ment is larger than it was before? A. My views on that have always
been one way; I have always claimed that we should have as low a
valuation as we possibly could have and at the same time do our duty
and let the rate take care of itself; I don't care where the rate goes;
the higher the rate is the more careful we will be about public money.
Q. The higher the rate is, isn't it quite probable that the higher
the assessments will be for the purpose of reducing the rate? A. Not
while I have anything at all to do with the assessments; the assess-
ments and the rates are two different things; I don't care where the
rate is; I am looking after the assessments.
Q. Have you ever, as a member of the board, made this calculation
as to where the rate would have been if the assessments of two years
ago still prevail and the board of estimate and apportionment had
not drawn on the general fund or sinking fund or withheld State
taxes? A. No, sir; I never bothered my head about those things.
Q. Don't you know that the rate would have been much higher
than 2.22? A. It would have been higher.
Q. It would have been higher? A. Yes, sir; that is providing that
we had paid the interest upon the bonds held by the sinking fund,
together with the other two items.
[Senate, No. 80.]
282
2250
[SENATE,
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. When you say that there is some advantage in having a high
rate, you mean it would call public attention sharply to how much
money was being raised? A. Yes.
Q. And that the effect of having a low rate is to lull appre-
hension? A. People in New York are prosperous generally, and they
are easily satisfied; they not a complaining class of people by any
means; they are the best payers in the world; you can see that by the
way when the books are opened about the first of September, and
before they are opened twenty days there are 25,000 paid in there;
they are not a complaining class of people; they are easily imposed
upon, as it were.
Q. And the statement of a low rate has a tendency, you think, to
lull apprehension and prevent inquiry? A. Well, it is a low rate;
there is no doubt about that.
Q. I want to get at your reason for your statement a moment ago;
you thought there was a reason why a higher rate was not such a bad
thing, other things being equal? A. I think a higher rate calls public
attention to things, and makes them look after things more sharply
and carefully.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You think that the rate calls their attention to a thing more than
the aggregate sum for which a taxpayer draws his check? A. Oh, I
think the rate does.
Q. Then you think it is very desirable for an administration that
proposes, if it can, to please the community, to produce as low a rate
as practicable? A. If they can do so honestly, it is their duty to do so.
Q. In your judgment, is it doing so honestly when a million and a
half of dollars is withheld from the State taxes? A. I claim it is.
Q. You think it is? A. Yes.
Q. Why? Because upon the examination that has been made and
the showing that has been gone through in regard to the State Board
of Assessors, for the little time that they gave us here in looking over
our records, and what we have placed before them for the last ten or
twelve years to try to prove to them that we are assessed unduly and
out of all proportion to the other counties throughout the State, the
only thing we could do to call public attention to it was to refuse to
appropriate this money, which I claim to be the only honest way to
wake the people up to the manner in which they are paying a larger
proportion of the State taxes than what we ought to.
No. 80.] -
2251
Q. How much did they add last year? A. One hundred and twelve
million dollars, I believe; and the year before, $119,000,000.
Q. Is it your judgment that that $112,000,000, so assessed by them
for equalization, was improperly assessed? A. It was wrong.
Q. Is it your judgment that the error was even greater than that as
compared with other counties in the State; and, from your study of
the matter, how much do you think that New York city is over-
assessed for purposes of State taxation? A. From closest examina-
tion that could be made for the last sixteen or seventeen years of
other counties through the State, and taking honest sales that have
been made, I should judge that the full quota of what New York is
liable for is not over thirty-five per cent instead of forty-five per cent.
Q. Of the entire sum? A. Yes.
Q. What would that amount to in assessed valuation in New York
city? A. That I have not figured; I will have to figure that out.
Q. It will amount to at least two or three hundred millions less than
what they are assessed for, wouldn't it? A. It would amount to two
or three hundred millions, and if I had the power and was all alone
in the tax office, I would wipe off those 300,000,000 so quick-
Q. If you wiped those 300,000,000 out to-day, you would wipe them
out for all purposes whatever, both city and local taxation? A. Every-
thing; I would let the rate take care of itself.
Q. Then if you wiped out that 300,000,000 in order that the tax-
payer might have his property honestly and properly valued in the
first instance, the rate would go very much higher wouldn't it? A.
It would.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. The effect would be that you wouldn't pay any more quantitively
for city administration, but you would pay a good deal less quanti-
tively for State taxes, would that be it? A. Yes, sir; that is it.
Q. And that wouldn't cost more to the city but it would save a good
deal to the city so far as State expenses are concerned? A. It would
affect the city financially in one way because capital of corporations.
and capital of banks and capital of trust companies who have to pay
upon the market value of their capital stock couldn't afford, for the
last six or eight years when money was a drug in the market, between
two and four per cent, to pay a higher rate than what they have been
paying; but then they would take advantage of the law and convert
their securtities into non-taxable assets.
Q. That is not a very difficult operation? A. Oh, no; they can do
that in twenty-four hours.
2252
[SENATE,
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Then, you think that for a fair assessment for both city and State
purposes these valuations ought to be reduced fully 300,000,000? A.
I say they should.
Q. Now why can't that be done? A. Well, I don't think the law would
allow us to do it, and not only that, if the law did allow us to do it,
and we were to do it arbitrarily the State Board of Assessors has the
power to come in and increase us proportionately, so we wouldn't
save anything by it.
Q. Has New York city any representative in the State Board of
Assessors? A. No; it has not had since 1865, when Mr. Lawrence
was there.
Q. It pays between forty-four and forty-five per cent of the State
taxes and has no representative in the Board of State Assessors?
A. No.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Who makes the appointments to that board? A. The Governor
and they are confirmed by you gentlemen.
Q. We have not refused to confirm any appointments as to the State
assessors? A. No.
Q. We have not had any chance; are there any vacancies now?
A. No.
Q. Any holdovers? A. Yes, sir.
Q. They are all holdovers, are they not? A. Yes; all holdovers.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Why do you claim now that the valuations for assessments pur-
poses are 300,000,000 in excess of what they ought to be; you also say
that the expenditure for the purposes of the city government is now
larger than it has ever been before? A. In the aggregate it is larger;
but at the same time take the net, I don't say that it is, because we
have a larger amount coming into the sinking fund from the revenue
of the city, which is deducted, of course, from the gross sum, which
leaves the net sum to be spent out of the taxation about the same sum
that it has been for the past two or three years.
Q. The appropriations for the year 1888 were $37,051,000? A. Gross.
Q. Now, if the items corresponding to all of those items of appro-
priations of that year were put together, would it not make gross
appropriations for the present year of something over 38,000,000?
A. I think it would, gross.
Q. Then the actual correspondence of item for gross of appropria-
No. 80.]
2253
tions for the year of 1888 and the year 1890 shows a larger expenditure
this year than it showed that year? A. It should.
Q. All questions of rate apart? A. All questions of rate apart.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-There may be a fair chance for difference
of opinion in regard to the statements of Mr. Coleman about the
assessment of New York. Do you desire to have that come in now or
at some future time?
Mr. IVINS.
Oh, we will bring that in again, because that is one of
the most important matters that we have to inquire into.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.—I am quite sure we don't agree, and I am
also very sure that fifty-eight counties in the State won't agree
with him.
The WITNESS.-No; I know they won't.
Mr. IVINS.- Fifty-eight counties in the State have the upper hand of
New York county.
Senator FASSETT.-
On Mr. Coleman's own statement he is shown to
be wrong. However we want to get at the facts.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-Well, we will look into that matter.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Now, let us come to the matter of assessment and taxation of
personal property; we find rather startling figures here.
Senator FASSETT.-Have you got through with this question of the
real estate assessment in the city?
Mr. IvINS.— I have for the time being.
Senator FASSETT.— Have you taken up those wards as far as you
intend to go into them?
Mr. IVINS.-I have, because those other wards run along without
any marked differences.
Senator FASSETT. There is one ward which shows an increase of
20,000,000.
The WITNESS.- The twelfth ward.
Mr. IvINS.— Didn't we take the twelfth ward up.
The WITNESS.- No.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. I have intended to refer to that; I will do that now; I find that
the twelfth ward shows an increase of assessed valuations, in the years
1887 and 1888, of 42,000,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I remember now having referred to it before? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in 1889 and 1890 it showed an increase of only 31,000,000?
A. Yes.
Q. Then, this ratio of apparent great increase in 1888 and 1889, is
not due to the fact that the increase was greater in the twelfth ward
2254
[SENATE,
during the last two years than it was during the previous years,
because it was actually smaller? A. In 1886, 1887 and 1888, the
twelfth ward, in a great many cases, especially along the line of the
Third avenue, the Second avenue and the Sixth avenue, was rather
overbuilt, and the buildings stood there almost for between six months
and a year and a half, and when the market is overstocked with build-
ings, then they hold back and don't go ahead until they unload; that
took place the year before last; last year they started in again.
By Senator FassETT:
Q. You are giving an explanation to the answer which, probably,
was in the affirmative.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. The point is this, that the ratio of increase is very marked in the
seventh, tenth, eleventh and thirteenth wards? A. Yes, sir.
Q. But the ratio of increase is not nearly so great; in fact, the ratio
shows a comparative decrease in the twelfth ward as compared with
1887 and 1888? A. Taking the marketable value of the property and
the new improvements, perhaps it would.
Q. Why isn't it possible, when the commissioners find a state of things
like that, which you find here relative to the seventh, tenth, eleventh,
thirteenth and seventeenth wards, to compel a re-examination or
to secure the services of other and different assessors ? A. Well, that
is a matter of judgment whether he was right or whether he was
wrong.
Q. Do you hold yourself responsible for his correctness or his error?
A. I am obliged to be responsible for the deputy's work in the office,
although I think sometimes that they err in judgment, still, as long as
they come within the meaning of the law, I can't go back on them and
tell them to do different.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. That is to say, as long as they assess anywhere under 100 per
cent of the market value, they really have got you at a disadvantage
when you try to knock down their assessment? A. Exactly.
Q. But it would suit your judgment better if the assessment was
made further below the market value? A. Further below the market
value.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Because assessments in some other districts are made further
below the market value? A. Well, perhaps they might be as far as
No. 80.]
2255
*
the market value is concerned equalized, taking the selling
price; but it is a property that depreciates more rapidly and
requires more care; these houses over there in those four wards are
occupied by fifteen to eighteen families and the wear and tear is
greater and the percentage is not in proportion to what it is in other
parts of the city for the care that must be taken of it, and for that
reason the assessment should be as lenient as possible.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. If any real estate or any lots of real estate were omitted from
the roll by any meams, would you know it at once? A. We wouldn't
know it at once; we have a few cases of that kind where parties have
come in; but they have been so few this last twenty years, except it
might be in lands under water or may be pieces of property that have
been leased by the corporation years ago for a number of years and
where the lease had expired and we wouldn't get on to it may be the
first or second year; but then we have so very few.
Q. It is possible then for a deputy to omit a piece of real estate
from the roll? A. Not omit; if it was not upon the books he can go
and leave it off; but to omit, he couldn't do it, because the books are
examined three different times during the year and called off and
compared every ward number.
By Senator MONAUGHTON:
Q. And checked? A. And checked three times during the year.
By Senator Fassett:
Q. Then if the person has been taxed all along on his house for ten
years it couldn't be left off the eleventh year without attention being
called to it? A. I never heard of a case.
Q. I ask you if it is possibe under your system of bookkeeping?
A. Under our system of bookkeeping we don't allow any deputy or
clerk to make an examination of his own ward number; we give it to
another deputy.
Q. Is that shifting done in this way, for instance the man who
assesses the first ward we might give that to the man who assesses
the sixteenth ward, that is the first ward is checked off by the man
who assesses the sixteenth ward? A. Our numbers are so small in
the tax office that we have to do that to fill in.
Q. You said a 'little while ago that the attempt to tax personal
property had become a farce? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you ever considered any means by which that condition of
things could be remedied successfully?
2256
[SENATE,
¿
Mr. IVINS.- Senator, if you will pardon me before he answers that,
I think you will find illustrations which are themselves answers to
your question in part, if he will describe the system that prevails in
the office now and the difficulties under which they labor in trying to
do it.
Senator FASSETT. We will postpone that till to-morrow morning.
Mr. IVINS.- I will take up personal property in the morning.
Senator FASSETT. We will have one session to-morrow from half-
past 10 to quarter to 2 as it will be Friday.
Adjourned to-morrow morning at 10.30 o'clock.
EXHIBIT No. 3 — OCTOBER 16, 1890.
RELATIVE ASSESSED VALUATION OF THE REAL AND PERSONAL ESTATE IN THE
CITY AND COUNTY OF NEW YORK FOR 1889 AND 1890.
WARDS.
Assessed
valuation 1889
real estate.
Assessed
valuation 1890
real estate.
Increase
real estate.
1..
2..
$81,235,638
35,058, 685
$84,844,538
$3,608,900
35,680,850
622,165
3..
39,250,797
39,695,570
444.773
4.
13,681,753
14,076,503
394,750
5..
47,242,952
47,620,220
377,268
6.
25,117,100
25,312,300
195,200
7.
18,226,667 | $932,500
20,175,357
1,948,690
8..
39,617,038
40,153,088
536,050
9..
30,974,780
32,521,090
1,546,310
10..
18,841,832 619,700
20,791,132
,
1,949,300
11.
17,709,187 766,800
20,400,587
2,691,400
12..
188,171,960
208,335,125
20,163,165
13...
11,457,279 573,200
13,263,229
1,805,950
14.
25,395,292
25,796,092
400, 800
15.
57,784,830
59,174,880
1,390,050
16..
39,501,450
40,603,435
1,101,985
17..
35,276,908 922,000
41,022,808
5,745,900
18..
•
80,717,200
82,139,600
1,422,400
19..
20..
21..
•
221,231,400
48,104,550
91,241,100
225,647,570
4,416,170
49,587,900
1,483,350
93,339,300
2,298, 200
22..
126,533,070
,
133,312,290
6,979,229
23..
25,891,261
26,539,831
2,668,570
24..
13,315,562
15,836,703
2,521,141
Total..$1,331,578,291
$1,398,290,007 $66,711,716
No. 80.]
2257
PERSONAL ESTATE.

Assessed
valuation 1889 ·
personal estate.
$194,289,301
Assessed
valuation 1890
personal estate.
Increase
personal estate.
Resident
$217,439,160
$23,149,859
Non-resident.
9,973,575
11,740,041
1,766,466
Shareholders of banks..
67,997,946
69,509,162
1,511,236
Total.
|
•
$272,260,822 $298,688,363 $26,427,561
Total real and personal estate for 1889...
Total real and personal estate for 1890.
Total increase
$1,603,839,113
1,696,978,390
$93,139,277
DEPARTMENT OF TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS.
Total assessed valuation for 1890.
Real estate.
$1,398,290,007
Personal estate:
Resident.
$217,439,160
Non-resident.
11,740,041
Shareholders of banks
69,509,182
298,688, 383
Total..
$1,696,978,390
Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4 and 4 hereto annexed, are blank forms used in
connection with the business of the department and referred to in
said interview.
The following is a detailed statement of the several employes of
this department as shown by the pay-roll for the month of July, 1890,
on file in the comptroller's office, and the rate of annual compensa-
tion paid to each:
PAY-ROLL, JULY 1890.
Michael Coleman, president...
Thomas L. Feitner, commissioner
Edward L. Parris, commissioner
Floyd T. Smith, secretary
•
•
Frank J. Bell, deputy tax commissioner.
Elisha J. Cadwell, deputy tax commissioner.
William Kellock, deputy tax commissioner
Twiss Birmingham, deputy tax commissioner
[Senate, No. 80.]
283
Rate per
annum.
$5,000
4,000
4,000
3,000
3,500
•
3,000
2,700
•
2,700
•
2258
[SENATE,
Rate per
annum.
James C. Strahan, deputy tax commissioner..
Frederick C. Wagner, deputy tax commissioner..
James W. Connolly, deputy tax commissioner
David Murray, deputy tax commissioner
Henry Autenrieth, deputy tax commissioner.
James D. Ames, deputy tax commissioner
Henry Bracken, deputy tax commissioner
James Deignan, deputy tax commissioner.
Germain Hanschal, deputy tax commissioner
Anthony McOwen, deputy tax commissioner.
Henry A. Perry, deputy tax commissioner..
John Martine, deputy tax commissioner
Richard G. Newkirk, clerk
Walter C. Rogers, clerk
John C. Keating, clerk
George W. Cornell, clerk..
William Hastings, clerk
John A. Whitney, clerk.
John A. Cooley, clerk
James P. Conner, clerk..
Charles J. Chapman, clerk
Hugh J. Kelly, clerk..
•
$2,700
2,700
2,700
2,700
2,700
·
2,700
2,700
2,700
2,700
•
2,700
2,700
1,500
2,000
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
•
1,500
1,500
1,500
Edward P. Carroll, clerk.
1,500
Charles B. Kehoe, clerk..
Peter J. Kelly, clerk..
Francis A. Reicard, clerk...
Edward Tyrrell, clerk
•
James A. Hamilton, clerk.
Frank Van Outersterp, clerk
Edward T. Taggard, law clerk.
John O'Conner, janitor
Bernard Reilly, map clerk.
Lloyd R. Hubbs, office boy.
Henry W. Vogel, surveyor
•
James A. Pyne, assistant surveyor..
James A. Strong, stenographer and typewriter
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,200
1,600
1,200
900
820
2,700
1,500
600
·
Total...
$95,620
BOARD OF ASSESSORS.
Edward Gilon, assessor.
Patrick M. Haverty, assessor.
•
$3,000
3,000
No. 80.]
2259
Charles E. Wendt, assessor
Edward Cahill, assessor.
Rate per
annum.
$3,000
3,000
2 800
William , secretary.
Total....
$14,800
The following is a comparative statement of the total amount paid
annually in this department for salaries of commissioners, deputies,
clerks, etc., since 1880:
1881.
1882...
1883..
1884..
1885...
1886...
1887...
$80,400 60
82,627 16
84,982 10
88,132 90
86,358 45
86,533 30
87,337 04
1888....
88,622 27
1889.
a
95,686 42
1890 (Based on pay-roll for July, 1890)..
95,620 00
And for board of assessors:
1881...
$15,500 00
1882...
16,300 00
* 1883...
1884..
1885...
1886...
1887..
1888...
1889..
1890...
16,300 00
18,600 00
17,766 62
16,600 00
16,600 00
16,200 00
14,800 00
14,800 00
REAL ESTATE.
From the report of the commissioners for the quarter ending June
30, 1890, it appears that the number of pieces or plots of real estate
assessed in
1881, was
•
1882, was
1883, was
1884, was
1885, was
$152,630 00
152,211 00
152,182 00
156,333 00
159,432 00
2260
[SENATE,
1886, was
1887, was
1888, was
1889, was
1890, was
•
.. $161,617 00
161,334 00
161,572 00
161,402 00
161,507 00
And the number of parties from whom complaints were received on
account of excessive assessments on real property during the time
the books were open to receive such complaints (from the second
Monday in January to the thirtieth day of April) was:
1881..
1882...
1883...
1884...
1885.
1886..
1887..
1888...
1880...
1890.
PERSONAL ESTATE.
2,478
1,262
1,133
910
1,511
907
637
625
559
680
"The following table exhibits the number of names assessed for
personal property, the number of applications for relief, the number.
proving to be non-assessable, and the number passed to the receiver's
books for the years 1881 to 1890 inclusive," as shown by the several
reports of the commissioner for those years.
INDIVIDUALS.
YEARS.
Names on
rolls at
opening.
Applications
for reduction.
Erased
not liable.
Retained
on receiver's
books.
1881..
21,294
11,540
7,338
13,956
1882
20,247
10,048
8,581
11,666
1883
20,779 10,055
8,888
11,891
1884.
19,657
8,496
7,441
12,216
1885
•
21,823
10,638
9,632
12,191
1886.
20,135
9,209
8,230
11,905
1887.
23,815 11,891
10,885
12,930
1888.
23,682
11,579
10,494
13,188
1889.
26,184
13,174
11,469
14,715
1890.
24,030
12,320
10,140
13,890
No. 80.]
2261
1886.
1887
1888
1889
1890.
YEAR.
CORPORATIONS.
BANKS AND SHAREHOLDERS.
YEAR.
Number
of banks.
Number of
shareholders
on rolls at
opening.
Names on
rolls at
opening.
Retained
on receiver's
books.
784
1,995
958
2.168
994
2,335
1,208
2,442
1,320
Erased,
not liable.
Retained
on receiver's
books.
1881.
1882
70
22,043
1,065
20,978
,
71
22.367
1,189
21,178
1883
71
22,532
1,183
21,349
1884
74
22,312
1,203
21,109
1885.
75
21,946
1.472
,
20,474
1886.
73
20,405
1,185
19,220
1887..
74
·
20,896
1,049
19,220
1888.
81
23,762
1.500
19,847
1889.
1890.
87
22,551
1,478
22,262
90
22,728
1,751
21,073
20,977
YEAR.
TOTAL NUMBER OF ASSESSMENTS.
Number of
pieces of
real estate.
Number of
names on
personal
books.
shareholders Corporations.
Total
number of
Number of
of banks.
assessments.
1881...
152,630
13,956
20,978
187,564
1882..
152,211
11,666
21.178
185,055
1883..
152,182 11,891
21,349
>
185,422
1884..
156,333 12,216
21,109
189,658
1885.
159,432
12,191
20,474
192,097
1886..
161,617
11,905
19,220
784
193,526
1887..
161,334
12,930
19,847
954
195,065
1888.
161,572 13,188
22,262
994
198,016
1889.
161,402
14,715
21,073
1,208
189,398
1890..
161,507
13,890
20,977
1,320
197,694
2262
[SENATE,
1
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF RESIDENT AND NON-RESIDENT PERSONAL ESTATE
FROM 1881 TO 1890, INCLUSIVE.
YEAR.
Resident, including corporations.
Assessed
valuations at
opening.
Erased,
not liable.
Retained
on receiver's
books.
$138,613,030
129, 162, 101
129,162,101
127,678, 542
1881
$2,348,443,273
1882
2,387,843,805
1883
2,003,860,031
$2,209,830,243
2,258,681, 704
1,876,181,489
1884
1,581,450,549
1,439,825,140
141,625,409
1885
1,494,981, 898
1,362,723,968
132,257,930
1886
1,451,267,558
1,302,797,028
148,470,530
1887
1,343,049,799
1,162,656,328
180,393,471
1888
1,352, 222, 040
1,176,026, 784
176,195,256
1889
1,591,067,825
1,396,778,524
194, 289, 301
1890
1,579,265, 460
1,361,826,300
217,439,160
Non-resident.
1881
30,348,540
18,173,065
12,175,475
1882
33,569,788
21,993,817
11,575,971
1883
34,345,353
23,629,820 10,715,533
1884
•
53,994,075
43,333,503
10,660,572
1885
50,361,072
40,691,430
9,669,642
1886
48,703,345
39,159,497
9,543,848
1887
54,868,298
44,947,905
9,920,393
1888
54,557,560
44,704, 739
9,852,821
1889
55,918,390
45,944, 815
9,973,575
1890
59,534,856
47,794,815
11,740,041
1881
1882
U
1883
1884.
1885
1886.
1887
1888
•
1889
1890
•
•
2,378,791,813
Total resident and non-resident.
2,228,003, 308 | 150,788,505
2,421,413,593
2,280,675,521 140,738,072
2,038,205,384
1,899,811,309
138,394,075
1,635,444, 624
1,483, 158, 643
152,285,981
1,403,415,398
141,927,572
1,341,956, 525
1,207,604, 233
158,014,378
,
190,313,864
` 1,545,342,970
1,499,970, 903
1,397,918,097
1,406, 779, 600
1,646,986,215
1,638,800,316
>
1,220,731,523 | 186,048,077
1,442,723, 339 204, 262,876
1,409,621,115 | 229,179,201

The following tabulation shows the amount originally recorded for
the assessment of personal property belonging to individuals, both
resident and non-resident, the amount sworn off, and the amount
retained upon the books for assessment:
No. 80.1
2263

1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
YEAR.
Original record for
assessment.
Amount erased not
liable.
Amount
retained upon
receivers' books.
$184,040,270
184,228,403
$85,989,863
$98,050,407
80,204,736 104,023,667
203,983, 497
95,591,091 108,392,406
207,393,020
95,035,999 112,357,021
220,802,815
102,858,285
117,944,530
230,415,466
105,632,405
124,783,061
Exhibit 4, hereto annexed, contains a "Statement of the assess-
ments of shareholders of banks for the year 1890.”
Exhibit 6, hereto annexed, shows the assessed valuation of real
estate by wards in 1880 and 1890, the yearly increase or decrease and
the net increase since 1880.
Exhibit 7, hereto annexed, shows the assessed valuation of personal
estate, resident, non-resident and shareholders in banks in 1880 and
1890, the yearly increase or decrease and the net increase or decrease
since 1880.
YEAR.
-Real estate.
Personal estate. Total valuation.
Amount of tax.
1805...
1806..
1807..
1808..
1809..
1810..
1811..
•
$25,645,367
$127,054
26,549,330
127,814
24,959,955
129,155
25,118,720
132,948
24,782,267
139,027
25,486,370
129,727
26,045,730
176,978
1812.
1813..
1814.
•
•
26,240,040
174,920
27,690, 230
174,727
•
28,091,497
214,225
1815...
1816.
1817.
•
1818.
1819.
•
1820.
1821.
•
81,637,042
361,285
82,075,200
344, 802
78,893, 735
374,311
80,254,091
335,994
79,113,061
329,453
69,530,753
339,891
67,286,070
367,215
1822.
71,225,141
374,397
1823.
•
70,949, 280
488,755
1824.
•
83,075,676
304,857
1825..
101,160,046
387,442
1826..
$64,804,050
$72,434,981
107,238,951
283,759
1827..
72,717,770
48,649,167
112,211,926
437,692
1828..
77,183,880
33,879,633
114,019, 333
485,751
1829..
1830.
•
76,130,430
33,672,636
111,803,066
507,107
•
•
87,603,580 37,684,938
129,283,918
509,178
2264
[SENATE,
FROM 1815 STATE TAX INCLUDED.
YEAR.
Real estate.
Personal estate.
Total valuation.
Amount of tax.
1831...
1832..
1833...
·
1834..
1835...
1836...
$93,896,833
104,196,668 44,741,723
114,124,566 42,806,976
128,249,280 58,299,281
143,742,425 64,991,278
233,732,393 75,758,617
$31,968,194
$137,660,259
144,902, 328
166,491,542
$572, 104
665,385
971,854
>
186,541,511
835,605
218,723,703
965,602
309,500,020
1,000, 302
1837...
1838..
1839..
1840..
·
1841..
1842..
1843..
1844..
1845..
1846...
1847...
1848..
196,450,189 67,207,241
294,543,359 69,609,582
196,940,154 73,920,885
187,221,714 66,911,891
186,359,948 64,843,692
176,513,072 61,282,839
164,855,314 64,274,765
171,937,591 64,739,552
177,207,990 62,787,527
181,480,534 61,471,470
187,313,386 59,837,913
193,029,076 61,164,447
263,747,350
1,244,972
264, 152, 941
1,480,993
270,869,019
1,352,826
232,248,515
1,354,835
231,174,920
1,394,136
287,803,631
2,011,382
227,229,079
1,759,516
236,727,143
1,988,128
232,995,517
2,006, 191
244,932,004
2,526,146
,
,
247,153,299
2,581,776
254,163,523
2,715,510
1849..
197,741,919
•
58,455,224
256,197,143
3,005,762
•
1850... 207,142,576
78,919,240
266,001,816
3,230,085
1851... 227,015,856
93,095,001
320,110,857
2,924,455
253,278,384
98,490,042
351,768,426
3,380,511
118,994,137
413,631,382
5,066,698
1852...
1853...
294,637,298
1854.. 330,300,396 | 131,721,338
1860..
1861...
1862..
1863...
1864..
1865...
1866...
1867...
•
•
1855... 336,975,866 | 150,022,312
1856... 340,972,098 | 170,744,393
1857... 352,958,803 | 168,216,449
1858... 348,346,296 162,847,994
1859... 378,951,930 172,697,637
393,533,619 | 172,601,637
406,963,665 | 174,624,306
399,551,314 172,416,031
402,196,652 | 192,000,161
410,695,485 223,920,405
427,360,884 | 181,423,471
478,994,934 257,994,974
555,447,062 | 276,222,751
1868.. 623,235,305| 284,580,224
1869... 684,183,918 281,142,696
1870.. 742,103,075 305,285,374
1871... 769,306,410 306,947,223
797,125,115 306,949,422
836,691,980 | 292,447,643
881,547,995 | 272,481,181
1872...
•
462,021,734 4,845,386
486,998,278 5,843,822
511,740,491
521,175,252
7,075,423
8,111,758
531,194,290 8,621,091
577,230,956 9,758,507
577,230,956
580,579,971
571,967,345
9,758,507
11,427,632
9,906,271
594,196,813 | 11,556,672
634,675,890 | 13,705,092
608,784, 355
736,989,908
831,669,813
907,815,529
1,047,388,449
|
272,481,181
24,147,893
965,326,614 | 21,912,914
1,047,388,449 | 23,566,2
240
1,076,253,633 23,362,527
1,104,074,537
1,104,074,537 | 32,036,2
290
1,129,139, 623
28,228,490
"
1,154,029,176
1,154,029,176
32,312,816
•
883,643,545 | 217,300,154
1,100,943, 699
32,367,744
·
892,428,165 218,026,178
1,111,054,343
31,109,521
895,063,933 206,026,160 1,101,092,093
29,178,940
900,855,700 | 197,332,075 | 1,098,387,775
28,008,888
1873...
1874..
1875.
1876...
1877.,..
1878..
No. 80.]
2265
1
YEAR.
Real estate.
Personal estate. Total valuation. Amount of tax.
1879...
1880..
1881...
1882.. 1,000,003,816 198,272,382
$918,134,380 $175,934,955 $1,094,069,335 $28,226,988
942,571,690 201,194,037 1,143,765,727 28,937,272
| |
976,735,199 209,212,899
209,212,899 | 1,185,948,098
31,071,840
1,233,476,398
|
27,684,427
1883.. 1,079,130,669 197,546,495
1,276,677,164 29,167,029
1884... 1,119,761,597
218,536,746
1,338,298,343 29,991,172
1885... 1,168,443,137
202,673,866
202,673,866
1,371,117,003 | 32,853,528
1886..
1,203,941,065
217,027,221
1887...
1888.
1889..
•
1890.
1,254,491,849
1,302,818,879 250,623,552 | 1,553,442,431 | 34,329,860
1,331,578,291 272,260,822
272,260,822 | 1,603,839,113 31,145,370
1,398,290,007 298,688,383 | 1,696,978,390
33,212,034
217,027,221 | 1,420,968,286 32,421,550
253,148,814 1,507,640,663 | 32,370,696
Year.
Rate.
1805....
.0500
1806...
.04850
1807..
.05200
1808...
.05500
1809..
.05600
1810.
.06400
1811...
.06800
1812.
.06700
1813..
.06300
1814.
.02600
1815.
.04150
1816...
.04200
1817...
.04700
1818..
.04200
1819...
.04150
1820...
.04900
1821.
.04950
1822...
.05269
1823...
.05950
1824..
.04750
1825..
.03825
1826...
1827..
1828..
1829.
1830.
1831..
[Senate, No. 80.]
284
2266
[SENATE,
Year.
Rate.
1832...
1833..
1834
1835..
1836...
1837..
1838...
1839...
1840...
.05470
1841..
.05672
1842.
.08644
1843...
.07920
1844..
.08616
1845..
.08960
1846..
1.0510
1847..
1.0536
1848.
1.0780
1849...
1.1832
1850...
1.1375
1851...
.0919
1852.
.09670
1853...
1.2342
1854.
1.0560
1855...
1.2060
1856.
1857....
1.3820
•
1.5564
1858..
1.6303
1859..
1.79216
1860..
1.69487
1861..
2.6000
1862...
1.7344
1863...
2.0350
1864
2.16
1865..
2.99
1866..
2.30
1867...
2.67
1868...
2.66
1869...
2.27
1870....
2.25
1871.
2.17
1872..
2.90
1873
2.50
፡
2267
No. 80.1
Year.
1874..
1875..
1876....
1877...
1878..
1879..
1880..
1881....
1882..
1883..
1884..
1885.
1886..
•
1887..
1888..
1889...
1890...
1882...
1883..
1884..
1885..
1886..
1887..
1888...
1889...
1890...
·
Rate.
2.80
2.94
2.80
2.65
2.55
2.58
2.53
2.62
2.25
2.29
2.25
2.40
2.29
2.16
2.22
1.95
''
1.97
LOW CORPORATION RATE.
2.0152
2.0324
1.9245
2.2329
1.9945
·
1.8646
1.9483
1.6863
1.6908
EXHIBIT 1.
[10 A. M. to 2 P. M., except Saturday, then 10 A. M. to 12 M.]
Please bring this notice with you.
N. R. Book. Line....
.Page.
·
Mr...
No...
DEPARTMENT OF TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS,
Staatz Zeitung BUILDING, TRYON ROW,
NEW YORK, January 13, 1890.
}
You are hereby notified, that under the provisions of an act passed
February 27, 1855, you have been assessed for personal estate, for the
year 1890, at $...
being the amount invested in your
business in the city and county of New York, and that the same, if
erroneous, must be corrected before the commissioners, on or before
,
2268
[SENATE,
the thirtieth day of April next, or it will be confirmed at that amount,
from which there will be no appeal, and the tax for the same will be
collected from the property of the first or association to which you
belong.
*
By order of the board.
FLOYD T. SMITH,
Secretary.
EXHIBIT 2.
[Hours for correction of assessment, 10 A. M. to 2 P. M. except Sundays, then 10 A. M. to 12 M.]
R. book, line
Please bring this notice with you.
•
page
Mr
No...
·
•
DEPARTMENT OF TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS,
Staatz Zeitung BUILDING, TRYOn Row,
NEW YORK, January 13, 1890.
You are hereby notified that your personal estate for 1890, is assessed
at $.
exclusive of bank stock, and that the same, if erroneous,
must be corrected before the commissioners, on or before the thirtieth
day of April next, or it will be confirmed at that amount, from which
there will be no appeal.
By order of the board.
EXHIBIT 3.
FLOYD T. SMITH,
Secretary.
DEPARTMENT Of Taxes and ASSESSMENTS,
COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE,
STAATZ ZEITUNG BUILDING, TRYON ROW.
Please state the full name of the corporation.
Statement made and delivered to the commissioners of taxes and
assessments of the city and county of New York, for and in behalf of
the
•
showing its condition for the purpose of assessment on the second
Monday in January, 189..
The company named in this statement is an organization under the
laws of the State of...
.having its principal office
The amount of capital it has invested in
at...
business in the city of New York, including the value of its office
No. 80.]
2269
furniture, safe, samples, fixtures, money in bank and otherwise used
in business will not exceed the sum of.
office in the city of New York,
.street.
The principal office or the place of transacting the financial business
of the said corporation is situated in .
CITY OF NEW York, ss. :
I,
=
the
•
of the said corporation, being duly sworn, do hereby certify and
declare that the foregoing statement is in all respects, just and true.
Sworn to before me, this....}
day of ......, 189..
;
By chapter 176, section 6 of the Laws of 1851, the commissioners
are empowered to examine, under oath, the person representing the
corporation, if they deem it necessary, to obtain any fuller or further
particulars as to its property or condition.
(Indorsed.)
Line No......
Statement for 189..
Assessment fixed at $.
Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments.
f
EXHIBIT 4.
DEPARTMENT OF TAXES AND ASSESSMENT,
COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE,
STAATZ ZEITUNG BUILDING, TRYON ROW.
Please state the full name of the corporation.
Statement made and delivered to the commissioner of taxes and
assessments of the city and county of New York, for and in behalf of
the....
showing its condition for the purpose of assessment on the second
Monday of January, 189..
Total gross assets. .
Capital stock actually paid in, or secured to be paid in ..
霆
​Amount of surplus earnings
Rate of dividend for last year, or last annual dividend..
***
$
2270
[SENATE,
Is the company assessed by the State under chapter 361, Laws of
1881, and the amendatory acts?
Liabilities in detail as follows:
Assessed value of real estate describing particularly by ward
numbers:
Amounts invested in the stocks of other corporations
which are taxed upon their capital.
Amount invested in U. S. securities.
$
(If the stock of the company is worth less than par, state the actual
value, and give the facts under oath, which will justify such estimate
of its value.)
The principal office or the place of transacting the financial busi-
ness of the said corporation is situated in the...
of the city of New York, at No
CITY OF NEW YORK, SS.:
I,
the
*
..ward
、street.
of the said corporation being duly sworn do hereby certify and declare
that the foregoing statement is in all respects just and true.
Sworn to before me this..
day of ..
189..
>
}
By chapter 176, section 6 of the Laws of 1851, the commissioners
are empowered to examine, under oath the person representing the
corporation, if they deem it necessary, to obtain any fuller or further
particulars as to its property or condition.
(Indorsed.)
Statement of the....
For 189..
Assessment fixed at $.
Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments.
EXHIBIT 41.
Statement made and delivered to the commissioners of taxes and
assessments of the city and county of New York for and in behalf
of the
a corporation which is
organized as a telegraph company, under the laws of the State of New
No. 80 1
2271
+
York, and owns and uses a line of electric telegraph, partly within
and partly beyond the limits of New York State, showing its condition
for the purpose of assessment, on the second Monday of January,
18.., in pursuance of the provisions of the statutes of the State of
New York.
Amount paid for works within New York State, including
poles, wires and their connections....
Deduct assessed value of poles and wires, etc., and their
connections, which are taxed in New York State as
real estate .
Location of poles, wires, etc., and their connections, that
are taxable as real estate in New York city, and the
assessed value thereof.
The principal office, or the place of transacting the financial busi-
ness of the said corporation, is situated in the .
the city of New York, at No..
STATE, CITY AND COUNTY OF NEW YORK:
ward of
•
street.
of the said corporation, being duly sworn,
do hereby certify and declare that the foregoing statement is in all
respects just and true to the best of my knowledge, information and
belief.
Sworn to before me this ....
day of
..18..
}
}
(Indorsed.)
Statement of the....
For 18..
Assessment fixed at $..
Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments.
2272
[SENATE,
Y
EXHIBIT 5.
STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSMENTS OF SHAREHOLDERS OF BANKS FOR THE YEAR 1890.
NAME OF BANK.
Ward.
Number
of shares.
Par value
of shares.
Capital.
Gross value
share.
Gross value.
American Exchange National
1
50,000
$100
$5,000,000
$114 00
Bank of America.
1
30,000
100
3,000,000
142 40
Bank of North America
1
10,000
70
700,000
96 33
$5,700,000
4,272,000
963,300
>
Bank of New York, N. B. A
1
20,000
100
2,000,000
150 00
3,000,000
Bank of the Metropolis
18
3,000
100
300,000
197 00
591,000
Bank of the State of New York.
1
12,000
100
1,200,000
110 00
1,320,000
Bank of Harlem
12
1,000
100
100,000
85 00
85,000
Bank of New Amsterdam
22
2,500
100
250,000
95 00
237,500
Bowery
14
2,500
100
250,000
209 03
523,825
Central National
6
20,000
100
2,000,000
107 00
2,140,000
Chemical National
3
3,000
100
300,000
1,769 36
5,308,080
Chase National
1
5,000
100
500,000
167 00
835,000
Chatham National
2
18,000
25
450,000
44 08
793,440
Continental National
1
10,000
100
1,000,000
104 44
1,044 400
Columbia
19
2,000
100
200,000
91 00
182,000
Corn Exchange.
1
10,000
100
1,000,000
176 03
1,760,300
Commercial National.
1
3,000
100
300,000
95 00
285,000
Clinton
5
2,000
100
200,000
93 00
186,000
East River National
15
10,000
25
250,000
30 24
302,400
Eleventh Ward
11
4,000
25
100,000
46 00
184,000
East Side
13
1,000
100
100,000
109 00
109,000
Empire State.
15
2,500
100
250,000
110 00
Equitable.
21
1,000
100
100,000
100 00
275,000
100,000
First National.
1
5,000
100
500,000
1,104 30
5,521,500
Fourth National.
1
32,000
100
3,200,000
116 00
3,712,000
>
Fifth National
18
1,500
100
150,000
224 50
336,750 Z
Fifth Avenue
19
1,000
100
100,000
641 00
Fourteenth Street
18
1,000
100
100,000
144 00
641,000
144,000
8
Gallatin National.
Gansevoort
Garfield National
Germania
German-American
German Exchange
Greenwich.
Hanover National
Home
Homestead.
Hamilton
1
20,000
50.
1,000,000
104 16
2,083, 200
9
4,000
50
200,000
44 00
176,000
18
2,000
100
200,000
181 00
362,000
17
2,000
100
200,000
225 00
450,000
1
10,000
75
750.000
81 66
· 816,600
15
2,000
100
200,000
243 00
486,000
9
8.000
25
200,000
31 00
248,000
1
10,000
100
1,000,000
165 33
1,653,300
22
1,000
100
100,000
146 00
146,000
22
1,000
100
100,000
94 00
94,000
12
1,500
100
150,000
127 00
190,500
Hudson River
22
2,000
100
200,000
146 00
292,000
Exporters and Traders' National
3
15.000
100
1,500,000
324 20
4,863,000
Interstate National.
3
2,000
100
200,000
100 00
200,000
2273
Irving National.
3
10,000
50
500,000
62 62
626,200
Leather Manufacturers' National
1
6,000
100
600,000
154 53
927,180
Lenox Hill
19
1,000
100
100.000
93 00
93,000
Lincoln National
19
6,000
100
300,000
140 00
و
420,000
Madison Square
18
2,000
100
200,000
93 00
186,000
Mount Morris.
12
1,000
100
100,000
248 00
248,000
Manhattan Company
1
41,000
50
2,500,000
67 58
2,770,780
Market and Fulton National
2
7,500
100
750,000
165 00
1,237,500
Mechanics' National.
80,000
25
2,000,000
41 30
3,304,000
Mercantile National
3
10,000
100
1,000,000
142 63
1,426,300
Mechanics' and Traders'
14
8,000
25
200,000
37 00
296,000
Merchants' Exchange National.
3
12,000
50
600,000
47 00
564,000
Merchants' National.
1
40,000
50
2,000,000
61 00
2,440,000
Murray Hill.
19
2,000
50
100,000
130 00
260,000
[Senate, No. 80.]
285
2274
[SENATE,

NAME OF BANK.
EXHIBIT 5-(Continued).
Ward.
Number
of shares.
Par value
of shares.
Capital.
Gross value
share.
Gross value.
New York National Exchange
Nassau
3
3,000
$100
$300,000
$121 00
$363,000
10,000
50
500,000
55.33
National City
National Bank of Commerce
National Bank of Deposit.
553,300
10,000
100
1,000,000
286 83
2,868,300
50,000
100
5,000,000
143 66
7,183,000
3,000
100
National Bank of the Republic.
National Park.
National Broadway
National Butchers' and Drovers
National Citizens'
300,000
106 00
318,000
1
15,000
100
1,500,000
123 76
1,856,400
2
20,000
100
2,000,000
160 50
3,210,000
40,000
25
1,000,000
55 50
2,220,000
14
•
12,000
25
300,000
40 00
480,000
24,000
25
600,000
35 00
840,000
National Shoe and Leather
5,000
100
500,000
117 64
588, 200
New York County National
New York Produce Exchange.
2,000
100
200.000
152 00
304,000
10,000
100
1,000,000
100 00
1,000,000
North River
8,000
30
240,000
32 00
256,000
Ninth National
>
5
7,500
100
750,000
106 00
795,000
Nineteenth Ward
19
1,000
100
100,000
96 70
96,700
Oriental
14
12,000
25
300.000
46 00
552,000
Pacific
>
14
8,454
50
422,000
75 50
638,277
People's
8
8,000
25
200,000
45 85
366,800
Phoenix's National
1
50,000
20
1,000,000
2,611 88
1,305,940
Riverside
Seaboard National
Second National
Seventh National
St. Nicholas.
Sixth National
2182
1,000
100
100,000
89 00
89,000
5,000
100
500,000
96 00
480,000
3,000
100
300,000
119 33
357,990
3,000
100
300,000
100 33
300,990
1
5,000
100
500,000
118 26
591,300
21
2,000
100
200,000
93 00
186,000
953,700 Z
2275
No. 1,019,000
$102,026, 202
220.000
3,190,250
326,000
>
]
92,000
198,000
815,000
x}
>
Third National
10,000
100
1,000,000
95 37
Trademen's National
5
25,000
40
1,000,000
40 76
Twelfth Ward.
12
Twenty-third Ward
23
Union Square
18
288
2,000
100
200,000
110 00
1,000
100
100,000
92 00
2,000
100
200,000
99 00
United States National
1
5,000
100
500,000
163 00
80.Western National.
1
35,000
100
3,500,000
91 15
West Side
20
2,000
.100
200,000
163 00
Total.
$966,954
$65,912,700
2276
[SENATE,
NAME OF BANK.
EXHIBIT NO. 5-(Continued).
Ward.
Interest
in clearing
house.
Assessed
Real estate.
Total real estate. value per
share.
Assessed to
shareholders.
American Exchange National
1
$16,500
$483,900
$500,000
$104
$5,200,000
Bank of America.
1
9,900
872,100
882,000
113
3,390,000
Bank of North America.
1
3,300
3,300
96
960,000
Bank of New York, N. B. A
1
9,900
370,100
580,000
121
2,420,000
Bank of the Metropolis
18
3,325
11,675
15,000
192
576,000
Bank of the State of New York.
1
6,600
221,400
228,000
91
1,092,000
Bank of Harlem.
12
85
85,000
Bank of New Amsterdam
22
95
237,500
Bowery
14
825
18,000
18,825
202
505,000
Central National.
6
6,600
453,400
460,000
84
1,680,000
Chemical National.
3
990
276,090
277,080
1,677
5,031,000
Chase National.
Chatham National
HQ
167
835,000
1,440
1,440
44
792,000
Continental National.
1
4,954
649,450
654,400
39
390,000
Columbia
19
91
182,000
Corn Exchange
1
3,300
137,000
140,300
162
1,620,000
Commercial National
Clinton
15
95
285,000
93
186,000.
East River National.
15
1,155
81,245
82,400
22
220,000
Eleventh Ward.
11
24,000
24,000
40
160,000
East Side.
13
109
109,000
Empire State
15
110
275,000
Equitable.
21
100
100,000
First National.
1
1,650
499,850
501,500
1,004
Fourth National
1
16,500
495,500
512,000
100
5,020,000
3,200,000
No. 80.]
2277
Fifth National.
18
54,750
•
54,750
188
Fifth Avenue
19
150,000
150,000
491
Fourteenth Street
18
144
195,332
68,740
52,412
Gallatin National.
1
18,150
325,650
343, 200
87
1,740,000
Gansevoort
9
44
176,000
Garfield National.
18
131
362,000
Germania
17
44,000
44,000
263
406,000
German-American
1
4,840
11,760
16,600
80
800,000
German Exchange.
15
62.000
62,000
212
424,000
Greenwich.
9
660
15,340
16,000
29
232,000
Home
•
Hanover National
Homestead
Hamilton
Hudson River.
Exporters and Traders' National
1
3,300
3,300
165
1,650,000
22
20,000
20,000
126
126,000
22
94
•
94,000
12
127
190,500
22
100,000
100,000
96
192,000
4,950
223,050
228,000
309
4,635,000
Interstate National
100
200,000
Irving National
1,650
74,550
76,200
55
550,000
Leather Manufacturers' National
1
1,980
277,200
279,180
108
648,000
Lenox Hill
19
93
93,000
Lincoln National
19
140
420,000
Madison Square.
18
20,000
20,000
83
166,000
Mount Morris.
12
100,000
100,000
148
>
148,000
Manhattan Company
1
6,765
550.015
556,780
54
2,214,000
Market and Fulton National
2
5,280
258,220
262,500
130
975,000
Mechanics' National
1
6.600
577,400
584,000
34
,
2,720,000
Mercantile National
3
3,300
153,000
156,300
127
1,270,000
Mechanics and Traders'
14
1.980
14,020
16,000
35
280,000
Merchants' Exchange National
3
3,300
164,700
168,000
33
396,000
Merchants' National
1
9,900
350,100
560,000
47
1,880,000
Murray Hill.
19
10,000
10,000
125
250,000
2278
[SENATE,
NAME OF BANK.
EXHIBIT 5-(Continued).
Ward.
Interest
in clearing
house.
Assessed
Real estate.
Total real estate. value per
share.
Assessed to
shareholders.
New York National Exchange.
3
$1,650
$49,350
$51,000
$104
$312,000
Nassau
2
3.300
3,300
55
550,000
National City
1
3,300
385,000
388,300
248
2,480,000
National Bank of Commerce
1
33,000
600,000
633,000
131
6,550,000
National Bank of Deposit.
2
106
318,000
National Bank of the Republic.
6,600
499,800
506,400
90
1,350,000
National Park.
6,600
783,400
790,000
121
National Broadway
2,420,000
3
3,300
296,700
300,000
48
1,920,000
National Butchers and Drovers'
National Citizens'.
14
2,640
81,360
84,000
33
396,000
1.980
214,020
216,000
26
624,000
Ninth National
National Shoe and Leather
New York County National.
New York Produce Exchange
North River
Nineteenth Ward
,
3
•
3,300
229,900
233, 200
71
355,000
>
9
660
33,340
64,000
135
270,000
1
100
1,000,000
3
5
CD LO
1,320
54,680
56,000
25
200,000
4,950
535,050
540,000
34
255,000
19
9,700
9,700
87
87,000
Oriental
Pacific
14
990
95,010
96,000
38
456,000
14
1,394
62,011
63.405
68
574,872
People's
Phoenix National
Riverside
Seaboard National
Second National.
Seventh National.
St. Nicholas
,
8
1,362
69,438
70.800
37
296,000
1
5,940
5,940
26
1,300,000
22
89
89,000
1
96
480,000
18
•
990
990
119
357,000
2
•
990
990
100
300,000
1
3,300
3,000
6,300
117
585,000
186,000 Z
2279
940,000
$88,517,872
759,000
312,000
220,000
185,000
92,000
405,000
198,000

21
93
1
3,300
10,400
13,700
94
5
3,300
265,700
269,000
30
12
110
23
92
18
99.
1
410,000
410,000
81
1
5,250
5,250
91
20
14,000
14,000
156
$259,006
$13,249,324
$13,508,330
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sixth National
Third National
Tradesmen's National.
Twelfth Ward.
Twenty-third Ward.
Union Square.
United States National.
Western National
West Side
Total.
2280
[SENATE,
NAME OF BANK.
EXHIBIT 5-(Continued).
Ward.
Sworn off.
顱
​Exempt.
Total sworn off
and exempt.
American Exchange National.
1
$615,140
$91,104
$706, 244
Bank of America
1
217,186
59,624
267,810
Amount of
receiver's book.
$4,493,736
3,122,190
Bank of North America.
1
184,800
1,920
186,720
773,080
Bank of New York, N. B. A
1
166,028
32,670
198,698
2,221,302
Bank of the Metropolis
18
122,496
122,496
453,504
Bank of the State of New York
1
47,138
12,467
59,605
1,053,395
Bank of Harlem
12
3,400
3,420
81,600
Bank of New Amsterdam
22
6,175
U
6,175
231,325
Bowery
14
333,982
333,982
171,018
Central National.
6
99,521
2,688
>
102,209
1,577,791
Chemical National
3
253,227
8,385
261,612
4,769,388
Chase National
390,947
390,947
444,053
Chatham National
509,872
509,872
282,128
Continental National
1
144,569
3,042
147.611
242,389
Columbia.
19
96,096
96,096
85,904
Corn Exchange
Commercial National.
Clinton
115
147,582
7,614
155,196
1,464,804
,
117,800
117,800
1,464,804
58,660
58,660
167,340
East River National
15
76,890
76,890
143,110
Eleventh Ward.
11
80,000
80,000
80,000
East Side
13
26,845
26,845
82,155
Empire State
15
3,850
3,850
271,150
Equitable
First National
Fourth National
Fifth National
21
100,000
1
4,439,610
21,900
4,459,610
560,390
1
218,742
18
195,332
240,642
195,332
2,959,358
86,668
No. 80.]
2281
•
Fifth Avenue
Fourteenth Street
Gallatin National
Gansevoort
Garfield National
Germania
German-American
German Exchange
Greenwich
Hanover National
Home.
Homestead
Hamilton
19
68,740
66,740
422,260
18
52,412
52,412
91,588
1
21,804
17,400
39,204
1,700,796
9
54,800
54,800
121,200
18
101,360
101,360
260,640
17
181,973
181,973
224,027
>
1
47,050
47,050
752,930
15
297,504
297,504
126,496
9
41,035
41,035
190,965
1
672,135
1,155
673,290
976,710
22
85,177
85,177
40,823
22
76,866
76,866
15,134
12
39,731
39,731
150, 749
Hudson River
22
13,920
13,920
178,080
Importers and Trader's National.
3
991,601
7,725
999,326
3,635,674
Interstate National.
3
112,500
112,500
87,500
Irving National.
3
120,630
1,100
121,750
428,250
Leather Manufacturers' National.
1
107,244
9,720
116,964
531,036
Lenox Hill
19
93,000
Lincoln National.
19
22,740
22,740
397.260
>
Madison Square
18
63,495
63,495
102,905
Mount Morris.
12
84,508
84,508
63,492
Manhattan Company
1
91,692
69,714
161,406
2,052,594
Market and Fulton National.
2
63,830
1,300
65,130
909,870
Mechanics' National.
1
236,878
46,954
283.832
2,436,168
Mercantile National
3
297,696
297,696
972,304
Mechanics' and Traders'
14
155,729
505
156,324
Merchants' Exchange National.
3
102,630
6,072
108,702
123,676
287,298
Merchants' National.
1
185,979
59,690
245,669
1,634,331
Murray Hill
19
103, 125
103,125
146,875
New York National Exchange
3
63,024
63,024
248,976
:
[Senate, No. 80.]
286
2282
[SENATE,
EXHIBIT 5-(Concluded).
NAME OF BANK.
Ward.
Sworn off.
Exempt.
Total sworn off
and exempt.
Nassau.
•
National City
National Bank of Commerce
National Bank of Deposit.
•
·
National Bank of the Republic.
National Park
National Broadway
National Butchers' and Drovers'
National Citizens'
National Shoe and Leather.
New York County National.
New York Produce Exchange
North River
Ninth National.
Nineteenth Ward
Oriental.
•
•
~--~1~~ TODO DE LO OD
2
77,490
77,490
Amount of
receiver's book.
472,510
148,304
11,904
160,208
2,319,792
426,180
210,779
636,959
5,913,041
233,960
233,960
84,040
125,640
10,890
136,530
1,213,470
186,703
12,826
199,529
2,220,471
3
738,617
738,617
1,181,383
14
73,029
2,871
75,900
320,100
5
96,954
96,954
527,046
3
39,760
6,816
46,576
308,424
9
270,000
1
198,100
198,100
801,900
16,325
16,325
183,675
>
60,588
60,588
194,412
'
9
28,710
28,710
58,290
14
60,632
1,520
62.152
393,848
Pacific
,
14
33,728
33,728
541,144
St. Nicholas
People's.
Phoenix National
Riverside
Seaboard National.
Second National..
Seventh National
Sixth National.
Third National
>
8
30,525
30,525
265,475
1
133,796
7,150
140,946
1,159,054
22
46,903
46,903
42,097
•
1
334,316
334,316
145,684
•
18
77,945
•
77,945
279,055
•
2
1
1,000
111,735
1,000
299,000
8,658
120,393
21
464,607
186,000
1
216,590
216,590
737,410

No. 80.]
2283
Trademen's National.
5
137,210
1,500
Twelfth Ward.
12
134,750
138,710
134,750
611,290
Twenty-third Ward.
23
28,336
•
·
•
·
28,336
85,250
63,664
Union Square
18
68,210
68,210
129,790
United States National.
1
205,335
205,335
199,665
Western National
1
1,014,590
9,100
1,023,690
2,161,310
West Side.
20
49,140
49,140
262,860
Total
$18,270,837
$737,853 $19,003,690
$69,509,182
1
2284
[SENATE,
EXHIBIT 6.
SHOWING THE ASSESSED VALUATION OF REAL ESTATE BY WARDS IN 1880 AND 1890, THE YEARLY INCREASE OR DECREASE
(THE LATTER BEING INDICATED IN RED INK) AND THE NET INCREASE SINCE 1880.
WARD.
Assessment for 1880.
Increase or decrease,
1881.
Increase or decrease,
1882.
Increase or decrease,
1883.
Increase or decrease,
1884.
1
First.
Second.
Third.
$53,056,526 00
28,105,760 00
33,817,920 00
$1,849,640 00
$5,606,056 00
$4,249,437 00
$1,610,643 00
292,440 00
838,440 00
962,557 00
331,624 00
224,580 00
1,223,060 00
420,791 00
302,530 00
Fourth
12,605,945 00
28,280 00
881,062 00
354,943 00
193,900 00
Fifth.
38,949,250 00
195,350 00
1,695,200 00
1,872,402 00
918,416 00
Sixth
21,812,150 00
16,100 00
535,410 00
74,168 00
223,260 00
Seventh
15,931,050 00
53,000 00
226,558 00
41,966 00
177,550 00
Eighth
35,127,442 00
208,100 00
689,618 00
1,352,614 00
,
642,924 00
Ninth
26,922,570 00
168,080 00
332,873 00
549,441 00
820,850 00
,
Tenth
17,136,240 00
31,035 00
142,830 00
306.121 00
163,950 00
>
Eleventh
15,834,470 00
64,300 00
151,393 00
202,130 00
248,850 00
Twelfth
74,922,580 00
10,650,459 00
11,810,260 00
6,047,555 00
11,751,571 00
Thirteenth
9,742,350 00
45,500 00
165,550 00
11,885 00
84,100 00
Fourteenth
22,493,457 00
221.480 00
249.218 00
>
398,387 00
602,250 00
Fifteenth
51,418,860 00
19,940 00
1,383,320 00
1,608,200 00
673,718 00
Sixteenth
34,000,450 00
174,050 00
619,362 00
352,606 00
1,080,450 00
Seventeenth
32,703,480 00
209,320 00
396,623 00
286,419 00
124,600 00
Eighteenth
69,342,450 00
1,605,300 00
927,502 00
1,553,201 00
Nineteenth
Twentieth
Twenty-first
138,544,965 00
13,758,410 00
24,252,923 00
7,237,250 00
38,591,150 00
76,623,800 00
· 679,100 00
570,450 00
431,570 00
2,991,602 00
2,276,880 00
7,609,318 00
2,016,910 00
9,102,400 00
1,576,350 00
1,116,550 00
5,949,442 00
785,845 00
2285
>
$40,630,928 00
132,245 008-

Twenty-second
Twenty-third
Twenty-fourth
Total assessment, 1880, $942,571,190 00
Net increase
Net increase, 1880 & 1890,
71,986,340 00
2,700,135 00
4,858,560 00
5,538,129 00
13,478,300 00
9,423,685 00
357,760 00
81,080.00
463,415 00
73,060 00
446,935 00
178,740 00
$34,164,009 00 $58, 168,617 00 $43,926,853 00
2286
[SENATE,
First
Second
WARD.
Third
Fourth
Fifth
Sixth
Seventh
Eighth
Ninth
Tenth
Eleventh
Twelfth
Thirteenth
Fourteenth
Fifteenth
Sixteenth
Seventeenth.
Eighteenth
Nineteenth
Twentieth
EXHIBIT 6—(Continued).
}
Increase or decrease, Increase or decrease, Increase or decrease, Increase or decrease,
1885.
1886.
1887.
1888.
Twenty-first.
Twenty-second
$13,264,514 00
3,671,319 00
2,305,119 00
$846,051 00
$737,242 00
$1,195,908 00
164,238 00
>
199,209 00
71,034 00
91,429 00
240,836 00
253,065 00
849,803 00
58.994 00
130,792 00
222,950 00
1,909,060 00
457,734 00
379,495 00
326,542 00
1,310,353 00
281,252 00
372,948 00
233,700 00
288,467 00
330,787 00
334,611 00
504,460 00
431,511 00
585,608 00
224,286 00
103,200 00
245,952 00
208,224 00
522,833 00
652,850 00
269,151 00
463,280 00
325,932 00
386,350 00
76,227 00
213,759 00
372,577 00
29,650 00
6,723,255 00
12,126,152 00
24,081,575 00
8,276,990 00
161,730 00
179,070 00
307,050 00
398,691 00
347,425 00
367,512 00
315,042 00
228,160 00
125,108 00
648,975 00
424,312 00
829,102 00
806,596 00
823,613 00
355,402 00
533,536 00
135,511 00
300,163 00
517,414 00
584,900 00
>
2,245,015 00
462,966 00
617,243 00
5,501,020 00
684,723 00
144,313 00
4,146,283 00
6,621,487 00
6,717,485 00
384,536 00
7,051,920 00
ма
687,181 00
743,112 00
>
830,094 00
908,706 00
8,549,551 00
9,856,997 00.
909,000 00
923,250 00
8,605,963 00
-
·
•
•
•
No. 80.]
2287
Twenty-third.
Twenty-fourth...
Total assessment, 1880
Net increase
Net increase, 1880 and 1890.
2,926,804 00
383,305 00
1,057,917 00
921,975 00
1,410,832 00
567,870 00
3,171,308 00
2,325,643 00
$48,681,540 00 $35,497,928 00 $50,550,784 00 $48,327,030 00
2288
[SENATE,
EXHIBIT 6-(Concluded).
WARD.
Increase or decrease, Increase or decrease,
1890.
on
Assessed valuation for
1890.
Net increase from 1880
to 1890.
First
Second
$511,725 00
564,122 00
$3,608,900 00
$84,844,538 00
$31,788,012 00
622,165 00
35,680,850 00
7,575,090 00
Third
371,467 00
444,773 00
39,695,570 00
5,877,650 00
Fourth
•
117,208 00
394,750 00
14,076,503 00
1,470,558 00
Fifth
539,503 00
377,268 00
47,620,220 00
8,670,970 00
Sixth.
257,759 00
195,200 00
25,312,300 00
3,500,150 00
Seventh
•
422,150 00
1,948,690 00
20,175,357 00
4,244,307 00
Eighth
251,735 00
536,050 00
40,153,088 00
5,025,646 00
Ninth
552,107 00
1,546,310 00
32,521,090 00
5,598,520 00
Tenth
229,185 00
1,949,300 00
20,791,132 00
3,654,892 00
Eleventh
249,431 00
2,691,400 00
20,400,587 00
4,566,117 00
Twelfth
11,781,563 00
20,163,165 00
208,335,125 00
133,412,545 00
>
Thirteenth,
385,123 00
1,805,950 00
13,263,229 00
3,520,879 00
Fourteenth
172,372 00
400,800 00
25,796,092 00
3,302,635 00
Fifteenth
693,175 00
1,390,050 00
59,174,880 00
7,756,020 00
Sixteenth
755,385 00
1,101,985 00
40,603,435 00
6,602,985 00
Seventeenth
289,500 00
5,745,900 00
41,022,808 00
8,319,328 00
Eighteenth
1,562,077 00
1,422,400 00
82,139,600 00
12,797,150 00
Nineteenth
2,543,540 00
4,416,170 00
225,647,570 00
Twentieth
723,780 00
1,483,350 00
49,587,900 00
Twenty-first
524,721 00
2,298,200 00
Twenty-second
4,341,670 00
6,979,229 00
93,539,300 00
133,512,299 00
87,102,605 00
10,996,750 00
16,915,500 00
61,525,959 00
No. 80.]
2289
Twenty-third.
Twenty-fourth
Total assessment, 1890
Net increase
Net increase, 1880 and 1890
[Senate, No. 80.]
287
1,692,145 00
2,668,570 00
772,041 00
2,521,141 00
28,569,831 00
15,836,703 00
$1,398, 290, 007 00
$28,759,412 00 | $66,711,716 00
:
15,081,531 00
6,413,018 00
$455,718,817 00
•

2290
[SENATE,

EXHIBIT 7.
SHOWING THE ASSESSED VALUATION OF PERSONAL ESTATE, RESIDENT, NON-RESIDENT AND SHAREHOLDERS IN BANKS IN 1880
AND IN 1890, THE YEARLY INCREASE OR DECREASE (THE LATTER BEING INDICATED IN RED INK), AND THE NET INCREASE
OR DECREASE SINCE 1880.
Increase or decrease, Increase or decrease, Increase or decrease, Increase or decrease,
1882.
1881.
1883.
1884.
Resident
Non-resident
$1,335,027,710 00 $511,032,000 00 $945,092,900 00 $148,355,900 00 $1,394,686,700 00
1,208,972,000 00 8,575,500 00
59,950,400 00
86,043,800 00
5,496,100 00
Shareholders of
banks
5,660,160,709 CO | 282,278,787 00
88,988,460 00
161,790,967 00
709,834,500 00
Assessment for 1880.
No. 80.]
2291

EXHIBIT 7 (Continued).
५
Increase or decrease,
1885.
Increase or decrease,
1886.
Increase or decrease,
1887.
Increase or decrease,
1888.
Resident
Non-resident
$936,747,900 00
99,093,000 00
$1,621,260,000 00
$3,192,294, 100 00
$419,821,500 00
12,579,400 00
37,654,500 00
6,757,200 00
Shareholders of banks
550,447,100 00
173,345,100 00
382,210,700 00
174,052,500 00
2292
[SENATE,

EXHIBIT 7-(Concluded).
Increase or decrease,
1890.
Increase or decrease,
1889.
Assessed valuation, 1890.
Net increase from 1880 to
1890.
Resident
Non-resident.
Shareholders of banks
$1,809,404, 500 00
12,075,400 00
342,247,100 00
$2,314,985,900 00
176,646,600 00
151,123,600 00
$21,743,916,000 00
1,174,004,100 00
$8,393,645,000 00
6,950,918,200 00
34,967,900 00
1,390,757,491 00
No. 80.]
2293
NEW YORK, October 17, 1890.
Present Senators Fassett, Ahearn and McNaughton.
MICHAEL COLEMAN, recalled, further testified:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. If in your judgment as a commissioner of taxes the assessments
in the seventh ward, seventeenth ward, thirteenth, tenth and eleventh
wards seemed to be higher than they ought to be, and if in your same
judgment the taxes in the nineteenth, eighth and fifth wards for
instance seemed to be lower than they ought to be, what power have
you as a commissioner, or what power has your board as a board to
consider the matter and compel what, in your judgment, is a proper
assessment in each case? A. In the first case there is no doubt in
my mind but what we have the right, after the books are opened the
second month in January, to increase or decrease whatever we think
is out of proportion with one another.
Q. How do you do that? A. There has never been any occasion for the
commissioners to take such action as to go into a wholesale matter of
reducing or increasing one ward or one section of the city.
Q. There never has been any such case arise? A. No; not so
palpable that it would compel the commissioners to do a thing of
that kind.
Q. If it were to arise, however, have you any power in the premises?
A. Well, we have power to comply with the law in regard to increasing
that part of the city or that section of the city up to the adjoining
section, as long as we do not exceed the marketable value; but I have
always been in favor of equalizing down instead of equalizing up; I
have never been able to carry my point on that one question.
Q. But if one deputy or two deputies were to assess at the very top
of the market and all of the other deputies were to assess fairly below
the actual market, you would not have power to equalize down, as you
say, so far as concerns the work of the first two deputies? A. Under
the law without some complaints were made, I don't think it would
be proper for us to take and revise the figures of the deputy as long
as he complied with the law; we have taken, within the last four or
five years, a certain section of the city that had been raised by the
deputy some eight or ten years ago, and where the improvements had
missed them, and where it stood in a stagnated state for years, and
where the values commenced to decline and depreciate there, and
recommended before the opening of the books for the deputy to reduce
that along that line, and when he didn't do so, I saw that after the
books were opened, there were several complaints made along that
કે
2294
[SENATE,
line, and I made out a list of reductions and the commissioners con-
firmed my list and it was reduced several hundred pieces, but it was
so markedly unjust that I had to do so.
Q. In appraising real estate for taxation tell us exactly how the
value is ascertained? A. Taking the fair, honest, marketable value of
the property as it stands, plot and building.
Q. How do they ascertain the fair, honest, marketable value? A.
They must find that out by inquiries, by the knowledge they have of
what the elements of making up the value of real estate are.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. By recent sales in the neighborhood of similar kinds of property?
A. That is only one; there are so many things to go into in order to
find out the value of real estate; location is one of the first principles,
the surroundings, the lot is improved by a building suitable for the
location, whether the future is going to be bright, or whether it is
going to be dull, whether it is going to appreciate, what the income is
at present, what it is going to be in the future, what is required to go
along side of them to depreciate them or to appreciate them; all those
things have got to be taken in; to tell you the truth I have never
known an expert in real estate hardly that knew all about it, there are
so many things about it.
Q. You never knew anybody who knew absolutely what the future
was going to be as to any kind of business, did you? A. You can't
tell.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Take a piece of property, a small tenement which is actually
sold for $31,000, the rentals of which are $2,800, what would such a
piece of property be apt to be valued for purposes of assessment? A.
I can answer that in this way, there are a certain class of men, specu-
lators in New York, that consist of a very wealthy syndicate, who buy
and build houses, who fill them under a rent roll that is supposed to
be honest and just, who put new shades up, new oilcloths in the halls,
and who put people there from top to bottom, so that a piece of
property will rent for $2,800 for the purpose of catching somebody
who will buy that property on the basis of an income; six months
after that that same property, if sold for $28,000 or $25,000 or $31,000,
if you visit that same piece of property it might be the same, but the
chances are it will not, you will find may be six or eight places vacant.
Q. Do you think they could do a thing of that kind so successfully
as to fool the tax department into assessing that property at $42,000 ?
A. No.
No. 80.]
2295
Q. You would be surprised if I should call your attention to such
a case? A. I should be very much obliged to you, very much indeed;
there is no record in the tax office that wants to be rectified but what
we want to find it out.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. After you find the fair, honest market value of the property
then is it assessed at that? A. Giving the benefit to the taxpayer in
relation to what might be called actual depreciation, wear and tear
and the average loss of rents, after taking out all the expense, giving
him all the benents, we tried to get right down to what you might
call an eighty per cent basis on that.
Q. An eighty per cent basis on what? A. Yes.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. In the meantime, wouldn't there be a steady appreciation of the
value of the land on which that building stands? A. That is accord-
ing to its location altogether; the lands and the property that has
been increased in the eleventh and thirteenth wards and along the
line of the seventh ward were more valuable forty years ago than they
are to-day, because at that time they were full of shop buildings and
mechanical interests all along that line, and since that time it has all
gone to the North river side of the city; and if you go along there
now you will find nothing but one mass of wrecks from Grand street
up as far as Fourteenth street; piers falling apart-no business.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. This is the region where these great increases in valuations
occur, is it not? A. Not along the river front; but it was parts of
those wards.
By Senator McNaughton:
Q. But in other parts of the city the real estate has appreciated in
value?
Senator FASSETT. The ground rents, he means?
The WITNESS.-— In other parts of the city we have been gradually,
ever since 1879, upon an upward movement; we went down between
1873 and 1879; there was no protection for real estate then; but
between 1879 and up to the present time there has been a gradual
increase throughout the city, except where it is in certain locations,
and those locations are very few; of course, there has been more in
some parts than there has in another.
Q. The rent received for property is not always a true test of its
value? A. That is one of the tests.
2296
[SENATE,
Q. But it is not always a true test? A. The rents received as a
basis to go in regard to the sale of property near Broadway, between
Eighth and Twelfth streets; for years and years around the Stewart
property, and all that section along Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh
streets, along from Fourth to Sixth avenues, where the leases were
made in 1869 and 1870, upon a high tide point, a high basis, when the
panic of 1873 struck us, every one, almost, along there was ruined,
and you couldn't get anything at all for the improvements that the
people placed upon these leased lots.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. I want to go back to a question that was asked by Senator
McNaughton a minute ago; suppose a building of a fair or indifferent
character is put up on a lot, and that long after, although the build-
ing has begun to fall into decay, or possibly is returning smaller
rents, the land values in the neighborhoods have increased very
greatly, how would you go about assessing a piece of property of that
kind where the lot, as a vacant lot, might have doubled in value,
although the improvement, as an improvement, might have decreased?
A. We generally take-no matter whether it has been improved or
whether it has depreciated or appreciated - we generally take, year
after year, a fair sum for what might be considered a marketable value
in proportion to the surrounding property; if the land depreciates or
the building depreciates, if a man takes a piece of property upon
Madison avenue and puts up a tenement-house there, he takes and
depreciates not only the tenement-house property, but the value of
the land; if the man was to take and put up a private house over in
Cannon street, which ought to be put up in Madison avenue, it
destroys the value of the land almost as well as the value of the
improvement; all those things have got to be taken into considera-
tion, and without a man is a thorough expert in regard to the value
of real estate, it is almost impossible to answer every question without
a personal examination, or knowing something about the location.
Q. When you say taken separately, you mean each case by itself?
A. Yes; each case taken by itself.
Q. You don't mean the land value and the improvement value taken
separately? A. I mean taking everything; there may be the location
as well as the individual piece of property.
Q. In the individual piece do you take the land value and the
improvement value separately? A. We do not take anything at all
separately, except upon an examination which we want to go into upon
a complaint; we strike the land value.
No. 80.]
2297
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. That is, you mean you don't enter in your books an estimate in
the separate value? A. No; if I want to sit down and talk with a
man on a complaint, then we will get the area of his ground and also
what the land is, and then what it cost to put up the building; of
course, we would do that in a friendly way; but the assessors make
no separation upon their books.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Then these assessments, except in cases where complaints are
made by the party assessed, depend entirely upon the judgment of
the deputy tax commissioner? A, Oh, yes; subject, of course, to the
review made and the suggestions made by the commissioners' going
over the reports.
Q. Do you make suggestions for changes on the weekly reports,
in some cases suggesting a lower valuation, and in other cases
suggesting a higher valuation? A. Oh, yes; it has been the custom
right along, since 1887, in the fall of the year; it used to be, generally,
my business, before I was a commissioner, to take each and every field
book and go over one day in a week a boy's figures, and make
suggestions and recommendations to him. The commissioner used to
depend upon me to take and do that; of course, I have not had the
proper time now, with my other things, to do that; but what little
time I do have, and what reports I do go over, I generally speak to
the chief deputy to take and tell the deputies what my opinion is, and
where I should think certain things ought to be done.
By Senator Fassett:
Q. Then the deputy may or may not accept your suggestion? A.
Oh, yes.
Q. As a question of jurisdiction, you have not any until after the
books are open, upon complaints made? A. No.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Now your weekly report comes to you? A. Yes.
Q. You sit down with it? A. Yes.
Q. You go over it in detail? A. Yes.
Q. In going over it in detail do you remember distinctly ever having
sent for a deputy and saying, "you have assessed this piece of
property too low?" A. Oh, frequently; I have, individually,
frequently.
Q. Do you remember ever having said to a deputy, "you have
assessed that piece of property too high?" A. I say this way, "send
[Senate, No. 80.]
288
2298
[SENATE,
for him; let me see what he has got to say about this thing; haven't
you got that too low; haven't you got that too high," and things of
that kind; I get along friendly with all my men, every one of them;
I get along friendly with them all; I recommend what I can and
advise what I can.
Q. In the long run, except in the cases where complaints are made,
or except in the cases where you exercised your own right of sugges-
tion upon receipt of the weekly statement or weekly report, the action
of the deputy in fixing the assessed value is a finalty? A. Yes;
that is the general question.
Q. Except in those cases? A. That is the general question; that is
the question.
Q. Now if the particular deputy is not an expert and is not in all
things qualified for his work, then the work is not well done, is it?
A. Well, if he has no knowledge, when you say a particular deputy.
By Senator Fassett:
Q. To put that question in another way, the way the work is done
depends wholly upon the capacity of the inspector? A. Yes; of
course.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Entirely? A. Yes; and that is the reason why we have been so
conservative in our department, because from 1869, up to the present
time, there have only been about eight changes in our department;
we don't want to have any changes.
Q. So every assessment in New York city depends ultimately upon
the expert opinion and capacity of some one individual, and that is
the deputy tax commissioner, unless complaint is made, and it is
revised? A. And indorsed to a certain extent by the action of the
commissioners, because the commissioners can, you know; there is no
deputy would stand right up and disobey the commissioners; if the
commissioners would go and order him to do certain things he will
do them; but they have never done so.
Q. Do you know of the commissioners, as a board, ordering the
deputy tax commissioner to raise his assessment or to decrease his
assessment before the books were opened on the first week in January ?
A. I never knew it as a board; but I have very often- in fact, there
never is a year goes by but what I go through the records, and you
will find them over there where I have written "low, Coleman ";
section high, Coleman," written in pencil; "this piece low; improved;
examine again; Coleman;" you will find that.
"this
No. 80.]
2299
Q. That you regard as being done in compliance with your sense of
your duty as a tax commissioner? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know whether either of the other tax commissioners, not
acting as members of the board, but acting individually as a com-
missioner, as you do, does the same thing? A. I don't know about that;
I couldn't say for certain about that.
Q. Has your attention ever been called to the fact that they did
anything about it? A. Yes; I think that Mr. Birmingham called my
attention to the fact last year that one of the commissioners spoke about
a piece of property in the lower part of Broadway and said that the
asking price was so much, and thought that the assessment was a
little too low to what they were asking for it, and asked me my views,
and I gave them to him.
Q. Did you ever hear of any other instance? A. No.
Q. Which one of the commissioners was that? A. Commissioner
Feitner spoke to Mr. Birmingham.
Q. Now, in making these assessments I understood you to say that
the improvements were personally inspected? A. That is supposed
to be the duty and supposed to be done by the deputy tax
commissioner.
Q. What instructions are given to the deputy tax commissioner in
regard to the personal inspection and the character of the personal
inspection of the improvements? A. The oath of office is copied by
the secretary and posted up in the real estate department; I generally
make it a habit previous to the opening of the books to call Mr. Bell's
attention to certain sections of the city and go through the deputies,
and each and every one, and talk with them personally in regard to
what I expect to do; that is all; a general conversation and a matter
of custom which I have always been in the habit of doing, telling them
what I think was right and proper for us both to work together, in
trying to give the best results.
Q. You are obliged, as commissioners, to take it for granted in view
of your knowledge of the character and capacity and straightfor-
wardness of your deputies, that all improvements have been thor-
oughly and well inspected by them, are you not? A. We are not
satisfied with their report on that, we go further than that; we have
a book, as I showed you here yesterday, where we take the weekly
statements from the buildings department of every alteration of every
new building in the ward of anything over $150, or perhaps may be
$500 now, it used to be $150; and we make a note of each and every
piece, and when the deputy's reports are sent in we compare his
2300
[SENATE,
reports carefully with each and every ward and find out whether he
has gone through the streets where these improvements are.
Q. Who compares that, the commissioners themselves or another
deputy? A. That is compared by Mr. Bell and Mr. Newkirk, the
application clerk and the chief deputy; they go over each and every
parcel in the city of New York where the improvements take place.
Q. By that means you can certainly, you think, detect the
fact that a deputy tax commissioner has not made a personal
inspection of a piece of property, if it appears from the maps that
there has been an improvement, but the same thing does not appear
in his field book? A. We generally can catch on where there has
been any neglect; but you must remember that all applications made
for alterations or for buildings are not commenced, and certainly
sometimes when we think that may be we have detected a deputy in
neglecting a part of his duty we very often find he has been over his
ward fully and these improvements that have been recorded have
never been commenced.
Q. In making appraisements of vacant lots appraised lower than
improved lots of equal value on the same street or in the same
neighborhood? A. We tried to make an equal no matter where they
are, the same street, the same avenue or in different locations; of
course, it is impossible for anybody to take and look over the records
without he makes a personal examination to know what is equal; one
street is not paved, the other street adjoining is; one street has a
walk and a sewer in it and the other not; one street might have rock
may be four feet below the surface while another is four feet above it;
one might be filled in by soil or ashes may be twenty years ago and not
being discovered would require a man to put down a foundation wall
may be twenty feet below the curve; those things can not be examined
without going personally upon the ground and taking your bearings
and your soundings and knowing personally about the location.
Q. Do you know Eighty-sixth street between Ninth avenue and the
Boulevard? A. It is an improving location now, very improving.
Q. That block now is practically all built up, is it not? A. Built
up by Prague.
Q. Except a few lots on the south side? A. Yes, sir.
Q. About 100 feet front? A. Yes, sir; he brought that property
from D. Willis James.
Q. Now let us take that as an illustration; there are some houses
on the south side about the middle of that block and right alongside
of those houses there are four or five unoccupied lots? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now will you appraise the land value of the unoccupied lot upon
·
No. 80.]
2301
the same basis as the appraisement of the land value of the occupied
lot adjoining? A. Well, hardly; I have always directed the deputies-
my idea has been that unimproved property that don't stand in the
way of progress and which is held by people who can not or who are
not able to improve, unimproved property that has no way by which
an improvement can be made, by connection with a sewer or in the
way of pavement or flagging, and which requires no protection on
the part of the city, should not be placed upon the same high basis
that improved property should be that has all these improvements
and protection; there ought to be a little difference in my judgment.
Q. Then as a matter of fact there is a difference in the appraise-
ment? A. Well, there ought to be.
Q. And vacant lots standing alongside of lots on which there are
improvements are assessed lower so far as the land value is con-
cerned, than those on which the improvements are? A. I think they
are as a general thing.
Q. To about what extent - a difference of five per cent, ten per
cent or twenty per cent or what do you suppose the difference is? A.
The chances are may be in some cases fifteen per cent.
By Senator McNaughton:
Q. You said you made a distinction in favor of property held by
parties who are unable to improve it as compared with property held
by parties who are able to improve it; why do you do that? A. I
say no; if unimproved property stands in the way of progress and is
held by parties who are able to improve it, that is one way; if in
other locations where unimproved property has rock upon it and has
no sewers, no connections, no pavements or no flagging and no street
openings hardly for that matter, and requires no protection, certainly
we can't put that upon the grade of property downtown that has all
the elements of value.
Q. That is not my question; do you appraise property that is held
by parties who are unable to improve it on a lower basis? A. Some-
times it is done.
Q. Why do you favor that class of property? A. We don't favor
it as a special thing, but I take it that unimproved property should
not be assessed as high as improved property.
Q. That may be very true; but I couldn't exactly see why you
should favor property held by people who are unable to improve it?
A. Well, no; there is sometimes property in litigation, property held
by miners; the executors having no right to improve it and where
the will might say that they say that they can not borrow; I have
2302
[SENATE,
known places in Broadway where the lease was made for twenty-one
years and the propety held by the corporation which has to pay the
tax, where the ground rent was less than the taxes paid upon the
property.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Do you make a distinction as for property held for speculation
and kept vacant, and the property that is vacant because there is no
demand at the time for its improvement, is that what you mean? A.
Well, we don't make any reason; my general directions are to deputies
in talking to them, and it has always been the custom of the depart-
ment not to take and appraise vacant property on the same high
basis as improved property, because it don't require the same protec-
tion under the law and don't cost us so much.
Q. Do you remember what the practice of the board was, for
instance, with such pieces of land as that which was held by the
Boner estate for a long time on Fifth avenue? A. That was always
assessed perhaps on a basis —I don't think there was any difference
hardly — although he held it for a certain price and held it there for
years and years and no one would ever go anywhere near that price
until a millionaire, who didn't consider $100,000 anything like C. P.
Huntingdon did, that wanted that particular location, and he did give
him his price; at the same time it was not a proper value; nobody
else could have done it; there are not ten men in the city of New
York to-day who would have taken it off Huntingdon's hands after he
had made the contract at may be $50,000 or $75,000 of a loss; but
there was a man worth may be $20,000,000 to $25,000,000 who wanted
that particular location.
Q. Do you remember what the practice was in regard to assessing
that particular piece of property? It has been always considered to
be assessed on a fair basis in proportion to the surrounding country.
Q. You don't remember what it has been assessed at? A. Yes; I
can tell you; I should judge about $400,000.
Q. You wouldn't call that an assessment at eighty per cent of its
value? A. No.
Q. Nor sixty per cent of its value? A. Yes, sir; I would put it up
in ordinary time.
Q. It is not fifty per cent for what he got for it? A. No; and he
held it there for fifteen years, waiting for his price; it would break an
ordinary man to do such a thing; don't take that as an ordinary value
or an ordinary piece of property.
No. 80.]
2303
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Then he was assisted in holding on speculatively, and waiting
for his price by the action of the tax department in making those
assessments? A. Not by any means.
Q. It did result in an assistance to him? A. Not by any means; it
didn't make a particle of difference to Mr. Boner whether we assessed
him $5,000 or $3,000; it would not change his ideas of the value at
all; he had no idea of selling the property, and didn't want to sell it,
and for the purpose of keeping all speculators and real estate men
away from him, he put a price on it that he didn't think they would
ever reach; but he paid $10,000 or $12,000 a year to the city for,
holding it.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Have you any data showing the value of real estate that by law
is exempt from taxation; yes, sir; everything.
Mr. IVINS. That can all be put in from the record here.
The WITNESS.-That is a very nice and interesting subject. You
people ought to study it.
Mr. IVINS.— We will study it with your help now in a few minutes.
Q. That data is printed? A. For every piece of property; yes; it
is in the report.
Mr. IvINS.—It is right here in the report of the tax commissioners.
The WITNESS.— I think each of you ought to have a report of that
kind, because every piece of property in New York is in that report.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Which one of these reports is that? A. That of 1890.
Q. As a matter of fact, if that property had been built upon, and
occupied, it would have been assessed at a higher rate, wouldn't it?
A. Oh, a great deal higher, that is providing the improvements would
add anything to the value of the land instead of depreciating it; if
they had put up a lot of tenement-houses there, which they had a right
to do, we would have had to depreciate it.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. What did this man sell at — he sold half of it for how much?
A. I think McRae had it parceled out so that Astor took one part,
Huntingdon took the other, and he got at the rate of nearly a million
of dollars; that was the price he put on it fifteen years back; now
consider what this man did in 1869 and 1870; he said this was worth
nearly a million of dollars; he has been waiting twenty years to buy
2304
[SENATE,
it at that price, and in the meantime he has paid the city of New York
nearly $200,000 in taxes.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. But if he had built upon that property, dwellings exactly of the
kind and character of the other buildings in the neighborhood, he
would have paid more than that on that property, wouldn't he? A.
Yes, a great deal more; certainly.
Q. Then the city would have been the gainer by his having built
in the first instance, in having just so many more buildings, and in
the second instance in having just so much more money in its coffers?
A. Yes; but that is under his control; we are not obliged to do that.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. If it had been assessed at that rate, he wouldn't have been able
to hold it, would he? A. We are not putting on the screws that way
on the good people of New York.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You put the screws onto the people who have built houses, and
onto the rent-payer who covers the taxes in his rent, don't you? A.
We tried to assess him in a fair way, and there is a difference in
opinion between me and the deputy in some of those things? A.
Yes, sir; that is all.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Is not this the unfortunate effect of our system of taxation that
it results in a premium upon unimprovement? A. Not at all.
Q. And a burden upon improving real estate? A. No.
Q. Is not that the effect of it all over the State as well as in New
York city? A. It is not as far as New York is concerned; there are
very few buildings in New York reasonable under the present system
of transit, that we can get at, but what we assess in a fair equitable
way; but where we can't reach them, where we can't get at them, and
where you people won't give us facilities to get at them-
Q. Don't say "you people" are refusing these facilities, because
that may lead to a decided difference of opinion? A. I don't care how
we get it.
Q. The Legislature did pretty nearly its share in that respect; if
Mr. Boner had had a million dollars worth of property in the shape of
improvements there, he would have had to pay upon a higher assess-
ment? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So it seems to me that wherever property is improved, that
No. 80.]
2305
instant an assessor sees it, and as long as it is unimproved he does
not see it; in other words there is always a premium under our
present system of taxation on keeping property unimproved? A. We
would rather have them improve it.
Q. You make them pay a penalty for improvements? A. We are
not going to be the instruments in anybody's hands for the sake of
driving people what they are not able to do.
Q. Are not you the instruments in the hands of a system that
makes people pay a penalty for improvement? A. No; the system is
all right; we are not putting things in that way; we have had appli-
cations time and time again from people who are downtown owners
of large pieces of property, where some poor German or poor Irishman
had bought a corner property there, and where they wanted to buy
him out and where they offered him really more than what the prop-
erty was worth; but at the same time he had been there and he had
been successful there, he didn't know what to do with the money pro-
viding they sold out, and they would try to force us in the tax office
to take and put that property upon a basis at which they were willing
to pay for it, but which was not an honest value, for the purpose of
crowding that man out; we have refused in every case to do it; it is
the same way nearly all over New York.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Take a piece of property that is already occupied by a building,
but which might be occupied by a very much better building, which
because of the character of the neighborhood if there were a better
building on it, would yield a very much higher return, and as an
illustration let me ask you if you know the New York Hotel· do
you know the old New York Hotel? A. Yes; Mat Morgan owns that.
Q. How large a piece of property is that on which the New York
Hotel stands? A. It runs from Mercer street to Broadway, and from
Waverly place to Washington place; it is a short block there between
Mercer street and Broadway.
Q. Have you ever heard that it has been proposed from time to
time to tear down that old New York Hotel and put up a new and
large and modern hotel on the site? A. Oh, yes; the plans were
made for the New York Hotel in 1886.
Q. The plans were made? A. Yes, and then the Morgan people
got into trouble down in Wall street upon the failure of the Denver
and Rio Grande road, and that stopped it right away.
Q. Has your attention ever been called to the fact that even after
the plans were made for the building of a new hotel there, the fear
[Senate, No. 80.]
289
2306
[SENATE,
of assessment was such as to deter the building of the hotel? A.
Who gave you that story?
Q. I ask you if you ever heard it? A. I know it is not so.
Q. Would you be surprised to learn that if a new hotel were put
up there at a cost of one or two or three millions of dollars including
interest and the tax rate which would be incident to the new improve-
ment it would be such as to make a profitable return impossible? A.
I have never figured on what the income of the property would be or
what the cost of the hotel would be; but I know this, that when the
plans were made, and right previous to the death of Trenor W. Parks,
the line of the tunnel under the Hudson river drawing straight to
Broadway would take in a part of the property upon the rear of the
New York Hotel; I was asked to be the appraiser and I refused; and
just as soon as they found that they were going to make some pro-
gress with that tunnel they stopped all proceedings in relation to any
improvement in that location.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. It was due to that, and not to the statement made by Mr. Ivins?
A. Yes; you know it wouldn't do until they had drawn out their lines
and found out where the opening was going to come.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Have you ever heard in any particular case that property has
not been improved, that is, an old building torn down and a new
building put up, in view of the fact that the net return would be
smaller after the new improvements were made than it is with the
old building, as incident to taxation? A. Oh, lots of cases.
Q. You have heard lots of cases? A. Lots of cases in regard to
where the income in proportion to the improvement, to the cost of
improvement was much smaller than what it was before; but at the
same time we have got nothing to consider about the income; that is
not one of the elements.
Q. I know you have not and I know that is none of your function
at all; but we are now examining you as an expert on this general
question of the taxation of land values and improvement values, and
we want to get your opinion, for instance, in regard to a certain thing
that has been urged before the Legislature time and time again during
the last few years, and that is a single tax on land.
Q. You say that you have heard of ever so many cases? A. Oh,
lots of cases.
Q. Now, just tell us one, two, three, four, five, six or a dozen of
those cases? A. I couldn't enumerate them because these things are
No. 80.]
2307
•
continually in my mind in regard to the good will of property being
destroyed by the old building being taken down and where the cost
of the new improvements would not compensate the parties at all; I
have known lots of cases of that kind in my experience.
Q. Have you known that the obligation to pay a very much increased
gross tax, which falls as part of the burthen on your investment, was
one of the deterents? A. Oh, no; that is only imagination.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. High taxes don't affect the value of property? A. Oh, no;
people don't stop for improvements in New York to consider about
the tax office at all.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Now, let us take the case of the block between Fifth and Sixth
avenues and One Hundred and Twenty-ninth and One Hundred and
Thirtieth streets; are you familiar with that block? A. One Hundred
and Twenty-ninth and One Hundred and Thirtieth streets, yes; that
is on the south side; they are in the Philadelphia style; that is the .
Astor property; brick buildings there with an alley-way between
each one.
Q. Now, let us see; on the south side of that street running for 100
feet or so from Fifth avenue, on the south side of the block, which is
the north side of One Hundred and Twenty-ninth street, there are no
buildings; are there? A. No; not there; on the south side of One
Hundred and Thirtieth street there are.
Q. Then, there come, on this same north side of One Hundred and
Twenty-ninth street, eight or ten houses built on the Philadelphia
plan; is that so? A. Yes; brick buildings.
Q. And then from those houses, running down to the corner of
Sixth avenue it is vacant again; isn't it? A. Yes; and on the north
side of One Hundred and Thirtieth street it is all brown stone houses.
Q. On the north side of One Hundred and Thirtieth street it is
brown stone houses; on the Sixth avenue end? A. Yes.
Q. And in the middle of the block there are double houses with alley-
ways between? A. Yes; that man filled them in in 1869; a man by the
name of Hayes built them.
Q. And that entire block belongs to one of the Astor estates; doesn't
it to-day? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will your books show what the estimated value of the land for
purposes of assessment is in the cases where the lots are not built on,
and in the cases where the lots are built on? A. They will show the
assessed value of both.
2308
[SENATE,
Q. So, that when we have them here in a minute we will be able to
get the exact details of that particular assessment; will we? A. Oh,
yes; each and every piece.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Does Mr. Coleman mean that it will show the assessed value of
each or the assessed value of both? A. The assessed value of the
land and building together, and the assessed value of the vacant lot.
Q. But not of the land on which the building stands? A. Oh, no.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Is land which is not laid out in building lots appraised on so
high a basis as land of equal value which is laid out in building lots?
A. That is altogether owing to the location.
Q. What should the location have to do with that? A. It has a
great deal to do with it; there is a market value to both; but just as
soon as you commence to take what you might call a fair ordinary
value, and just as soon as you commence to take and have a low
market or a poor market, or a depreciating market, the extremities
will feel the effect of it first, and it will take some while before it gets
to the center, and where those extreme outlying lands are they will
feel the first effects of depreciation; we don't propose to put them
upon the same basis as property nearer the center.
Q. Suppose we take the north side of East One Hundred and Forty-
third street? A. Between what avenues?
Q. Well, it does not make any difference any way; I am going to
give a hypothetical case? A. One Hundred and Forty-third street is
in the annexed district, part of it.
Q. I say East One Hundred and Forty-third street; that is in the
next district? A. Yes.
Q. Suppose you take a stretch along the north side of East One
Hundred and Forty-third street, and suppose there be four lots laid
out distinctly as building lots, each with a parcel number on your
books, and suppose adjoining them there be four lots not laid out in
building lots, but standing as a single plot and having one plot num-
ber in your books, will the assessed valuation of that single plot,
including four lots, be in the aggregate as high as the assessed valua-
tion of the other four lots? A. If they both lie upon a level.
Senator FASSETT.- Other things being equal?
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Everything else being equal?. A. Everything else being equal;
they should be if they are not.
No. 80.]
2309
Q. Is it the practice that they are? A. Right in the midst of
improvements of lots laid in lots, or lots laid out in plots, a small
parcel of that kind, it is always supposed that the deputies there will
put them upon the same basis.
Q. Now, suppose that there were a whole block of which four lots
had been laid out and each of which four lots had parcel numbers in
your books; and all of the rest of the block was in one parcel, and all
of the things were equal as to valuation, so that one twenty-five by 100
was equal to another twenty-five by 100 in that block, would the aggre-
gate assessed valuation of the rest of the block be made on the same
basis, the same ratio with the assessed valuations of the four lots?
A. You say "all things being equal," and when you say that you
cover such a thing that it is almost impossible to take and explain to
you or anybody else; they are not all things equal when you take
four separate streets of New York anywhere, no matter what location
you take.
Q. I am talking about the basis; the ratio? A. The ratio should
be, if the lots fronting upon the four different sides are assessed in
one parcel below what the same aggregate number of lots are assessed
opposite, then we are wrong, providing that you can show such a case
in our office.
Q. The point that I want to get at is this; I have no specific case in
mind? A. I wish you could, providing such a thing exists.
Q. This is a hypothetical question; it is simply for the purpose of
getting at the fact whether a practice prevails in your office of assess-
ing lots which are laid off as building lots at a higher rate than unim-
proved lots which are not so parceled, but which lie in bulk? A. No,
it is not a practice; where there are building lots and parcels siding
together it is not a practice, but where there are farm numbers that
is another matter; there are acres upon acres without a street passing
through, with no local improvements, away from all schools and away
from all churches, where persons are obliged to keep their horse and
wagon, there I claim that we have no right; it wouldn't be honest for
us, and I would refuse to do it even if I was ordered to do it.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Where streets have not been laid out and where maps have not
been filed for opening the streets? A. And where maps have not
been filed for opening the streets; there I claim that we shouldn't
assess them upon as high a basis as we do the property that has all
the improvements and all the surroundings.
2310
[SENATE,
By Senator McNaughton:
Q. Property of that kind is all in the upper part of the city? A.
Of course, New York is so laid out by nature that it is obliged to be
up there; if it was down here we would be in a bad state of affairs.
Q. In what wards? A. The twenty-third and twenty-fourth and
part of the twelfth ward.
By Mr. İVINS:
Q. What is the character of the property lying along the line of
One Hundred and Forty-third street in the annexed district? A. It is
according to the location; along Willis avenue there and Third avenue
there, it is very good and improving very rapidly; the line of the
suburban rapid transit there is going to open up that section of
the city very rapidly; there is no doubt but that property will come
into market.
Q. How is it about One Hundred and Thirty-eighth street? A. One
Hundred and Thirty-eighth street is a better street; it runs across.
Q. What is the character of the country between One Hundred and
Thirty-eight street and One Hundred and Forty-third street? A. It
is improving along there; all that section is improving.
Q. Is there any reason why a single lot on East One Hundred and
Forty-third street or a single lot on the south side of One Hundred
and Thirty-eighth street should be appraised much higher than plots
of several lots or possibly a whole acre lying between those two
streets? A. Well, you might say that perhaps taking the marketable
value in ordinary times, an acre wouldn't sell so rapidly, as high as
what one lot would in that section, because the average man that
goes up to that section of the city only wants to buy one or two lots;
it is inhabited by a class of people who are driven out of New York
and who are seeking for homes up there for dwellings and for invest-
ment purposes, and an acre would not sell so readily, thrown on the
market without due advertisement, as a lot would.
Q. If a man buys one of those lots and builds a home on it, then he
is taxed more for the particular lot on which he has built than if he
owneḍ a vacant acre lot in the neighborhood? A. No; we don't say
that.
Q. Is not that the result of it? A. No; we say the marketable
value; be sure now to follow the lines; I say the marketable value.
Q. I am not talking about the market value; I am talking about the
result of this system on the man who pays the tax? A. I am talking
about the marketable value.
Q. How do you get at the marketable value of a plot of three or
No. 80.]
2311
four acres between One Hundred and Thirty-eight and One Hundred
and Forty-third street? A. What it would sell for.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Do you mean if put up lot by lot?
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. If it were put up lot by lot, as long as these lines are imaginary,
what difference would it make? A. That would be all depending
upon whether the average could go in there and buy, but if there were
no sewers, no pavements, no manner of getting at the property, or no
manner in which it could be improved at once so as to yield an income,
then the chances are that speculators would be apt to buy them; if all
the improvements were there so that the average man could go in
and buy one or two lots and improve them, they would sell for more
in lots.
Senator FASSETT.- Mr. Ivins, this seems to be like an inquiry into
the practicability of placing all taxation on land values.
Mr. IVINS. No; it is not. It is an inquiry into this, it is an inquiry
into the correctness and accuracy of making assessments in this city.
It is an inquiry into the question as to whether or not unimproved
real estate of equal value with improved real estate should be assessed
at a less rate, and whether that is a proper assessment under the
existing law. It is a question whether because imaginary lines have
been laid down and divided off into lots of twenty-five by 100 each, a
different rule of assessment should prevail as compared with the four
adjoining lots on which imaginary lines have not been drawn.
The WITNESS.- Well, you must show us those cases before you state
them; show us where that was done in our office.
Q. Will you send for the books which will bring out One Hundred
and Thirty-eighth street to One Hundred and Forty-third street in
the annexed district? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now take this block, 614, between Fifth and Lennox avenues and
between One Hundred and Twenty-ninth and One Hundred and
Thirtieth streets, as shown on page 41 of record of assessments,
twelfth ward, volume 3, 1890? A. Those buildings were built by the
Astors; they are three-story brick buildings upon the Philidelphia
plan; the lots are twenty-five by ninety-nine, but the buildings only
cover twenty feet of the front, and fifty feet deep; they are built for
one family each.
Q. Where is the record of those houses on the north side of One
Hundred and Twenty-ninth street in the same block? A. Here
[pointing to page 40] it is the same block, 614.
2312
[SENATE,
Q. Now, will you point the lots which are built on and the vacant
lots? A. These lots from twenty-three down to thirty-two are
improved while the unimproved rnn from between five and nineteen.
Q. Which is nearest to Fifth avenue? A. Here; those are improved.
Q. Is not there some unimproved nearer Fifth avenue? A. No; all
these are unimproved; but they front upon the avenue.
Q. They front upon Fifth avenue? A. They front upon Fifth
avenue and the street both; you can front them either way you please,
provided you own them.
Q. From No. 23 to No. 32, inclusive, are improved? A. Yes, sir.
Q. No. 25 is assessed at $8,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that the value of that property? A. It is worth more than that.
Q. How much more than that is it worth? A. That is owing to who
would buy it, and whether they would buy it for an investment or buy
it for a residence.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. What is the fair market value? A. The fair market value of
that property, the chances are, would be $11,000.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Suppose I told you I had paid Mr. Astor $1,200 a year for that
house, what would the value of that property be on a basis of $1,200
a year rental? A. It would be a higher rate than my rate would be.
Q. Wouldn't it be very considerable higher than that? A. Yes; that
is, providing you are picking out a house that is subject to depreciate.
very rapidly, by picking out one right alongside of a vacant piece of
property where a big tenement might come up, and may be destroy
may be thirty or forty per cent of its value.
By Senator McNaughton:
Q. Why not make the assessment then, when the property is
depreciated in price? A. We will do it.
Q. But you have done it already? A. But, at the same time, we
are making what we consider an honest assessment now.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. I am talking about something that I know about; I lived in that
house for three years and paid Mr. Astor the rent? A. That is
all right.
Q. Mr. Astor owns this adjoining property; doesn't he? A. Yes.
Q. Is it likely that Mr. Astor is going to put up a tenement-house
which will depreciate the value of his other property? A. No.
#
No. 80.]
2313
Q. Then why should you take an apparent possibility, which is not
at all a likelihood, into consideration in fixing the assessment of that
property? A. Only because you are like all other people in New
York; you know an isolated case, and I know a hundred thousand; you
don't know anything about New York; you have one piece that you
know something about; I will take you to 50,000 other pieces in New
York, where you are perfectly blind, and tell you something that you
don't know anything at all about.
Q. That is what I want you to do? A. I can do that very easily.
Q. That is exactly what I want you to do? A. We have had tax
commissioners, just like you, come in there, that knew three or four
houses in New York, and they looked at those three or four houses,
and they thought New York city consisted of what they knew.
Q. Here is a block which has on it thirteen buildings? A. Yes.
Q. Those buildings are assessed; five of them at $8,000? A. Yes.
Q. And the other eight at $7,000 each? A. Yes.
Q. Could you buy any one of those buildings in the market to-day
for $15,000? A. No; nor you couldn't for $20,000, because Mr. Astor
doesn't sell property, and you know that.
Q. Assuming that Mr. Astor did sell property, assuming that that
property were put to-day under the hammer in a partition suit on the
death of Mr. Astor, what would that property bring under the hammer
to-day? A. The chances are it would bring $12,000.
Q. I see that you have assessed the vacant lot in the center of the
block lying to the west of No. 25 at $3,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Assuming that the lot which is built on No. 25 or No. 23 or No.
19 is of the same value, that would be assessing the improvement at
only $5,000 in each of those cases? A. I think so; yes, sir.
Q. Could either of those houses be put up for $5,000? A. No.
Q. Could either of those houses be put up for twice $5,000? A.
O'b, yes.
Q. What could they be put up for? A. I would have to take and
look into the interior to find that out; I don't know the skeleton of
every house in New York, but I know a good many of them.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. You know a good many skeletons? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Now, in this particular case is the assessed value of the land as
high on those lots where the buildings have not yet been put up as it
is on those lots where the buildings have been put up? A. Very near;
there is very little difference there.
[Senate, No. 80.]
290
2314
[SENATE,
}
Q. In this particular case? A. There is very little difference, indeed.
Q. You said you knew of hundreds of thousands of other cases of
this kind; will you tell us some of them? A. No; it would take too
long a head; I couldn't go into it; I am so tired of the matter of taxa-
tion after twenty years that I talk of everything else except that, only
when I am obliged to talk about it.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Is this a fair sample of about the way values are fixed for the
purposes of taxation? A. No; because that is a very improving
neighborhood right there, and we can't catch them as fast as it
improves; we might take and increase them at $1,000 every year, and
still it is running away from us there.
Q. This is this year's assessment? A. I know it is; the chances are
next year may be that would be $9,000, because it lies right there north
of the park, and the reason why it was not raised last year was this,
that there was a probability of the fair coming here and there was a
chance that some parts of this land north of the park would be
taken for a fair; my ideas of the fair were different from others; I
claimed it would destroy all the surroundings provided it went a good
location; other people thought it would increase it; I thought the
improvements that would go outside of the fair, such as booths,
wooden buildings, etc., would destroy all those things, and my orders.
were to deputies to be careful about that property north of the park
where they thought of taking the fair.
Q. Your idea was that it wouldn't add to the value of the property;
A. That it wouldn't add to the value of the property; that kind of
property; no.
Q. On your own figures this property out there is assessed only about
sixty-six per cent? A. At the present time it is assessed about sixty-
six per cent on what I suppose that property would sell for at the
present time.
Q. That is under a forced sale? A. No; I don't say under a forced
sale; I say an ordinary value in the market after due advertisement.
Q. I understood you to say, in answer to Mr. Ivin's question, that
under the hammer it would bring $12,000? A. That is after being
advertised properly; that is not a forced sale by any means.
Q. You take a number of sales under the hammer down there, and
I will guarantee that between 1882 and 1884, fifty per cent of them
were forced sales? A. They were not forced; they were withdrawn.
By Mr. 1VINS:
Q. Now, you just said that Mr. Astor never sold? A. Once in a
while he sells; yes.
No. 80.]
2315
Q. But the rule is that he does not sell? A. Well, hardly ever; he
has sold, of course.
Q. Isn't it almost a saying in this community that the Astor's buy
and never sell? A. They are not looked upon as people who dispose
of real estate after they once get possession of it.
Q. That being the case, how do you get at the market value of any
of their property for purposes of assessment? A. By taking the
marketable value of the property sorrounding it.
Q. Have you the power to exact from them a statement of their
rent rolls? A. No.
Q. You have not? A. No.
Q. Don't you think, as tax commissioners, being placed in the
position that you are, with people who buy and never sell, if you are
going to levy a tax properly and fully, you ought to be vested with
power to learn what the return and revenue of that property is? A.
No, sir; it is none of our business.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Wouldn't the income of any property, for an average of three or
four years, be a pretty good basis of appraisement for the purposes
of taxation? A. It is only one of the elements.
Q. Is not it one of the very best elements? A. That is according
to the location altogether.
Q. Don't you generally try to tax on the theory that railroads
charge freight rates, about what the traffic will bear? A. No, sir; I
can show you property in the fifth ward
Q. I thought that was the reason you gave? A. I can show you
property in the fifth ward, in the dry-goods district, where the leases
were made in 1871, for twenty-one years, on a basis of $15,000 a year,
and I can show you adjoining property in the fifth ward, upon the
same streets, same sized buildings, where the leases expired in 1876,
and where they were leased for twenty-one years at one-half; now,
what has the rent to do with it?
Q. That is an exceptional case, isn't it? A. No; I can give you
thousands of them.
Q. Is not that an exceptional case? A. No.
Q. Is that so little exceptional that you could state that as a rule?
A. I can state it this way, that the Sailors' Snug Harbor and
Columbia College leases, and all leases of that kind, that take in
thousands and thousands of lots, if the leases expire in dull times, the
benefit goes to the tenants, and if they expire in high times, the bene-
fits go to the corporations.
2316
[SENATE,
Q. Those are exceptional cases; they only form a small percentage
of the entire value of property in New York city? A. New York is a
great city, but it is small in area.
By Mr. IVINS:
2. You know the property lying west of Seventh avenue, and from
Forty-third to Forty-fifth streets, don't you? A. That is Astor
property.
Q. That is Astor property too? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know the property in the middle of the block on the
north side of Thirty-fourth street? A. Between what avenues;
between Fifth and Sixth avenues?
Q. That is Astor property too, isn't it? A. Not between Fifth and
Sixth avenues; between Madison and Fifth it is, on the south side;
there are a couple of houses there that belong to the Astors, but they
are not between Fifth and Sixth.
Q. Did the Astors have some property on the north side of Thirty-
third street? A. Between Madison and Fifth; they did.
Q. Between Fifth and Sixth? A. No; they don't go between Fifth
and Sixth; they do on the north side of Thirty-third street, between
Fifth and Broadway.
Q. Those are the houses that have the curious semi-circular piazzas
or steps? A. Yes; I know them.
Q. Now the Astors have some property corner of Madison avenue
and Thirty-fourth street, and running up Madison avenue, do they
not? A. That is the Chandler property, and the Astors; yes.
Q. Will you send for the book that has got that property; all of
those books? A. The twenty-first ward; yes..
Q. Now will you give the names of four or five of the other largest
real estate owners in New York city? A. Well, the Rhinelanders and
the Goelets, and the Remsens and Wendells.
Q. Are there some others? A. Well, no; not without you strike
into the Trinity and Dutch Reform and Sailors' Snug Harbor.
Q. The Trinity church? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the Dutch Reform? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the name of the corporation? A. That is the property
around there St. Pauls.
Q. Trinity church is one of the largest owners of real estate in the
city, isn't it? A. One of the largest in three or four sections you
know, the fifth and eighth wards.
Q. Now, to go back to the question of this Astor property, have you
any means of discovering, even approximately, the rental value of
No. 80.]
2317
property such as that on the north side of Thirty-third street, between
Fifth and Sixth avenues? A. You could make inquiries if you wished;
the deputy can.
Q. The deputy can make inquiries? A. Oh, yes.
Q. Inasmuch as that property never comes into the market, is not the
rental value the best means of determining the assessable value of
property? A. It is one of the means.
Q. Is it not the best means? A. No; it is according to the occupant.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. What is better? A. It is according to who is the occupant.
Q. Tell us a better basis of determining the assessable value of the
property than the rental value? A. I can tell you why it shouldn't
be a guide at all, if you were going to take and have a gambling
house there, that is one thing.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Is it likely that all of Astor's property would be occupied by
gambling houses? A. No.
Q. Is not that a most isolated case? A. The rental value on Thirty-
third street, it would be nonsense to take that; there are people there
who have been there for years, whose families have grown up there,
whose businesses are right there and who don't want to move away
from that location, and to others it is way downtown and they wouldn't
go there at all or pay half the rent.
Q. Is Mr. Astor a philanthrophist? A. No.
Q. Or does he, as far as you know, exact fair rents for his property?
A. I suppose he tries to get fair rents for his property.
Q. In exacting fair rents for his property does he take into con-
sideration, so far as you know, the people who have been brought up
in each house? A. No; I don't know as he does; I am only taking
a fair estimate.
Q. You know him as a business man, don't you? A. I don't know
him and I don't want to know real estate owners; I know enough of
them already.
Q. There is no single way of determining the assessed value of
property that is better than to take the rental value, is there? A. It
is one of the means.
Q. Is there any other means better than that? A. It is one of the
means.
By Senator FASSETT:
7
Q. Just suggest some better basis now than the rental value? A.
I will give you one; take Washington Place, where Mr. Vanderbilt
2318
[SENATE,
lived for years and where he died, people who were surrounding Mr.
Vanderbilt and wanted to live near him would pay high rentals there,
and just as soon as he died the property lay there vacant and began
depreciating and has continued so for years.
Q. During the time they paid that rental that was one of the
elements for an assessment, wasn't it? A. It would be one of the
elements, and then there is the location.
Q. Location is one element? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, name some one better element as a basis of appraisement
than the rental value? A. That is only one of the elements.
Q. Can you mention one better way? A. The location is a better one.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. What does the location have to do with it if the property is never
brought into the market? A. I don't care whether it is brought into
the market or not, I am not going to look after that, I am going to let
Mr. Astor look after his own property.
Q. Do you want to go on record as saying that the location of prop-
erty is a better basis than the rental value for determining the assess-
able value of property? A. The location is the only basis in estimating
the marketable value.
Q. Whether it is improved or unimproved or whether it is used for
a gambling house or not? A. I don't care anything about that, the
location is what controls the market value, and that takes in
everything.
Q. Are your deputies, who are the assessors, instructed to make
inquiries as to the rental value of properties such as that particular
property of Mr. Astor's that we have taken on Thirty-third street?
A. They are not instructed directly to make that inquiry; but they are
instructed to make all inquiries which bring to their notice all the
information that is necessary for them to put on an honest, fair valua-
tion for assessment purposes.
Q. We have seen in One Hundred and Twenty-ninth street that the
property is assessed for about half of its actual value in your judg-
ment? A. No, sir; I don't say that; it was assessed for $8,000 and it
might sell for $12,000.
Q. Would you be surprised to find that taking the rental values of
the property adjoining Thirty-third street, it is assessed very much
below the market value as estimated on the rentals? A. It might be
so; I am not surprised at anything in this world; so many things take
place every day that I am not surprised at anything.
By Senator FASSETT.- That is hardly a fair position in answering a
question.
No. 80.]
2319
The WITNESS.- I say I am not surprised at anything; I am not sur-
prised at the assessments or at anything you might show up in our
office, only if there is anything wrong I want to hear it.
Q. You wouldn't be surprised at anything wrong being shown up
in your office? A. Oh, it is impossible for me to look over 200,000
items; but if there is anything wrong I want to know it.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. All this committee wants is to help you in that regard? A. I
am much obliged; if there is anything wrong I want to know it.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Do you think that that assessment on the One Hundred and
Twenty-ninth street property is in conformity with the law? A. I do,
nearer in conformity with the law than property in any other county
in the State of New York as far as that, is concerned.
Q. You say that is assessed more in conformity with the law than
property in any county in the State of New York? A. Yes; I claim
that under the ordinary value that we are obliged to take and put
upon the property.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Give us the basis of that statement? A. I claim that the prop-
erty throughout the State of New York, upon the basis of what
property would sell for, taking $12,000 as the market value, $8,000 as
the assessable value, taking that as a criterion, all throughout the
city of New York, that there is no other county that is as high; I am
talking now about every section; the farm lands you might talk about;
but they are only twelve and one-half per cent of the entire State;
you could be putting those things up every year but I mean taking
the villages and towns throughout the State.
Q. What is the basis of that statement which you make? A. The
basis is that we are higher assessed in proportion to the marketable
value.
Q. What investigation have you made to verify that statement? A.
We are making investigations all the time.
Q. When were you in the county of Monroe? A. I was not in the
county of Monroe.
Q. Were you ever in the county of Monroe? A. No; I don't think
I ever was.
Q. Were you ever in the county of Orleans? A. No.
Q. Were you ever in the county of Erie? A. Yes; I have been in
the county of Erie,
2320
[SENATE,
#
>
і
Q. When? A. Several years ago.
Q. You have not been there for ten years? A. No.
Q. Were you ever in the county of Cattaraugus? A. I don't know.
Q. Then from personal inspection you don't know whether your
statement is true or not? A. It is not necessary from personal
inspection.
Q. Answer my question? A. No.
Q. You don't know from personal knowledge? A. No.
•
Q. Do you know the value of property in the city of Rochester as
shown by the assessment-roll? A. I only know from what I have
heard; I have never examined it personally.
Q. You never examined the assessment-roll? A. No.
Q. You have never seen the assessment-roll?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever seen the assessment-roll of Cattaraugus county?
A. No.
Q. Do you know anything about the rule that guides assessors in
the city of Rochester and county of Monroe in assessing property?
A. I suppose—
Q. It is not what you suppose-do you know? A. I don't know of
my own knowledge.
Q. These statements of yours are under oath? A. Yes; I know
they are.
Q. It is not for the purpose of depressing the value of property in
New York or of lifting it; it is for the purpose of getting at the mode
of assessing property in this city compared with other cities; your
statement was voluntary as to country property? A. Yes.
Q. Is not it the fact that as to the mode and manner of assessing
property in the fifty-eight counties of the State, you absolutely of your
own knowledge, know nothing? A. Oh, don't say that; I know a great
deal; I will tell you why I know it; the different corporations in the
city of New York including the Mutual, the Equitable, the Manhattan
and the New York, take all those I have gone over, and several years
ago we employed two gentlemen to visit the different counties
throughout the State, and to get sworn statements from the county
clerks in the different counties of the assessed values and the market
values, and the property that was sold and the property that was
mortgaged, and we found in almost every case, and we have had from
fifteen to twenty-five in each county, we have found that in no case
did they go over sixty-five per cent, and in some cases it was as low as
twenty-three per cent.
Q. How many years ago is that? A. Four years ago.
Q. Have you that statement? A. The corporation counsel has got it
No. 80.]
2321
Q. Will you produce it? A. If he has got a copy of it; Willard
Brown and Burton Harrison, those were the two men.
Q. At whose request was that made? A. It was done at the request
of Corporation Counsel Beekman, and they were paid for it; they
were paid $3,000.
Q. What was done four years ago I haven't any means of knowing,
but I know now the mode of assessment is very different from that?
A. That is four years ago, and we presented that case to the State
Board of Assessors, but it was like all other cases; the table was made
up before the argument was heard and the table was not changed
afterwards.
Q. You are not required to verify by oath are you, your assessments?
A. Why?
Q. Well, you are not under the law are you? A. In regard to the
assessed values?
Q. Yes. A. Our general oath I should say covers all our duties, but
in regard to any specific oaths in regard to the market value of real
estate, we are not obliged to.
Q. You as a commissioner do not verify the assessment-roll do you?
A. We certify; that is all.
Q. Do you not verify it? A. No.
Q. Are you aware that in the other districts of the State, or counties
of the State, the assessors are obliged under oath to make this return
that they have valued that property at the price that it would be
taken in exchange for other property? A. Yes.
Q. In other words at its fair market value? A. That is under the
oath of '59; yes; that is all right.
Q. You are not obliged to take that oath? A. No; the deputies
take that I say.
Q. They do not take that oath? A. The deputies take that.
Q. Not in that form? A. They take the oath that they are obliged
to take as a solvent debt due from a solvent debtor.
Q. Have you an assessment-roll here? A. Yes.
Q. Form of oath? A. Yes.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.— Just read the form of oath, Mr. Ivins, if you
have it there. I would like to see it.
The WITNESS.—It is in the back part of the book.
Mr. IVINS. The oath reads as follows: "State of New York, city and
county of New York, ss.:"- and this is taken from page 12, being the
oath of the assessor who assessed the property on One Hundred and
Twenty-ninth street which we have referred to "I, James D. Ames,
one of the deputy tax commissioners for the city and county of New
[Senate, No. 80.]
291
2322
[SENATE,
York, do depose and say, that the foregoing annual record of the
assessed valuations of real estate contains a detailed statement of all
the assessable property in the twelfth ward east of the Eighth avenue
and west of the Fifth avenue, being a part of the district assigned to
me by the commissioners of taxes and assessments for the city and
county of New York for assessment under their direction; that I have
personally examined every house, building, lot, pier or other assess-
able property within said district; that in said assessment-roll is set
down and given the street and ward map number of said real estate
within said district, together with the name of the owner or occupant
thereof so far as the same are known, and also in my judgment the
sum for which said property under ordinary circumstances would sell
for, and also all other information in detail relative to personal prop-
erty and otherwise in this ward which said commissioners had from
time to time acquired, has been furnished as required by law. Signed,
James D. Ames, deputy tax commissioner. Sworn to before me this
11th day of January, 1890. Morgan J. O'Brien justice Supreme
Court."
Senator FASSETT. Does that show that they have fixed the value at
what it would ordinarily sell for?
Mr. IVINS.-The phrase is, " and also in my judgment the sum for
which said property under ordinary circumstances would sell for."
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Now, under ordinary circumstances, Mr. Coleman, and assuming
that that particular property on One Hundred and Twenty-ninth
street were not the property of Mr. Astor, and taking into considera-
tion its rental value, we have understood you to say that it is of the
value, sale value, of $12,000? A. About twelve.
Q. Then, Mr. Ames has made a mistake in his oath, has he not? A.
I am a bull on real estate; he might be a bear; I could not say.
Senator FASSETT.- No; if you are right he must be wrong.
The WITNESS.- No; I do not say I am right.
Q. What right have deputy tax commissioners or commissioners to
be bulls or bears on real estate under their oath of office? A. My
ideas-I go pretty high values up there; he might not think the
same as I do; I am very glad he don't.
Q. Now, Mr. Coleman, what do you understand the law to require
in regard to the manner of determining values for the purpose of
assessments ?
Senator FASSETT.-Not of determining but of fixing.
Mr. IVINS.- Fixing.
No. 80.]
2323
The WITNESS.- Oh, the marketable value.
Q. The market value? A. The market value, yes; fair marketable
value, and when I say fair I mean that it is not our purpose nor shall
not be while I am in the tax office to look upon all the sides that
would make the value anything more than what the city should
receive by taking a time when property is placed in the market with
the object to buy and an ordinary person would come along and buy
it at a fair, ordinary value; I am not going to undertake to have the
taxpayers pay sums of money on property that people will go and
offer when they know they can not purchase.
Q. What has that to do with the law which fixes the rule according
to which you are to fix assessments? A. Well, I claim that the fair
ordinary marketable value is the only law that we are governed by,
giving the benefit to the taxpayer of all doubts.
Q. Well, assuming that the fair marketable value is all then in this
particular case that we have referred to, has the law, in your judgment,
been complied with? A. Under the circumstances; yes, sir.
Q. Wouldn't you now, having had your attention specifically called
to the facts of that particular case, hold your deputy tax commissioner
responsible for an under valuation of that property, or would you
approve of his valuation and make it your own act? A. This year I
would approve of him, sustain him.
Q. Is there any year when you would not have approved of him and
sustain him? A. Ah, there might be; I have very often offered sug-
gestions to that same man and told him where I thought he was
wrong.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. He is not the one to whom you addressed the letter of protest is
he, Mr. Coleman? A, No, sir; that is Mr. Ames; he has been in the
office since 1869.
Senator MCNAUGHTON Well, right here -
The WITNESS. And he comes from Lockport.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Mr. Coleman, what did you mean yesterday by this answer: “I
claim that in nearly all cases our rates on the ordinary marketable
value of property where there is no object for the party to specially
hold the property, that the valuation is eighty per cent;" what do
you mean by that, Mr. Coleman that is so in almost all cases? A.
Yes; that is so in most-
Q. You mean then that the valuation you put upon property is
eighty per cent of its marketable value? A. I claim that our basis
2324
[SENATE,
is nearer eighty per cent, taking the ordinary and I claim even
npon this very same piece of property that Mr. Ivins spoke about that
last year that that might be placed in the market and the lines of the
park defined, that if it was outside of the park, just ouside of the
limits, I would not give the assessed value for it, because it would be
disturbed, whereas other parties who can start a liquor store there or
should start some kind of a restaurant there or could put it to some
use where it could bring a large income for two or three years might
give 16,000 for it.
Q. Well, that is not an answer to my inquiry? A. Yes; it is.
Q. The basis of assessment or valuation of the deputy tax commis-
sioner is eighty per cent then of the real value of the property? A.
About eighty percent I claim throughout the city.
Q. How can you justify a commissioner who subscribes to that oath
in view of the fact that you admit that he only values it at eighty per
cent of its value? A. I do not say that he makes it eighty per cent;
I claim that we are on a basis; I say that I do that.
Q. You approve of his valuation? A. Yes; certainly I do.
Q. That is eighty per cent? A. That might be.
Q. And then you make this act your act? A. That might be.
Q. Well, is not that true? A. It is as long as I sustain him,
Q. Then I come back to this inquiry: How do you justify an oath
of the deputy tax commissioner of that kind where he says that under
the statute that he assessed the property at a sum, which in his judg-
ment, such property was worth under ordinary circumstances and
would sell for that sum? A. When I know that every State assessor
in the city of New York are assessing between twenty-five and seventy-
five per cent, evading the law for matters of saving their quota on
State taxes.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Then, it is not an evasion of the law, is it, Mr. Coleman? A. I
claim that we are violating our oath of office when we go on a higher
basis; giving the taxpayer a leeway of twenty per cent in their favor
for fear that any reaction might take place during the year because
we have to assess a year ahead.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Then you are not violating your oath of office any more than any
other fellow is? A. We are not violating it at all I claim; the
others are.
No. 80.]
2325
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Why is eighty per cent not a violation and seventy-five per cent
a violation? A. It gives the taxpayer the benefit because we assess a
year ahead.
Q. Don't the others give the taxpayer the benefit? A. No; not
when they tax thirty-five, forty and fifty per cent; we do not claim we
do that.
Q. Is not any percentage of actual assessment under the real, fair,
marketable value just so much an evasion of the law? A. No, sir; it
is not, for this reason—
Q. So that if one per cent is not an evasion, why is fifty per cent
under valuation an evasion? A. Well, there are-
Q. How much per cent under valuation must there be to constitute
an evasion of the law? A. The risk that a man runs one year ahead
in regards to depreciation-in regard to fire.
Senator FASSETT.-That is not an answer to my question.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Do you levy assessments on the basis of risks one year ahead of
present sales value? A. We take all those things into consideration.
Q. What risk does Mr. Astor run one year ahead that results in the
taxation of his property at $8,000 which you now say you think is
worth twelve? A. You might ask him; I do not know.
Q. If you don't know, how do you take it into consideration? A. I
have my views on the matter the same as he does, perhaps.
Q. That is forty per cent difference? A. I do not know anything
at all about that.
Q. Is not $8,000 forty per cent of twelve? A. That might be, but
may be Ames thinks that property is worth 10,000; I consider it is
worth twelve.
Senator FASSETT.— It is thirty-three and a third per cent.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. And say thirty-three and a third per cent less than twelve; now,
is that thirty-three and a third per cent an evasion? A. I do not claim
it is.
Q. Well, suppose Mr. Ames had made it fifty per cent instead of
thirty-three and a third per cent, would it have been an evasion? A.
I think it would.
Q. When do you begin to hold Ames responsible? A. Because I
claim here that if this man had assessed a piece of property at $5,000,
2326
[SENATE,
worth ten, it would be an evasion, but when he takes and assesses it
at $8,000-
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. And it is worth twelve, isn't it an evasion? A. I do not think it
is worth twelve; I say, in my judgment, it is worth twelve.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Supposing that property were in the market to-day, Mr. Coleman
do you suppose I could buy that particular piece of property for
$16,000? A. I do not know whether you can or not.
Q. Don't you believe I could? A. I think you could; certainly I do;
I know it.
Q. Do you think I could buy it at $16,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. As compared with the values right in the neighborhood of other
houses? A. Why certainly.
By Senator FASSET:
Q. Let's get back to this thing, because I want an answer to this
question and I am going to have it if I keep you here two days. A.
All right.
Q. I want to know how much percentage under valuation con-
stitutes an evasion of the law, in your judgment? A. I don't claim
that we are evading the law; I claim that when we assess property
at about eighty per cent, then we take into consideration all-
Q. Eighty per cent of what? A. Eighty per cent of what might
be the selling price of property.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Get that-
The WITNESS:-Oh, I know what the law says; I know all about that.
Q. When you assess it at eighty per cent of the valuation which
the law says it should be fixed at, you are still within the law? A. I
claim that we are still within the law.
Q. But when you place it at seventy-five per cent of what the law
says it should be placed at, are you still within the law? A. Well,
perhaps we would be within the law.
Q. At what point of under-valuation would you violate the law?
A. That is altogether owing to the location, the depreciation and
appreciation of property; if it is property going down rapidly, same
as South street went down, or Avenue B went down when the Morgan
Iron Works closed-
Q. Oh, no. A. Oh, yes.
Q. Have you any right under the law to take into consideration
what the valuation of property is to be next year? A. We have a
No. 80.]
2327
4
right to take all these elements into consideration as long as we are
assessing a year ahead, certainly.
Q. Will you just point out to me that part of the law which gives
you any such right? A. I can't do that, but at the same time com-
mon sense and common justice compels us to do that.
Q. There is a difference of judgment about that? A. There should
not be any difference of judgment at all; we make an assessment
under the existing—
Q. You have not any business to assess property to-day with refer-
ence to what it value is to be ten years from to-day? A. No.
Q. Or next year? A. Oh, yes, we have.
Q. The law does not say so. A. We are making an assessment now
for next year; our assessments are different from yours in the country;
you commence yours in the middle of the year and you are able to
judge on both sides of the rope; we are making our assessment at
the present time where you pay next December; we are judging a
year ahead.
Q. You have no other authority than that given you directly by
law? A. That is all.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You say a year ahead; you are making them three months ahead.
A. They pay next December.
Q. They pay their taxes, but the taxes are for the year which
begins on the first day of December? A. Yes.
Q. Then it is entirely immaterial when they are paid, is it not? A.
It is immaterial, of course.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- In the country districts the assessments are
made in May and the taxes are not paid until the next January,
February or March?
The WITNESS:-Exactly.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-So there is nearly eight months ahead there.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Now let's get back to our mutton; under the law, you are
directed to assess this property at the value which, in your judgment,
such property, under ordinary circumstances, would sell? A. Yes.
Q. Now, you have told us that the rule in this city was to fix it at
eighty per cent under such valuation. A. No, I didn't say anything
of that kind; I claimed that our basis throughout the city of New
York, if the property was placed in the market for sale, and in ordi-
nary times, would say that we are on perhaps may be an eighty per
cent basis of what the selling price would be.
2328
[SENATE,
Q. Under ordinary circumstances? A. Under ordinary circum-
stances; but, understand, I have seen
Q. Why, if it is right to make it eighty per cent, why haven't you
the authority to very properly and legally make it at seventy-five per
cent? A. Because past experience has shown me that; when we were
on a sixty-six per cent basis in 1873, that in 1874, after the panic had
struck us, that three years went by when we were on a ninety-five per
cent basis, and in 600 cases out of a thousand cases we had property
assessed above what it sold for; now, from my past experience I am
not going to try those things again; I am going to keep below the
marketable value, and I wouldn't care what the orders were-
Q. You wouldn't care what the law is? A. No; I wouldn't care
what the orders were; I complied with the law, to every figure of the
law, to every letter of the law during the experience I had for the
last twenty-two years.
Q. I do not think experience enters at all into this thing? A. I
claim it does.
Q. What right have you, as a tax commissioner to consider any-
thing except the present value of the property and the sum at which
it would sell under ordinary circumstances? A. We do consider all
those things.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. How long has Mr. Parris been in the board? A. A couple of
years.
Q. He has had no such experience, has he? A. No, sir.
Q. What would he do under like circumstances? A. I don't ask him.
Q. What would any commissioner do who had not had the long
experience you have had? A. I don't know; you better ask him.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Mr. Coleman, what you mean is, taking into consideration all
your experience, and the relations of New York city to the rest of the
State, you come as near to fulfilling the law absolutely as you can in
justice to New York city? A. More near, a great deal more near; I
claim that we are-
Q. You are more interested in protecting the interests of New
York city than you are in following exactly the letter of the law? A.
We don't consider about the letter-we don't consider about the State
taxes at all; we do consider we are paying more than our share; we
try and comply with the law.
Q. If you do not consider state taxes at all, what object is there
at all in keeping eighty per cent under your valuation? A. Because
No. 80.]
2329
$
we try and comply with the law; we are carrying out the law in the
way we are assessing; and now, had you the same experience I have
had in the tax office, you would say twenty per cent is a low margin
below the marketable value, from what I have seen take place year
by year.
Q. Just get right back again and tell me what right you have to
assess one single per cent under the sum which the property would
ordinarily sell, in your judgment? A. Because, I have seen property
depreciate twenty per cent in one year, and for that reason I give that
benefit to the taxpayers.
Q. Have you any right to do that? A. I claim I have.
Q. Under what provision of law? A. Matter of justice; equity.
Q. That is outside of all law, then; that is under a higher law? A.
We must act, govern, by justice and equity, I claim.
Q. Eighty per cent is the measuse at which justice and equity will
excuse a man in making under oath the actual valuation? A. I give
him the benefit of the percentage of the marketable value of the
property that may be received for one year ahead.
Q. If you have the right to put it down to eighty, why haven't you
the right to put it down to fifty? A. Common sense governs all that.
Q. Simply a question of common sense? A. Simply a question of
common sense.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Do you think twenty per cent discount would be a fair legal
definition of the word equity? A. I think it would be an honest per-
centage to allow the taxpayer one year ahead.
Q. Now, turn to this property of the Astors on Thirty-third street
and on Madison avenue? A. Which piece do you mean?
Q. North side of Thirty-third street? A. Between Fifth and
Madison?
Q. Yes; here is a house that is not owned by Mr. Astor, but is
owned by Mr. E. N. Benjamin, the book shows; street number, 17 East
Thirty-third street; that is a lot twenty-five by ninety-eight, and it has
on it a house twenty-five by fifty-two, with an extension; the house is
four stories high; that is assessed at $22,000; is not the market value
of that house much more than that? A. Yes.
Q. What is the market value of that house? A. Chances are that
the property would sell for about twenty-six or twenty-seven thousand.
Q. Would not that property sell for 35,000? A. No.
Q. Why not; because of the character of the improvement? A.
Without there was some special object, a man couldn't buy it for that,
any ordinary values; it wouldn't pay the interest on that.
[Senate, No. 80.]
292
2330
[SENATE,
Q. These houses of Mr. Astor's adjoining, which are on seventeen
feet and nine inch lots, running from numbers three to thirteen
inclusive, are valued at $118,000; assessed at $18,000? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know what the rental value of those houses is? A. I
don't.
Q. Do you know whether any steps have ever been taken to find out
the rental value of the property? A. No.
Q. Do you suppose those houses can be rented for $1,800 a year?
A. I don't think they could.
Q. Do you suppose they could be rented for $2,000 a year? A.
Perhaps so.
Q. Would you be surprised if you found that they were renting for
$2,500 a year? A. No; not suprised at all.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Well, that is under your reservation that you are not surprised
at anything? A. No.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Suppose those houses rented from twenty-two to twenty-five
thousand dollars a year- A. Twenty-five hundred.
Q. Twenty-five hundred dollars a year; what effect would that have
in determining the assessable value; and on that basis, what do you
consider the assessed value to be? A. Well, that is whether the one
rents for them all; whether all rents for that.
Q. Any one which would rent for it? A. That would be altogether
owing to the character of the business or the occupant, or things of
that kind; all those things come in.
Q. Do you know the house occupied by White, Howard & Co., on
the northwest corner of Thirty-fourth and Madison avenue; used to
be owned by Anson Phelps Stokes? A. Yes.
Q. Just turn to that? A. Thirty-seven feet.
Q. This is the property of Alida Cary, so far as the books show, is
it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Valued at $90,000 for the purposes of assessment; what do you
think that lot would be worth, if there were no building on it, in the
open market, thirty-seven and three-eighths by ninety-five, and the
house covers the entire lot? A. Well, the chances are that property
there, being worth about twenty-two dollars a foot, perhaps would
bring it $75,000.
Q. That property being worth twenty-two dollars a foot, would be
worth $75,000 for the land? A. Land.
No. 80.]
2331
Q. That would then leave $15,000 for the assessed valuation of the
house? A. Perhaps so.
Q. That is a large, four-story, freestone house, thirty-seven and
three-eighths front, ninety-five in depth? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How much under assessment is that $90,000 on that property?
A. You are getting at it the wrong way.
Q. Well, I will take that way first, and then I will take it another
way; I will take it two ways? A. Can't be answered that way; you
asked me the value of that property vacant; that property vacant and
the property improved the way it is are two different values; the lot
is not worth anywheres near that price, improved the way it is.
Q. What is that lot worth with its present improvement? A. That
lot, the way it is improved and going, would be altogether owing to
whether a man wants it for business purposes or residences; that
wants to be changed into business right along on Thirty-fourth.
Q. That particular piece has been changed into business now?" A.
Well, perhaps it has.
Q. Have you ever heard what White, Howard & Co. pay for it?
A. No.
Q. I have been told that they pay $5,000 a year; do you think that
is an excessive rent? A. For the property as it stands?
Q. Yes. A. Not if they want it very badly.
Q. Well, they want it bad enough to take it? A. Well, that might be.
Q. Now, assuming — A. That is one of those special things where
people want a certain location and pay a high price for it.
Q. Assuming that they pay $10,000 a year; would $90,000 represent
the market value of that property? A. According to how long the
lease was and how responsible the people were, and what alterations
they are going to make.
Q. Assume it is a ten-year lease? A. That is altogether owing to
whether they are going to destroy the present value of the property
by making alteration to suit their business, and what is upon them, as
to their responsibility - people fail in New York often.
Q. Assume this is a ten-year lease and they are obliged to leave the
property in as good condition as they find it in, and that they also
have to pay taxes and assessments and water rates in addition? A.
That is one of the elements, of course, to come in; that property would
be very cheap, under those conditions, cheap at $140,000, if that is
the case.
Q. Under those conditions it would be? A. Providing everything is
guaranteed ahead.
2332
[SENATE,
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. That is in the most pessimistic view of it you can take, the
property is worth $140,000? A. If everything is guaranteed ahead.
Q. Why is it not the duty of the deputy tax commissioner to find
out, if possible, just exactly such things as that? A. We could, per-
haps, if we had as many men attached to our office as other offices
in New York, but we have only got forty-five men all together.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Why should you not have enough men attached to your office to
do this work in conformity with the law? A. We do in conformity
with the law; we claim we do; there is no office in the United States,
so far as the tax office is concerned, that will comply anywhere near
us, in complying with the law.
Q. I find a lot here adjoining, or nearly adjoining that of the Cary's,
the lot being forty-nine feet and four and one-half inches in width
and 145 feet in depth, with two buildings on it, a stable twenty-eight
by forty-nine and a house thirty-seven by ninety; that is one of the
largest residence-houses of New York, is it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. It is one of the best known of the large residence-houses in New
York? A. One of the has-beens; going back.
Q. It is the house occupied by Mr. Tenure, is it not? A. Yes.
Q. I find that the house is valued at $85,000; what do yon think
that house would bring under the hammer to-day, that property, as it
stands; the land, stable, house and all would bring under the market
to-day? A. That is one of those pieces of property, Mr. Ivins, that
no one could answer.
Q. Don't you have to answer it when you assess it? A. No; I don't;
but at the same time I would be obliged, perhaps, may be, if I was to
give my views, I would be obliged to answer it, but there are so many
elements to go in, that you don't understand, that it would be almost
impossible to make you understand.
Senator FASSETT. Those elements you do understand.
Q. It is because neither the committee nor I understand it that we
want you to explain it? A. That is the great trouble; here is a
piece of property that you pick out, occupied by a very wealthy
gentleman, built there, and it never has paid four per cent from the
time it was improved up to the present time
Q. How do you know that? A. I know it from the examinations I
made at the time the buildings were going on, in progress, and what
the people were going to do who occupied it, and after they went out
of it, what rents they asked for it.
No. 80.]
2333
Q. How do you know it has never yielded four per cent; in order to
get at that you must know what its present revenue is? A. I
examined it when it was building; I knew what it cost them to build?
Q. How long ago was it built? A. Eleven years ago.
Q. Can you by watching a house when it is built, tell what return it
will yield on the investment eleven years after? A. Well, if I can't tel
anything in regard to real estate in New York, I would like to know
what it is.
Q. That is not an answer to my question?
Senator FASSETT.-We have found out what it is; you can't tell us
what that property is worth.
The WITNESS.—I can tell you what I think it is worth.
Senator FASSETT.- Why don't you; that is what we want to know?
The WITNESS. For residence purposes it is worth one value-
Senator FASSETT.- What, for residence purposes?
The WITNESS. But for an ordinary value there, in ordinary times,
without a man knowing what to do with the property, and having
any object ahead, the chances are it would sell for $130,000.
Q. Suppose he had no object ahead? A. Without he had a special
object ahead.
Q. And if he had a special object, it would probably sell for more ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that is assessed at eighty-five? A. Yes; assessed at eighty-
five.
Q. There is a difference then of $50,000? A. Yes; pretty near
$50,000.
Q. On that one piece that is somewhat more than your legal, equit-
able and just margin of twenty per cent? A. Might sell for 125;
might sell for 130; can't say whether it would sell for over 115; at the
same time that property is improving right there, the land is.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. We are not asking you to guarantee a price at which that prop-
erty would sell, but your judgement now as a real estate expert; we
ask you to place the value and you place it at 135? A. I say it might
sell at 135.
Q. Good, cheap property at that? A. No; it wouldn't pay an inter-
est to the party at that, or rental value.
Q. If you want it for a home there to live in, what would it be
worth? A. The people who are occupying those large homes are not
going down to Thirty-third street and do it, they are going uptown.
2334
[SENATE,
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Now turn to Fifth avenue between Thirty-fifth and Thirty-sixth
streets; I call your attention to the house of James Kernican, being
number 384 Fifth avenue; that is twenty-eight feet front by 100 feet
deep in the lot, the house is twenty-eight feet by seventy-one feet,
with an extension; it is four stories high; you know that house is
exquisitely built and elegantly furnished, don't you? A. Very
nicely; yes.
Q. Very nicely, both externally and internally; that is assessed
at $70,000; what do you think the market value of that property is?
A. If you don't go into the real estate, chances are it would bring
$85,000, but if you were to leave it in and decorated the way it is,
with all those panels and things brought from abroad, it ought to
bring more money.
Q. Do you assess those other things as personal property? A.
Those things go in as personal property.
Q. Do you assess those things as personal property? A. We try
and reach them.
Q. You certainly can reach them as realty, can't you? A. Yes.
Q. If you do not reach them as realty and try to reach them as
personalty and fail, you lose them altogether, do you not?
A. We
don't lose them because we take and assess this man for personal
property and compel him to swear off.
Q. How much is he assessed for personal property? A. I don't
know.
Q. Then what would it be worth in case he did not walk off with any
of the woodwork, panels and other matters of that kind? A. It is a
mere matter of guess-work after an examination is made -
Q. In case he did not; what is it worth as it stands there as a house
to-day? A. According to whether the decorations would please
people or whether they would not; I can't tell about that; some people
might go in there and rip them all out; you can't tell about these
things; it is a very nice thing to sit here and answer these questions,
but you know very little about them.
Q. That is what I want to find out about? A. I couldn't learn you,
you know.
Q. You know the house that belonged to Mr. Eno, do you, on Fifth
avenue and Twenty-seventh street? A. It did belong to him; this is
all nonsense, this mere taking isolated cases or pieces of property
that has been given to you by somebody that is the very finest pieces
and cream pieces in New York, and taking that as a criterion against
40,000 tenement houses in New York.
No. 80.]
2335
Q. We understood you to swear that each piece stood upon its own
bottom? A. Oh, we do try to make stand on its own basis; certainly.
Senator MCNAUGHTON. - You select any one piece of property
yourself -
The WITNESs.- I am tired of that business.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Wait till I get through with my statement.
You select any one piece of property
The WITNESS.—I have done that fifteen years. I am tired of it.
Senator MCNAUGHTON. that is assessed for its full value in that
whole list. Can you do that, Mr. Coleman ?
The WITNESS.-I have selected thousands of pieces and given to the
people.
Q. Can you answer me specifically this question; can you call the
attention of the committee to a single piece of property in any of the
assessment-rolls of this city that is assessed for its value, according
to this oath in the law? A. I suppose I could if I made an examination.
Q. Now, will you please do so? A. Oh, I couldn't go over 160,000
pieces of property to make examinations of that kind.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Would it be so difficult to find one piece that had been assessed
according to law? A. I would have to go over the records, of course,
may be, to find pieces; we are not trying to assess property above the
marketable value; we are not trying to do that.
Q. Now, take this property that is entered in the name of Amos R.
Eno, being No. 233 Fifth avenue; that property has recently been
sold, has it not? A. Yes; the Reform Club bought it.
Q. Do you know what was paid for that property by the Reform
Club? A. I do not.
Q. It is assessed at $85,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you be surprised to hear that the Reform Club had paid
more than twice that amount for that property? A. I would not.
Q. Would what the Reform Club paid for that property be, in the
eyes of an assessor, or a tax commissioner, a just basis for determining
its assessed value? A. It would not.
Q. Why not? A. Because they wanted the location there, near the
hotels.
Senator FASSETT.- Why, everybody wants a location, in everything.
The WITNESS. Well, I know; you see I am not going to answer
these questions, you know, for the purpose of having the city of New
York placed in a position where you are trying to take and support.
the State Board of Assessors; not by any means.
2336
[SENATE,
Senator McNaughton.
Mr. Coleman, that is not the theory that
you are here for, at all.
The WITNESS.—I want that understood; now, in regard to the
Reform Club, that was this piece of property; this is a piece of prop-
erty right near a hotel; it was an old-fashioned building there, and
for years Mr. Eno lived there; he didn't want to sell the property,
because Mr. Eno is like Mr. Astor; you have to pay him twice as
much as the property is worth before you can get it; that has always
been the case with Eno; he has never sold a piece of property for the
last twenty years that he didn't get twice what anybody else would
pay for it, and for that reason he waits for those people to come
along; he will tell you himself; bring him on the stand and he will
tell you himself, under affidavit, that that property ain't worth over
$130,000; still he got $70,000 more for it.
Q. If it is worth $130,000 and he got $70,000 more than it was
worth for it, then he got $200,000 for it? A. I suppose he did; I
don't know what he got for it.
Q. It is assessed at eighty-five? A. Well, no matter what it is as-
sessed for.
Q. And even on the basis of what you say it would be worth, if that
gentleman found a foolish club to pay $70,000 more than it is worth,
it is still assessed A. At $85,000.
-
Q. Some $50,000 below what you say its value is? A. I am putting
the Enos' value; not what-I claim it is not worth over $100,000, nor
you can't prove it is worth over $100,000, upon any basis whatever,
upon an income of any kind whatever; you can't prove it.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Is it worth a hundred thousand dollars? A. The chances are it
would sell for a hundred thousand dollars; on no basis can you
make it over a hundred thousand.
Q. Why is it not so entered on your roll? A. Because we take
fifteen or twenty per cent below, same as we always will do.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Why do you say the chances are it would possibly sell for a hun-
dred thousand dollars, in view of the fact that it has, within the pres-
ent year, actually sold for about $200,000? A. I don't care what it
has sold for; I don't care anything at all about what it has sold for ;
why, within 125 feet of this very piece of property, although it has
sold for twenty dollars a foot, within 125 feet of that very piece of
property, you can go and buy to-day property for twelve dollars a
No. 80.]
2337
foot, within 125 feet, between Madison and Fifth avenue, where those
three or four houses which were used for houses of prostitution.
Q. That is a different state of facts? A. I can tell you all those
things and you don't know them; that is the trouble.
Senator FASSETT.- The trouble is you are not willing to tell what
you do know.
The WITNESS.—I think I know New York pretty well.
Mr. IVINS. You are the very man we want to tell us about those
things.
The WITNESS.
Yes; I know, but I can't sit here and teach you
all about New York.
* Senator FASSETT.— You can sit there and answer questions honestly
when you are asked, can't you?
The WITNESS.—I know, but at the same time I do, and I don't
want to have you take and construe the thing—
Senator FASSETT. Your business on this stand is to answer, hon-
estly, the questions that are put to you?
The WITNESS. Yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT.-'And not to make any imputations on the commit-
tee, or to say that you are swearing here to protect New York city
against the State Board of Equalizers, or that you are here to defend
them; if you will kindly answer them and answer them honestly, we
will be very much obliged to you; we have extended to you every
courtesy, and been very patient under your lectures here, and I want
it stopped?
The WITNESS.—I don't intend you should be lectured, but at the
same time I feel this way about it; that New York, with over 150,000
pieces of property—if you will take and go with me to the tax office I
will show every record to you there and try and do everything I can
possibly, but to pick out isolated pieces of property, owned by the
Goelets or Astor's people, who will not sell—
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. You told Mr. Ivins every piece of property was valued on its
own basis? A. Yes; yes.
Q. Then there is no such thing as selecting isolated cases? A.
Well, I know, but when these people sell property, they sell it at an
enormous price; and as long as you take and pick out those pieces
don't put that as a criterion.
$
Q. Senator McNaughton asked you if you would select any parcels
of property in New York city?
Mr. IVINS:- Just turn to the first page, or any page.
[Senate, No. 80.]
293
2338
[SENATE,
Senator FASSETT.-You must not labor under the idea that this
committee are your enemies; we want to work together in all that we
are doing here.
The WITNESS.—I know, but at the same time I can not do it this way.
Senator FASSETT. Suggest a better way.
The WITNESS.—If you will come over to the tax department I will
give you all the information you want. The records are all open to
you in the tax department, and I will stay with you a month if you
want me to, but it is not fair to pick out pieces here and there.
Senator FASSETT.—You rake up a piece of property and you have to
fix the valuation one piece at a time, have you not?
The WITNESS.-I know that. The deputies do that, I do not
fix that.
Senator FASSETT.- I mean you and the department.
The WITNESS.-Yes.
Mr. IVINS.- Now in order to get a case which is not isolated, we will
isolate a case; that is, we will take the first case in any tax book
which comes to hand. [Referring to book.] Edison Electric Illumi-
nation Company, who have a lot fifty-six by ninety-eight feet, five
stories high, being number 49 West Twenty-sixth street, and which is
assessed at $100,000. That includes ward numbers five, six and seven.
The WITNESS. That is a plot of ground fifty-six feet by ninety-
eight feet, and covered by a building five stories high, fifty-six feet
by ninety feet. There is a piece of property that was built up and
improved for a special purpose, to be used by the Electric Light
Illumination Company. If the Electric Light Illumination Com-
panies were all to combine in the city of New York and were to
change their stations and this property was placed in the market in
its present condition, it would not sell for what it is assessed for.
By
Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Is there any probability of their doing that within a year? A.
I do not know.
Q. Then why should you state it; why should you imagine that
difficulty? A. For this reason, that a few years ago the gas com-
panies consolidated, the Old New York, and Metropolitan, the
Manhattan, and they all had property that they did not utilize, and
they placed it in the market, and why should not these electric light
companies do the same thing?
Q. Have you a right under the law to take those things into
consideration? A. We have the right to view it on every side.
Mr. IVINS. What would happen if a tax commissioner simply stood
on the letter of the law? A. I don't know anything about that.
No. 80.]
2339
Q. Do you take into consideration the possibility that the buildings
might be destroyed by fire? A. That is one of the elements.
Q. Will you point out where under the statute you have a right to
take that into consideration? A. That is only one of the things; I
can not enumerate all the things that I take into considersation; the
trouble is you only select certain pieces of property.
Senator FASSETT.- By your objecting to our selecting property, do
you mean that there would be favoritism shown in the assessment of
property by the tax department?
The WITNESS.- No; if there is such a thing, I want to know it; but
you are picking out, property that you can not understand anything
about unless you have some dealings with that property.
By Mr. IVINS:
[Referring to book.]
Q. Page 127 from the twenty-first ward book, I find the name
Samuel Sloane; I also find the name Henry Cram, both of whom are
well known citizens? A. They are well known citizens.
*
Q. And these are their residences, are they not? A. Yes.
Q. On East Thirty-eighth street between Fifth and Madison
avenues? A. Yes, sir; they have a stable on the south side of Thirty-
ninth street.
Q. Those are good houses? A. Yes, sir.
Q. They are well built houses? A. Yes, sir.
Q. They are on a good street? A. Yes, sir.
Q. One of the best streets in the city? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Cram's house has been assessed for $45,000 and Sloane's house
has been assessed for $42,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And they are side by side? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I suppose that the only difference in the houses which
makes the difference in the assessment is the fact that Mr. Cram's
house has an extension? A. His house has an extension.
Q. What, in your judgment, as a real estate expert, and not as a
tax commissioner, for residential purposes, is the market value of
Mr. Sloane's house to-day? A. Well, at the present time
Q..That is the cream of the cream in location and everything, is it
not? A. Thirty-eighth street has been deemed a very good street;
yes, sir.
Q. What is the market value of Mr. Sloane's house to-day? A. The
chances are that Mr. Sloane's house would bring $60,000.
Q. Is not that house more valuable than smaller houses on the
north side of the street a block or two further east? A. Oh, yes.
2340
[SENATE,
Q. Do you not know. of $100,000 having been refused for houses
that are not as fine and that are not as large as this house on the
north side of the street in the last few years? A. What location?
Q. Between Park avenue and Fifth avenue. A. On Thirty-eighth
street?
Q. Yes. A. Well, there might be a smaller house that would bring
more, but it might be a more valuable house.
Q. Do you think that I would have, if that house were offered for
sale to-day, any chance of getting it at auction for $60,000? A. I
hardly think that you would just now.
Q. Do you think I would have a chance of getting it for $70,000?
A. Yes, sir; I remember the time when Sloane bought that at
auction.
Q. What did he give for it when he bought it? A. He gave with
the stable, running through, $82,000.
Q. Is it worth any less now than it was worth then? A. A little less
now; Thirty-eighth street did go back a little.
By Senator Fassett:
Q. You draw a nice distinction between knowledge and belief;
knowledge is the thing we see? A. I know that, I get so tired of tax
talk that I do not care about talking it unless I am compelled to.
Q. Still it is one of the most vital interests. A. Yes; let me draw
up a law for you, and I will reach all of those things.
Senator FASSETT.- We will be very much obliged to you if you will
assist us.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You probably have had more experience in relation to those
things than any one in the city; now to return to the matter of
assessing the land itself in cases where one lot is vacant and the other
is built upon; is the fact that the vacant lot is not yiolding and
revenues one of the reasons which leads to its being assessed at a less
rate than the land that is built upon and bringing in revenue?
Well, no;
I told you before that the location of vacant property is taken
into consideration, that the vacant property standing in the line of
improvements is taken into consideration; we try to put that upon the
same basis.
A.
Q. Do the tax commissioners themselves make any oath as to the
correctness of these appraisements? A. No; they certify that they
have made an examination of the record books.
No. 80.1
2341
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Are they required by law to certify? A. Yes.
Q. Can you show me which section requires that?
but I suppose it is in the Consolidation Act.
No; I can not,
Q. Referring to law.] I do not see that you are obliged to certify.
A. We do certify that the receiver's books are a correct copy of the
record books.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-But not as to the correctness of the valuation ?
The WITNESS.- No.
Q. You are not anywhere required to make an official certification
or affidavit as to the accuracy, correctness or justness of the assess-
ment-rolls, are you? A. We only certify to the correctness of the
copy.
Q. That is the copy from the field book into the record book? A.
No; the copy of the record book.
Q. Oh, copying into the assessment-roll from the record book?
A. Yes.
Q. All you have to do in your official capacity so far as the assess-
ment-roll is concerned is to certify that it is correct copy from the
record book? A. Yes, sir; and then to return it to the board of
aldermen.
Q. So far as there is any official responsibility as to its conforming
with the law, the deputy land assessors are the only ones who are
required to make an official certificate or affidavit? A. That is all.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Will you turn to your report for the year 1890 and find the list
of exemptions? A. Here it is [referring to book].
Q. Isn't that summarized somewhere? A. I suppose it is in the
back part.
Q. [Referring to book.] You will find it is summarized on page 40;
it appears that there is now real estate exempt from taxation for the
year 1890 in this city, of the appraised value of $296,670,000; of that
we will take the first ward to begin with; $23,847,200 of assessed values
of real estate appear to be exempt from taxation in the first. ward of
this city; what property does that consist mainly of? A. That is
mostly government and city property down there.
Q. That is mostly government and city property? A. Yes.
Q. That includes the Trinity church property, does it not? A. Yes,
that includes the church and the cemetery.
Q. Does it include the Trinity building? A. Oh, no; of course not;
the Trinity building is assesed at $600,000.
2342
[SENATE,
Q. Do you know what the aggregate rent-roll of the Trinity building
is? A. I do not.
Q. That Trinity building belongs to the Trinity corporation, does it
not? A. It de not.
Q. Who does it belong to? A. The last time that I knew anything
about it, the ownership was in the estate of Daniel Fearing, and he
died at Newport; they complained very bitterly in regard to the
assessment, because they claimed that the new improvements in the
first ward were taking away their tenants, because their building was
old and did not keep up to the times; and since the Delaware Lacka-
wanna and Western and the new Field building, which are both large
coal corporations have been built, they have taken away a great many
tenants that used to occupy rooms in the Fearing building.
Q. Let us take two buildings which are up to the times, the Dela-
ware, Lackawanna and Western and the Boreal building; what is the
Boreal building, the land and the building assessed at? A. I think it
is $700,000; it was $800,000, but upon comparison that they made from
two years ago, a comparison made by Wilton I think it was reduced
$50,000 or $100,000, I forget which; it may be $750,000 now.
Q. Do you know what the rentals of the Boreal building were? A.
He brought in the rentals at that time, but I do not remember what
they were now.
Q. Did he show you at that time what the net yield of the building
was, after deducting all the expenses of maintenance, taxes, etc.? A.
He had a list with him showing us all that it produced, with his
argument; I forget what it was now.
Q. Is not that property worth $1,000,000 in the market? A. Well,
It might be for an investment on a four and a half per cent or five
per cent basis, yes; it is not a substantial building; it is the old City
Hotel; it is not well built, but it is well laid out for rental purposes
though.
→
Q. Can you find the first in this book for the first ward; I can not
find it; it seems to begin with the sixth ward? A. Yes [referring to
book]; that is so; [speaking to employe] where does the first, second,
third, fourth and fifth ward come in; it begins with the sixth ward?
Senator FASSETT.- What page?
The WITNESS.— Page 21.
CLERK.-These reports are not complete. They have just come from
the printers.
Q. There seems to be some mistake in the printing? A. Yes.
Mr. IVINS.— We will take that up on Monday; but in the meantime
I have one witness here whom I will call. I do not want to have him
No. 80.]
2343
come here again if I can help it, as he is employed in the civil service
board, and I wish to finish him to-day; we will need Mr. Coleman on
Monday to take up this personal tax matter.
Q. Mr. Coleman, what wards did you say Mr. Perry had made the
assessments for? A. The seventh, tenth, thirteenth and seventeenth.
Q.•Those are the wards as against the assessments of which you
filed this protest with Mr. Bell? A. I wrote a letter.
LEE PHILLIPS, called as a wittness, being duly sworn, testified as
follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Mr. Phillips, what is your occupation? A. I am secretary and
executive officer of the municipal civil service board.
Q. How long have you been there? A. The last time, since April
third of this year.
Q. How long have you been in the civil service board? A. Since
June 24, 1886.
Mr. IVINS. I will say to the committee that the civil service board
will be taken up hereafter, and then other questions in reference to
Mr. Phillips' various places in the board will be taken up, but for the
present I only wish to ask him a few questions on a particular subject.
Q. Are the papers containing the application for the appointment
of Henry H. Perry to the place of deputy tax commissioner here?
A. They are [producing papers].
Mr. IvINS.— This recites that Henry H. Perry is his full name.
It
gives his legal residence as the Worth House, in Twenty-sixth street.
Q. Do you know whether or not the Worth is part of the Hoffman
House, under the same management as the Hoffman House? A.
I always understood so, but I don't know it of my own knowledge.
Mr. Ivins.—It recites that he is 38 years old. Mr. Perry is vouched
for as a person of good moral character and capacity, of good repute
and temperate habits, etc., as required by law, by Edward S. Stokes,
hotel proprietor.
Q. That is correct; is it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. He is also vouched for by R. W. Taylor, physician? A. Yes, sir
Q. He is also vouched for by John Hardy, lawyer? A. Yes, sir. »
Q. Who is John Hardy, ex-member of Congress? A. That I do not
know, sir.
Q. He is also vouched for by W. Bourke Cockran, lawyer? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Is that position subject to competitive examination? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was there any competitive examination for Mr. Perry at that
time? A. No, sir.
44
*
2344
[SENATE,
f
Q. Was any advertisement made or any notice sent out or any steps
whatever taken to secure a competitive examination of different per-
sons at the time that Mr. Perry was examined and appointed? A.
Not to my knowledge; I was not secretary at the time, so that that
was not a part of my duty to know that.
Q. Do the records show anything of the kind? No, sir; the
records do not.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Would the records show that others were examined with him or
not? A. Yes, sir; the record shows that there was only one candidate.
Q. Does it frequently happen, that in so-called competitive examina-
tions, there is but one person examined? A. No, sir.
Q. It does happen once in a while? A. Once in a while; yes, sir.
Q. This is the examination; is it not [referring to paper]? A.
Yes, sir
Q. Now, will you tell us what time intervened between the applica-
tion and the examination, and what time intervened between the
examination and the appointment? A. The application appears to
have been sworn to on April 16, 1889; it appears to have been filed in
the civil service office on the same day; the examination occurred on
the nineteenth, three days later.
Q. Is not that an unusually short time for examinations after appli-
cations? A. Well, the applications for ordinary positions are being
constantly filed, and then we call an examination to meet the neces-
sities of a department, and some might come in just the day before
the examination, but others might date back several weeks or several
months.
Q. Is there any provision of the rules of the Civil Service Commis-
sion, or is the practice of the board to require that notice should be
given that a number of persons shall have ample opportunity to file
an application for such a place? A. No, sir; there is nothing in the
rules; it has been the custom, since the first of April; we advertise
all competitive examinations in the City Record for five days before
holding the examination.
Q. You did not so advertise it this time, though? A. No, sir.
Q. That was not then the practice? A. No, sir.
Q. Then this is the act, is it not, that the man who first catches on
to the fact that there is a vacancy and gets in an application, may
occupy the entire field and be examined alone? A. If an examination
be called; yes, sir.
Q. Now, on whose request was this examination called? A. That I
do not know.
}
No. 80.]
2345
Q. Who did you say was in charge at that time? A. Mr. Ackerman.
Q. Do you know who secured Mr. Ackerman's appointment? A. I
don't know.
Q. Were you not removed to make room for Mr. Ackerman? A. I
was asked for my resignation, which I handed in.
Q. And Mr. Ackerman then took your place? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Ackerman is a warm personal friend of Mr. Cockran, is he
not? A. I. don't know as to that.
Q. Have you never been told that by Mr. Ackerman? A. I do not
think so.
Q. Is not Mr. Ackerman the gentleman who resigned from that office.
and went to Europe to meet Mr. Croker during this investigation?
A. He resigned and went to Europe, but I do not know what he
went for.
Q. Were you not told at the time that that was what he went for ?
A. I saw that from the papers, but he did not tell me.
Q. Will you turn to that examination and put your finger on that
part of it which refers to the fitness and qualification of this particular
man to judge of the assessed valuations of real estate? A. Yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT.- The so-called technical part? A. Yes; that con-
sists of forty questions in this case.
Q. Are the questions and answers both here? A. Yes, sir; forty
questions and the answers are appended.
Q. The report shows that he passed seventy in that part of the
examination? A. No; that seventy was mental arithmetic.
Mr. IVINS.—The first question was: "Describe the duties of a
deputy tax commissioner?" the answer was: "The duties of a deputy
tax commissioner are to assess all the real estate, both improved and
unimproved, wharfs, piers, bulkheads, water pumps, etc., in the district
assigned him by the commissioners of taxes and assessments. Q.
What are assessed values? A. The amount placed upon for taxation;"
that is literally the answer; the handwriting is very good; third,
"what is the first most important feature to consider in determining
the value of a piece of property? A. Vacant property, location;
improved property, character of building thereon;" fourth,
"what
are actual values? A. What it would sell for under ordinary circum-
stances; the words of the statute; fifth, name the three most
active elements which constitute the value of a piece of property?
A. Location, surroundings and rental;" seventh, "how many city lots
are in an acre? A. Sixteen, including streets;" eighth, "what is the
length of the city in miles? A. Say thirteen miles ;" he was then
asked to bound the city of New York; how many wards there were in
[Senate, No. 80.]
294
2346
[SENATE,
it; what ward he lived in; what ward city hall was in; what ward
Central park was in; what ward Randall's island was in; what is the
most valuable piece of land in regard to improvements, and what its
value per square foot is; he says Fifth Avenue Hotel.
Senator FASSETT.— Mr. Coleman, was this his first experience in the
tax department ?
Mr. COLEMAN.— No, sir; he had been there before.
Senator FASSETT.— How long?
Mr. COLEMAN.
years, I think.
He had been out of the office about four or five
Senator FASSETT.—And how long had he served?
Mr. COLEMAN. He was clerk for two years and deputy for two years.
Senator FASSETT. About four years?
Mr. COLEMAN. Four years; I think; oh, yes; he served longer; he
served nearly six years.
Mr. Ivins [Continuing]. He was then asked "how do the values of
other desirable pieces compare with the most valuable plot; " he was
asked to name five such locations; he was asked "what, as a rule, is
the most valuable side of the street, the north, south, east or west; he
was asked how much more valuable corners are than inside lots, and
why; he was asked to name the five elements, after size and location,
which most effect the value of vacant property; this answer casts
some light on one of the questions and answers before;
cr name the
five elements, after size and location, which most effect the value of
vacant property? A. Character and grade of lot, future outlook of
neighborhood, adjacent buildings, recent sales in the vicinity and
general character of improvements going on in said proximity."
Does he put in there, “and what the purchaser
Senator FASSETT.
wants to use it for?"
Mr. IvINS.- No; nor does he say anything about the rental values.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Nor the possibility of being destroyed by
fire.
Mr. IvINS.— I will ask Mr. Phillips to give me a complete copy of
this record, so that it can be spread on the minutes, and it will not be
necessary to take up those questions any further.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.~ Let me read what was testified to yesterday
in regard to Mr. Perry, page 1880. Mr. Coleman testified that Mr.
Perry was appointed about two years now. "He was in the office
previous for several years between 1874 and 1881; he was clerk first
of, and then a deputy, and then he was removed by Ashton, I think,
in 1881, and then reappointed two years ago through the civil service,
on application made by the tax board for a deputy; the cause of
that application was that we had a gentleman who had charge of Mr.
No. 80.]
2347.
Perry's district by the name of Martine, and in marching up Broad-
way one day with the militia, he was suddenly struck down, paralyzed,
and we had to apply at once for a man to take and complete his work."
That probably accounts for the haste.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Have you the application of the tax board there? A. No, sir;
we do not file that with the papers.
Q. Did you say what date the application of the tax board was?
A. It does not appear here.
Q. It does not appear there? A. No, sir; they make a requisition
on our office.
Q. Do you know how it happened that Mr. Perry filed an applica-
tion, and no one else did? A. No, sir; I haven't any recollection of
the circumstances; I do not remember the gentleman at all.
Q. This falls under the class of competitive examinations as pro-
vided for by your schedules? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know whether any steps were taken to have a competi-
tive examination? A. No, sir; I do not know that there were any.
Adjourned to Monday, October twentieth, at 11 a. M.
NEW YORK, October 20, 1890.
Present-Senators Fassett, McNaughton, Ahearn and Birkett.
Mr. IVINS. The witnesses who have been subpoenaed here, Mr.
Chairman, will not be needed until the afternoon session, except
Mr. Coleman. Mr. Coleman will take the forenoon.
Senator FASSETT.- Mr. Coleman, I understand, wants to attend a
meeting of the board of estimate and apportionment, and does not
want to be here after 10 o'clock.
Mr. IVINS. Then we will let him go at 12 o'clock, and take up one
of the other commissioners, and he then can come back after the
meeting of the board of estimate and apportionment.
Mr. COLEMAN.—I will be at that meeting for the next month from
10 o'clock until four. While I have, of course, I would like to be here,
the other is mandatory, and I can not very well refuse to attend.
Senator FASSETT.— You had better stay here at this meeting until 1
o'clock, and then we will excuse you, and try and not bother you any
more for the present.
Mr. COLEMAN.- All right.
Examination of Mr. Coleman resumed.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Will you turn to the report of 1889; I want that list of exempt
property which we left off at, at the examination last Friday? A.
2348
[SENATE,
Yes, sir [referring to report]; do you want to start on the first
ward?
Q. I would like to see how it is by wards? A. This is not the one;
1888 has got the full list in; this is only the edition for 1889; we have
got hundreds of them over in the office.
Q. Will you send for one of them? A. Yes, sir.
[Report sent for.]
Q. Well, then, we will pass that for the minutes; will you tell us
what the rule is with regard to the taxation of property in course of
improvement? A. In the course of erection ?
Q. Where the buildings are in the course of erection? A. The
custom is that those buildings in the course of erection are examined
on the first route made by the deputy assessors, and are also then
examined between the first and the fifteenth of December, and a sup-
plemental report is made by the commissioners as to the progress of
the buildings; they are then re-examined on or before the second day
of April, according to law, so that in case we should want to increase
them, we are obliged to give a notice twenty days before the closing
of the books; that is sometimes done, but as a general thing, without
they make very rapid progress, we do not do it, as the assessment
made upon the first of January is generally made by the deputy on
the ground, and knowing about what progress they will make with
the improvement.
Q. Has your attention ever been called to the fact of any case
where property which was being improved, where the buildings were
either in the course of erection, or were completed, although still
unrented, had gone untaxed, so far as the improvement was con-
cerned? A. Had gone untaxed so far as the improvement was
concerned?
Q. Yes. A. No, sir.
Q. If that occurred, whose fault would it be? A. It would be the
fault of the commissioners, providing their attention was called to it.
Senator FASSETT.— Presumably in the first instance, however, it
would be the fault of the deputy. It would be the fault of the
deputy for not finding it in his district, and if he had found it and had
reported it, then the fault would lay with the commissioners for not
seeing that the deputy did his duty.
Q. That is one of the things that is checked off, is it not, by the
reports from the building department? A. That is one of the
things that is supposed to be checked off by the application clerk and
the deputy in regard to the report from the building department.
Q. What district has Mr. Murray? A. He has got the Twenty-
second ward.
No. 80.]
B
2349
Q. How long did you say he had been in the department? A. He
was appointed by John Wheeler in 1874.
Q. What is the rule in the assessment of made lands along the river
side? A. They are generally in properties that are accessible and
attached to the upland; the orders are to assess them the same as all
other lands, but where the land is under water, and where it is
almost impossible to get perhaps the proper soundings of the depth
of the water, or the proper soundings of the thickness of the mud
there, the deputy generally assesses it at less than what the owner
thinks it is worth, but at a sum that he thinks, in his judgment, it
would sell for.
Q. The latter case is the case of lands under water? A. The case
of lands under water; yes, sir.
Q. The case that I speak of is made land? A. The orders are to
assess that the same as other property, so far as its market value is
concerned.
Q. Have you ever heard of a case in which the made lands, along
the water front, of substantial value, have gone untaxed? A. Oh,
yes; we discovered in 1888, by an examination of the water front-
orders I think I gave out myself to each of the deputies who had
charge of water fronts, and we found that our maps were not correct,
and that some made lands were not followed by the deputy or the
surveyor, and had not been taxed; I don't know how long this weut
on, but as soon as we found it out, the orders went out to every
deputy to put on all made lands out to the exterior lines; the maps
were changed; that is the time I had the surveyor changed when I
found that out.
Q. In whose district were those made lands? A. There were some
in the twenty-second.
Q. That is Mr. Murray's district? A. Yes; and there were some
in Mr. Anthenries' district, that is the twelfth ward on the east side
along the Harlem river; on the North River and on the East River
north of Eighty-sixth street.
Q. Was Mr. Murray responsible for the failure of having assessed
those lands in the twenty-second ward? A. I do not know; I do not
think he was, because when I made the examination of the maps at
the time, I found that there were some omissions from the tax-book;
I called the attention of the commissioners to it, the same as Mr.
Bell did, to the necessity of having a change made in the surveyor's
department.
Q. What rule prevails among the deputy commissioners in the
assessment of water front property as to the determination of its
2350
[SENATE,
value? A. Well, under Judge Earle's decision of the case of Smith
against the Mayor, in 1878, before that time bulkheads and piers were
assessed at a nominal sum, for the simple reason that for years the
parties who owned some of them refused to pay taxes, and the sink-
ing fund was always afraid to sell them for fear they would be held
liable for any damages done, but when this case of Smith against the
Mayor came up, Judge Earle's decision fully justified the commission
in going ahead and assessing all bulkheads and piers and lands under
water, and ferry houses and things like that, the same as we are
assessing them now, taking in the elevated structures, taking in the
gas mains, and taking in other mains belonging to private corpora-
tions; since that time we have assessed them.
Q. Do you know the water front property of the Union Stock Yard
Company? A. I know of it; that was bought under the Condemna-
tion Act.
Q. That is on the North River and Thirtieth street? A. Part of it
is there, and part of it is further up; there has been a compromise
made on account of claim of ownership this last year; there was a
question there between the New York Central and the city, the New
York Central claimed that they owned it, and the dock commissioners
claimed that they owned it, so I believe the New York Central has
waived all its rights, and now it is city property; that is within the
exterior line of Twelfth avenue.
Q. I want to confine myself more particularly to the property
ówned by the stock yard company? A. Then I should have to get
the map.
Q. I would like to see what it is, what it is assessed for, and I would
like your judgment as to its actual value? A. Certainly; you would
have to get the twenty-second ward map.
Q. Will you send for it? A. Yes, sir.
[Map sent for.]
Q. I suppose that map is in the field? A. No; I think they are all
there, because I understood the deputies were all subpoenaed; it is
the twenty-second ward, volume 2.
Senator FASSETT.—The fact is, we will have to take this committee
and go right over to the commissioners before this examination is
finally concluded.
Mr. IvINS.— Oh, yes; we will have to go over to the commissioners'
office before this examination is concluded.
Senator FASSETT. I have in mind to take up a great many indi-
vidual instances for the purpose of making a careful estimate of each
one, so as to base a ratio on it, and we can not do it here.
No. 80.]
2351
Mr. IVINS. We will have to go there before we get through, where
we shall have the books actually before us. In the meantime, Mr.
Coleman's messenger can get this map.
Q. Now, while he has gone after that will you describe to us gener-
ally, beginning at the very commencement the process which is
employed for the assessment of personal property for the purposes of
taxation? A. You want to start in at the commencment, do you?
Q. I want to start in at the commencement. A. Well, the personal
department is under thé supervision of a gentleman by the name of
Cadwell.
Senator FASSETT.
A deputy tax commissioner?
The WITNESS. A deputy tax commissioner in charge of the personal
department. He was appointed about twenty-five years ago I should
judge, and he, in accordance with the custom of the department, com-
mences upon the first of May, with regard to his books, about making
changes as to residence, so as to be prepared, that when the new
directory comes out all addresses will be corrected, are those who
move on the first of May. We have an arrangement made with Mr.
Trow to get the proof sheets about six weeks in advance of the pub-
lic, so that we would not lose any time, and coming then upon the
first of September, the names are all upon our records, their proper
addresses, and he uses his judgment from his experience and from
what he has passed through in regard to the affidavits of those who
correct or swear off, in placing the sums opposite each individual
name, as to what they shall be assessed for. In regard to estates,
trustees, guardians or executors, they, of course, come under us by the
searching of the records in the surrogate's office. In regard to the
corporations, there we have a record of all corporations doing busi-
ness within New York, and then we get also a new, clear record from
the county clerk's office of all those `that have been added to the list
during the last year. They are assessed upon their capital, so that
when we open the books upon the second Monday in January, after
being sworn to before a justice of the Supreme Court, the total valua-
tions upon our records last year amounted to about $1,650,000,000, I
think, which was sworn down after the books had beed closed to about
$294,000,000.
Q. One billion and six hundred and fifty million dollars was for
what? A. I say that was the total sum placed upon the records when
we opened the books.
Senator FASSETT.-That was in excess of the amount of real estate?
The WITNESS Yes; that was sworn down to about two hundred and
ninety odd million dollars.
2352
[SENATE,
Q. One billion and six hundred and thirty-eight million dollars?
A. Is it; $1,638,000,000; I forget.
Q. It was; and it was cut down to $229,179,000? A. No; more than
that, two hundred and ninety odd million dollars; I will give it to you
right here [referring to report].
Q. This is the accountant's statement taken from your books? A.
Is it?
Q. Yes. A. Well, I will give it to you right here.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-Get that correct, Mr. Ivins.
The WITNESS.-You are correct, sir; $229,179,201.
Q. That is right; that is as I have it? A. That is, right, sir.
Q. Now, the number of, individual names on your lists at the open-
ing of the rolls of this year was 24,030 ? A. Yes.
Q. Which I find was reduced to 13,890? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, on reference to your last report-
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- That is for personal property? A. Yes.
Mr. IVINS.- This is all personal property that we are talking of.
Q. I find the following is a statement of the number of affidavits
relative to personal statements taken upon examination by each com-
missioner for the years 1886 to 1890, so far inclusive, and I find that
the number reduced, that is, 12,320 were reduced upon affidavits taken,
1,726 of them before you? A. Yes.
Q. Four thousand seven hundred and sixty-two of them before
Commissioner Feitner? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Four thousand eight hundred and sixty-five of them before
Commissioner Parris? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I find the report explains that the excess in number of
affidavits taken by the other commissioners as compared to those taken
by you, is due to the fact that a great deal of your time is taken up
with other duties incident to your office? A. Yes.
Q. Now, will you explain the method of taking those affidavits?
A. Yes.
Q. And what the affidavits are made to contain, and what examina-
tion the parties seeking to have their names erased from the books are
subjected to? A. It has been the custom, although not the law, of
the department, previous to the opening of the books, to have notices
all made out and addressed to those who are on our records, notifying
them that they are assessed for so much, and that any complaint will
be listened to or corrected on or before the thirtieth of April, pro-、
viding that they want to make such complaint; on the second Monday
of January the books open; we generally send out, for instance, the
names beginning with A, B, and C., so that we will not be overcrowded,
No. 80.]
2353
and we keep going on in that way until the last are exhausted; those
who wish to complain bring their notices or call at the office and make
the following affidavit, after being subjected to an examination as to
what their business is, how much personal property they have over
and above their debts, what their personal property consists of, what
are they in debt for, and they make this affidavit, "I hereby swear
that the value of my personal property, exclusive of bank stock,
exceeds so much, one dollar, $100, or nothing, or whatever amount
they want to correct it to.
39
Senator FASSETT. The form of that affidavit is in that book?
The WITNESS. Yes, sir.
Mr. IVINS.—The form is here [referring to book].
Q. Now, in the case of estates, how do you proceed to determine the
value of the personal property held in the estate? A. Well, we gen-
erally get the gross sum sworn to by the guardian or the trustee or the
executor in the surrogate's office, and then, under a personal examina-
tion made of those parties, we deduct the non-taxable securities from
those that are liable to taxation, and in some cases hold him for the
balance, and in other cases take into consideration those who are
dependent upon the income; we have no right to do it, but we have done
it; we have had cases where there would be, perhaps, the income on
$20,000 that was to go to the support of a widow and three children; I
have always maintained that, although the law did not give us the
right to do it, to assess that at the full sum of $20,000 would be
wrong, and I have advocated a reduction.
Senator FASSETT.- That is in view of the fact that so many people
apparently escape from a fair assessment?
The WITNESS. These people have no power to escape.
Senator FASSETT.— Their property is right where you can see it?
The WITNESS.-Yes, sir.
Q. Let us take an individual case; do you remember the estate of
Moses Taylor? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Tell us what was done in the case of the estate of Moses Taylor;
in the first place, will you tell us what the records of the surrogate's
office showed the estate to be worth? A. The records of the surro-
gate's office showed the estate to be worth something over $20,000,000.
Q. Over $20,000,000? A. Yes; over $20,000,000.
Q. That is the personal property in the estate? A. That is the
personal property in the estate.
now?
Q. That did not include the realty at all that you are referring to
A. No; the personal property; I was not a tax commissioner
at that time, but Mr. Tenure, who represented them, and Mr. Pine
[Senate, No. 80.]
295
2354
[SENATE,
both very reputable gentlemen, called at the office, and after consul-
tation with Mr. Donnelly fixed the sum
Q. Mr. Donnelly being a commissioner at that time? A. Mr. Don-
nelly being a commissioner at that time-fixed the sum
Q. At what? A. At $4,000,000; do not misunderstand me, that the
$20,000,000 was liable to taxation; the personal property consisted of
over $20,000,000, but out of that $20,000,000 there were the common
stocks of corporations, such as the Consolidated Gas, and the Dela-
ware, Lackawanna & Western, and their stocks
Q. Are not those stocks liable to taxation? A. Not to the indi-
vidual; so that when the deductions were taken out from the Moses
Taylor estate, I hardly think, from what examinations that have been
made since, the entire estate that would be liable to taxation would
exceed over $8,000,000.
Senator FASSETT.- Would there be $8,000,000 left?
The WITNESS. I hardly think there would be $8,000,000, from what
I understood from Mr. Pine since, and Mr. Pine would not misrep-
resent anything, not to save taxes or anything else; he is a first-
class man.
Q. Do you remember the case of the Vanderbilt estate? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So far as ascertainable, what did the records of the personal
property show that estate to be worth? A. There was no record
showing anything there, but from the best information that we could
get, we found that the personal property consisted, including govern-
ment bonds held by the estate of Vanderbilt, of $36,000,000, or
nearly $40,000,000.
Q. As nearly as you could get at it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What steps were taken to get at it? A. Mr. Depew called
at the office, because it was just previous to the opening of the books;
Mr. Vanderbilt has paid
Q. That is in January? A. No; in December.
Q. In December? A. Yes; it was about the first of December; Mr.
Vanderbilt had always paid on $500,000 when he was alive; alone,
individually.
Q. That is Mr. William H. Vanderbilt? A. William H. Vanderbilt,
individually.
Q. And this particular estate was the estate of William H. Vanderbilt?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That was the estate which you found after his death; as far as
ascertainable, nearly $40,000,000? A. Nearly $40,000,000 of personal
property; but do not understand me as saying that the $40,000,000
was liable,
No. 80.]
2355
"M
Q. I understand? A. We sent for Mr. Depew and had a consulta-
tion; Mr. Fietner, Mr. Donnelly and myself; Mr. Depew urged, on
account of the short time that there was before the opening of the
books, to have a fixed sum against the estate, and proposed to pay on
$4,000,000; it was $4,000,000, I think; after consulting for a day or
two, he informed us that if we attempted to press them too hard, he
would take proceedings by which most of the securities would be
placed beyond our reach, so that we could not tax them.
Q. Was that equivalent to a threat to avoid taxation? A. That was
not equivalent to a threat to avoid taxation at all, except that it was
proper for him to advise the executor, as his counsel, and he cer-
tainly would so advise them; it was nothing but what other people are
doing all the time.
Q. And the assumption is that he had a perfect right to take that
position under the law? A. Oh, yes; under the law.
Q. Now, under what particular section of the law would it have been
possible for that to have been done? A. They could, in the twenty-five
or thirty days which they had, convert everything that they had into
non-taxable securities, such as New York Central, government, city
bonds, Delaware and Lackawanna, and Lackawanna and Western
stocks, that did not change at that time nor fluctuate any more than
governments, and not pay a dollar, provided they wished to do so.
Q. Under what provision of law are the securities of the New York
Central railroad and the Delaware and Lackawanna exempted from
taxation in the hands of an individual in this State? A. Bonds are not.
Senator FASSETT.- Bonds are not.
Q. You say the stocks are? A. They pay from the capital stock;
they are assessed; they pay on the capital stock at the principal office.
Q. The corporation does? A. Yes, sir.
Which being paid, exempts the stockholders? A. Certainly;
they can not tax it twice.
Q. So that all that was necessary for Mr. Depew to have done under
those circumstances was to have converted that $40,000,000 into
securities of that particular class? A. Yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT.-That is the practice with the stock of every cor-
poration that pays a corporation tax?
The WITNESS.—Yes, sir.
Q. Now, let us take this for the purpose of getting at the legisla-
tive aspects of it; if Mr. Depew had converted those securities into
Illinois Central, for instance, then would those stocks, the Illinois
Central stocks, so held by the estate, have been taxable here? A.
No, sir.
{
2356
[SENATE,
Q. They would not? A. They would not.
Q. Under what provision of law is that? A. Common stock of any
corporation held in the hands of any individual don't hold the indi-
vidual at all.
Q. Even though it is a foreign corporation? A. It makes no
difference.
Q. And, even though as a corporation, it does not pay taxes in its
own State? A. That is not our business.
Q. I know it is not your business. A. We have no power at all
over the New York Central; they are an Albany corporation.
Q. The New York Central is an Albany corporation? A. The New
York Central is an Albany corporation.
Q. The New York Central pays its taxes in Albany? A. If it pays
any at all.
Senator FASSETT.— I want to ask Mr. Coleman whether it is the fact
that common stock of corporations is not liable in the hands of
people in this State; whether that is a matter of practice?
The WITNESS.—It is a matter of law.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Has there been a decision on that point? A. I can not call to
mind any decision, but I think the decision would be guided by the
custom we follow out.
Q. You haven't any in your mind; any decision? A. No, sir.
Q. Of course there is no provision of the statute exempting it?
A. Well, I will perhaps show it to you.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Can you give me a reference to the law which exempts the
shareholders of domestic corporations from the payment of any taxes
on their shares? A. They are taxed in the particular office where
they are established; the capital stock is taxed there as capital stock.
Q. Do you now recall under the law of what year that is? A. No;
I do not.
Senator FASSETT.-Of the Corporation Tax Law, I think it was in 1882.
The WITNESS. That is the Consolidated Act.
Q. Is it in the Corporation Tax Law? A. I could not tell you
about that; it is in the Revised Statutes of 1882, I suppose; I was
going to recommend to the committee here that in 1874-I brought a
book over the Committee on Ways and Means, composed of
Batchelor, Prince, Brewer, Lincoln, Alvord, Weed, Beavy and Blumen-
thal, went into the matter of personal taxes, and Mr. Andrews, at
that time, was a tax commissioner; he appeared before them, and
No. 80.]
2357
from his remarks this little pamphlet was made up [referring to
pamphlet]; you might make examinations of nearly all the officials
of New York, and you would get as much information from all the
officials of New York as you would from this pamphlet; in that you
will find just exactly the condition we are in.
Q. That pamphlet contains a list of the different methods by which
personal property escapes taxation legally, does it not? A. Yes, sir;
and although I begged him at the time.— he was one of the best men
in New York, as far as an official was concerned I begged him not
to expose our method; but still there were law firms that took it up
and made from $50,000 to $75,000 a year getting hold of people who
had always paid their taxes in ignorance of what the law really was
on the subject.
Mr. IvINS [reading from pamphlet].-By the Act of Congress,
passed June 30, 1864, United States bonds, United States coupons,
national currency, United States notes, treasury notes, fractional
notes, checks for money of authorized officers of the United States,
certificates of the United States, certificates of deposit of the United
States, and all other representative of value of whatever denomination
which have been or may be issued under act of Congress are exempted
from taxation as personal property. That is under chapter 406 of the
Laws of 1853; metal, bullion or coin in the possession, custody or
control of the United States Assay Office, are exempted. By the
Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Austin v. Low (13
Wallace, 29). Imported merchandise in original packages, in the hands
of the importer is exempted. By the decision of the New York Court
of Appeals in the case of Hoyt v. Commissioners of Taxes (23 N. Y.
224), goods and chattels owned by residents of this State, but having
a situs out of this State, are exempted. So that if I possess goods and
chattels, for instance, at Saratoga, or in Boston or in Philadelphia,
they are not taxable in this State as against me.
Q. Now, let us get at that accurately; goods and chattels owned by
residents of this State, but having a situs outside of the State are not
taxable in this State for purposes of State taxation; now, how is it in
regard to taxation for local purposes of goods and chattels owned by
me, but having a situs outside of the locality? A. Outside of the
State we do not tax them.
Q. Outside of the locality? A. What do you mean by locality?
Q. For purposes of taxation? A. What do you mean by locality;
if they are in the State, we tax them.~
Q. If they are in the State, you tax them for purposes of local
taxation? A. Oh, yes.
2358
[SENATE,
Mr. IVINS.- By the Laws of 1851, chapter 176, section 2, property
having a situs in this city, but owned elsewhere in this State-
The WITNESS.—That is where we suffer.
Q. That is just the question I asked you? A. No, no; you just
reversed it.
Senator FASSETT. That is right, you just reversed it.
Q. Then it appears that a man living in New York city, but having
property in another part of the State has to pay taxes in New York
city on property held outside of the city? A. Yes, sir.
Q. But a man living in Saratoga but having property in New York
city is not taxed for local purposes in New York city? A. No.
Q. And in Saratoga how much is he taxed? A. He is taxed
provided it is known; let me say in relation to what we have now in
New York; I dare say that there is at least annually stored in New
York below Grand street no less than $6,000,000 to $8,000,000 of
personal property, goods exposed for sale, stored away, held there in
bondage, manufactured out of the State, held for sale, protected by
our laws, where the city is responsible in case of any damage by riot,
and still we can not touch it.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Describe the property more definitely?
The WITNESS.-Well, manufactured goods mostly.
Q. Imported merchandise, for instance, in original packages? A.
That we can not touch; a great deal of this is held by people
surrounding us, living in Brooklyn, Jersey, Westchester, doing
business in New York city; commuters, etc., coming in.
Q. A great deal of it comes in under the head of property in
transitu? A. In tranṣit; yes.
Q. Now, go back to the last decision of the New York Supreme
Court, 51 Barbour, page 352: "Personal property in a foreign State,
when securities for such investment are in the hands of a non-resident
agent, escape taxation;" just is what is covered by that? A. You
would have to go over in the office and look over the different blanks.
Q. What sort of property?
Senator FASSETT.― Railroad bonds?
The WITNESS.-No. Take for instance foreign life insurance, non-
residents held by agents here.
Mr. IVINS.-I don't understand that.
Senator FASSETT.-How do you mean foreign life insurance; the
policy is not taxable?
The WITNESS.—No; but at the same time they are doing business
here. Their business is in the hands of agents here. It is foreign
capital.
No. 80.]
2359
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Aren't they taxed?
The WITNESS.- No, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Only life insurance companies are taxed? A. I am speaking of
fire insurance.
Q. Oh, you are speaking of fire insurance? A. Yes.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. The decision in the case of Parker Mills v. Commissioners of
Taxes (23 N. Y. 242) – A. I have tried three or four times to have it
reversed.
Q. [Continuing.] Is to the effect that property in transitu, goods
of non-resident owners sent here for sale, without the reinvestment of
the proceeds here, escape taxation? A. Yes; we had a case I think
last year or the year before last; I had it taken to the Court of
Appeals in regard to a jeweller in Newark who kept continuously
in the safe there property insured for $25,000 — $25,000 insurance
on his stock; it was a continuous business; under the law we
could tax it, but they claimed exemption under the Parker
Mills decision; the first time that came before the department
two of the commissioners were in favor of not holding them; I voted
against it; last year I prevailed upon the commissioners to bring it
before the Court of Appeals to try and have it reversed, but the Court
of Appeals still decided against us; that is only one of the thousands
of cases of manufacturers surrounding us here; we are protecting
their goods and they have all the benefits of New York without
paying any taxes.
Q. Under the Laws of 1857, chapter 456, it is provided that the
deposits in savings banks and the accumulations of life insurance
companies shall also escape taxation; has the law been amended since
this law has been made? A. In one case it has.
Q. Affecting particularly deposits in savings banks and the accumu-
lations of life insurance companies, I mean? A. I forget what year
the law had been amended, but it has been my policy that where I
strike a mechanic, or a poor women, or a family who have a few
hundred dollars in a savings bank, I never attempt to tax it; if I find
a capitalist who has distributed his money in savings banks so that he
can call upon them any time, then I hold him to the full limit of the
law.
Q. Are these all of the methods at present prevailing for escaping
taxation of personal property by provision of law? A. Read that
[producing book].
2360
[SENATE,
1
Q. This is a statement prepared by Mr. Andrews also at that time?
A. It was not prepared he spoke it right off; there was no preparation
at all; I was with him.
Q. Made by him? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. IVINS [reading]. "The inequalities and incongruities may
be very well illustrated by a series of contracts, as follows: A has
$100,000 of imported goods, and is exempt; B has $100,000 of miscel-
laneous goods and is taxed; C has $100,000 of goods consigned and
is exempt; D has $100,000 of goods owned and is taxed; E has
$100,000 of goods manufactured in New Jersey and is exempt; F has
$100,000 of goods manufactured in the city and is taxed; G has
$100,000 of goods for which he borrowed capital, on United States
bonds, and is exempt; H has $100,000 of goods which he sold United
States bonds to pay for, and is taxed; I has $100,000 in ships plying
from this port, but registered in Boston, and is exempt; J has $100,000
in ships plying in the Pacific, but registered here, and is taxed; K has
$100,000 in mortgages on New Jersey property, interest paid in Jersey
City, and mortgages deposited there, and is exempt; L has $100,000
in mortgages on city property, and is taxed; M has $100,000 in money
in his pocket and is exempt; N has $100,000 in money in bank, and is
taxed; O has $100,000 in certificates of deposit in subtreasury, and is
exempt; P has $100,000 in certificates of deposit in bank, and is taxed;
Q has $100,000 specie in the assay office, and is exempt; R has
$100,000 specie in his safe, and is taxed; S has $100,000 check on the
United States treasury, and is exempt; T has $100,000 check on bank,
and is taxed; U has $100,000 treasury notes, and is exempt; V has
$100,000 promisary notes, and is taxed; W has $100,000 of United
States bonds, and is exempt; X has $100,000 of State or city bonds,
and is taxed; Y has $100,000 in certificates of indebtedness of United
States, and is exempt; Z has $100,000 in certificates of indebtedness of
a corporation, and is taxed."
Q. Are these all the processes, so far as you know, by which a per-
son can now legally escape the payment of taxes on his personal
property? A: Well, they are about all.
Q. Now, what was about the application of one or another or all of
these processes, plus the latter process of escaping taxation on owner-
ship of shares in domestic corporations, or other corporations that
Mr. Depew might have deprived the city of in taxes on that $40,000,000?
A. He had time to do it.
Q. Even if he had not time given by you, he would have had time
to provide for it in next year's tax? A. We have a great many cases.
of that kind where we have got people and could not compromise
No. 80.]
2361
with them, and we made them pay perhaps the average that we knew
was being paid by other people throughout the city, and they would
say that they would pay it this year, but that would be the last time
that, we would be able to catch them.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-Mr. Ivins calls them processes; are they
based upon decisions?
The WITNESS.—There is the general law.
Mr. IvINS.-In each case the reference made by Mr. Andrews was to
a specific legislative rule or to an interpretation of some law by either
the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of the United States, the
State or the United States.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-Is it a provision of the statute that makes
those exemptions.?
The WITNESS. —Yes; there was the case of Babbitt against the
Tax Department in 1807; Mr. Babbitt was a soap manufacturer who
came here, and he established a soap factory in Greenwich and Wash-
ington street; we taxed him for $50,000, and he appeared before Mr
Andrews, and he told Mr. Andrews that he came to New York with
$250,000 of government bonds, went to the bank and borrowed
$250,000 on it, and then started his business; he did it for the purpose
of avoiding taxation and did not intend to pay any personal tax; it
was such a bold statement that Mr. Andrews thought he would make
it public, and he took the case to the Court of Appeals, and the Court
of Appeals sustained Mr. Babbitt, and from that time Mr. Babbitt's
success had been phenomenal.
Q. What did you compromise with Mr. Depew on the Vanderbilt
estate for? A. Well, after we had consulted for some time, we fixed
the sum of $8,000,000 against the estate, with the provision that we
would tax each one of the heirs a certain sum.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Was that specified? A. This was specified, and Mr. Depew
promised, that is, took and put a reasonable figure on it he did not
consent to the $8,000,000—that he would guarantee that no effort would
be made to deprive the city of a fair sum each and every year for
several years to come; the estate has been partly divided since, and
the Vanderbilts now pay on the estate, together with the heirs, the
sum of about $11,000,000 to $12,000,000.
Q. That is in addition to what they pay on real estate? A.
That is in addition to what they pay on real estate; that is taking
the Sheppard's and all the boys and all the different connections, you
know.
[Senate, No. 80.]
296
2362
[SENATE,
}
Q. In addition to these that you call legal methods, are there not
certain subterfuges that are resorted to for escaping taxation? A.
No; only in this way, that a great many of them come to us, and we
do not listen to them unless they are prepared to defend themselves,
and then we will fight them in the courts in some cases, and it would
cost them more than what the taxes amount to, and they generally pay.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. I find Cornelius Vanderbilt president-this being simply the
column to indicate the business of the party-Grand Central depot is
taxed $200,000? A. That he found fault with; last year we raised
him $100,000.
Q. That $200,000 is all Mr. Vanderbilt pays taxes on, so far as Cor-
nelius Vanderbilt's estate is concerned? A. His own personal prop-
erty; he pays his share on the $8,000,000 on his estate.
Q. Do you know whether there has ever been a partition of that
estate? A. I do not think there has been a partition; I think a part
of it is held in trust and part has been divided.
Q. Is there any means of discovering what part has been divided?
A. No; they have not made a record in the surrogate's office so far.
Q. Suppose that one-half has been divided, then in order to recover
taxes on that now, you would have to follow it into the hands of the
individuals? A. We would have to follow that into the hands of the
individuals; that would be against the interest of the city to follow
them up in that way.
Q. Why do you think it would be against the interests of the city?
A. If we found that perhaps the interests were divided and we were
obliged then by law to follow Mr. Cornelius Vanderbilt up, he has got
two residences, one in Newport and one in New York; we have lost a
great many old New Yorkers by their shifting their residence to New-
port, and now our object is to try and hold what we can.
Senator FASSETT.-That is to say, Mr. Coleman wants to keep them
here by accepting what these people are willing to pay, rather than
try to force them?
The WITNESS.-A. A fair sum.
Q. You would rather accept that than force them into exile by insist-
ing on their paying the full amount and thus driving them to
Newport?
The WITNESS.-A. Yes, sir.
Q. These people who have so gone to Newport and deprived
New York city of taxes are usually classed among the better
class, are they not? A. Yes, sir; they are rich people, of course.
No. 80.]
2363
Senator FASSETT. They have real estate here mostly?
The WITNESS.-A. They have.
Q. And that, of course, they can not escape? A. And they are liv-
ing off of the rents from their real estate, and a great many of them are
large property owners.
Q. A man with personal property of $8,000 or $10,000 on which
he pays taxes stops here and pays his taxes? A. Yes, sir; it falls on
the poor people and the ignorant people as a usual thing.
Senator MCNAUGHTON. And widows and orphans?
The WITNESS.-And widows and orphans.
Senator FASSETT.- And the banks?
The WITNESS. — The banks are gradually getting in under it pretty
well.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Those that are rich enough and those that are shrewd enough
can escape? A. Oh, yes; they are getting enlightened under the law
every year, that no one need pay taxes at all, personal taxes.
Q. The estate of Vanderbilt is taxed at $8,000,000; I find that
Frederick W. Vanderbilt is taxed at $100,000, George W. Vanderbilt
is taxed at $100,000, Maria L. Vanderbilt is taxed at $200,000, William
K. Vanderbilt is taxed at $200,000; that makes so far as the Vander-
bilt name itself is concerned a tax on $8,800,000 all included? A.
Then you must go into the Parmalies, Webb, Sheppard, and all the
others, which runs up to about $11,000,000 all together.
Q. Including all the connections? A. All the connections.
Q. And that includes the entire connections not only of the heirs of
William H., but also the heirs of Cornelius Vanderbilt, does it not?
A. It perambulates right through.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. It makes about one-twenty-fifth of all the personalty paid on in
New York city? A. No; I think these figure up one-thirteenth,
pretty near.
Q. Oh, yes; it would be about one-thirteenth of the resident
personalty that is paid on? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. So that the Vanderbilts pay one-thirteenth of all the taxes paid
on resident personal property? A. About that.
Q. And still, nevertheless, it is a fact, is it not, that this is a
tremendous underestimate of the aggregate wealth of the Vander-
bilt family? A. That is, of the wealth, but you must not say wealth
in regards to taxation.
2364
[SENATE,
Q. I do not say taxable wealth. A. No; but it is under the wealth,
of course; but then you must blame the government and the State
laws as to that; don't blame the city.
Q. On, no; not at all; it is the system we are now looking at.
Senator FASSETT.- We are trying to find out the fact, without
reference to blaming anyone; see if it is possible or expedient to make
a change.
The WITNESS.— You couldn't, you know, without interfering with
the United States government.
Q. The fundamental theory of the law, Mr. Coleman, is this, that all
citizens should contribute justly and equitably and in proportion to
their wealth and the benefits received by them from the community,
for the sustenance and for the maintenance of the government; now,
is there any better illustration of the fact that the laws do not
conform to that theory, than the very case which we have taken?
A. Yes; you will find more outrageous cases than that, a great deal.
Q. Tell me some of them? A. Well, it would be almost impossible,
because I think that in proportion to what would be liable there
under the laws, that the Vanderbilts done very well, indeed.
Q. What does Mr. Gould pay, personal taxes? A. I think he pays
on half a million, but he has two residences; you must remember, one
in Tarrytown and one in New York.
Q. What is the estate of Helen Gould? A. We didn't find much in
Mr. Gould's wife's estate that was liable to personal taxes; I think the
sum was about 250,000 to 300,000 that she was liable for; a majority
of the stock that was held by her estate, by the executors of her
estate, was common stock of corporations, such as Mr. Gould
was interested in, and the bonds amounted to about 250,000 to 300,000.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Did you ever inquire what Mr. Gould was assessed for at Tarry-
town? A. He is assessed for a very small sum there.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.— Merely nominal sum.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Jay Gould is assessed for $500,000 here? A. Gould and Daniel
S. Miller, as executors and trustees under the will of Helen D. Gould,
is assessed for 200,000; yes.
Q. And George J. Gould is assessed for 10,000? A. Yes.
Q. And that is the entire assessment? A. On the Gould family.
Q. On the Gould family, for personal property, in this city? A.
Yes, sir.
No. 80.]
2365
Q. Now, you say you know of other cases which illustrate more
perfectly this A. It would be well, in justice to those gentlemen,
to explain each case, because you must remember that although
Mr. Gould might be worth fifty millions of dollars, the corporations
that he is interested in, such as the Western Union, Missouri Pacific
and things of that kind, are all common stocks, held by individuals
not taxable in the hands of an individual; they are taxable upon the
capital stock.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. They pay as companies from the company office? A. They pay
as companies; yes, sir.
Q. The Western Union pays into your treasury, or into the treasury
of the- A. The Western Union is under a different law; there they
are taxed in each county they run through.
Q. But ordinarily they pay for their proportion of the whole stock
in any given city? A. Yes, sir; but in regard to the Missouri Pacific
and other corporations-
By Mr. IVINS:
t
Q. Is not the Missouri Pacific a New York corporation? A. No, sir
Q. Very well, now, we come back to the point of discovering what
the exact provision of the law is which exempts the shares of a foreign
corporation held by a resident of the city of New York from taxation
for local purposes in the city of New York.
Senator FASSETT.- Is there any provision?
The WITNESS.— Certainly there is; you will find it; it is a double
taxation, you know; that covers the case.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Is not that an assumption? A. It is double taxation.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. It is an assumption, is it not, Mr. Coleman? A. I know, but at
the same time there is no doubt in my mind; at the same time I am
not prepared for the question, you know.
By Mr. IVINS:
1
Q. The question is whether there is any specific provision of law
which exempts
Senator FASSETT.-The witness says he couldn't put his hand on it.
The WITNESS.- No; I couldn't; but will hunt up-
Q. Do you feel confident that your attention has been called to such
a provision? A. Oh, yes; oh, my, yes.
2366
[SENATE,
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Now, take the case of banks? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you turn to your report and show what proportion of the
taxes paid on personal property in this city is made up of taxes on
bank stocks? A. It is a pity I lost that detailed statement; share-
holders banks, 1890, $69,509,282.
Q. Now, what proportion of the entire personal taxes is that? A.
Well, that would be that proportion-
Senator FASSETT.- What is the whole amount?
The WITNESS.
About twenty-two and one-half per cent.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Less than a quarter? A. Yes.
-
Mr. IvINS.— I find in Davies Compilation of Constitutional Provisons,
statutes and cases relative to the system of taxation in this State, at
page 71, section 7: "The owner or holder of stock in any incorporated
company liable to taxation on its capital, shall not be taxed as an
individual for such, stock," and then this remark: Shareholders
of stock of corporations created under the laws of this State are not
taxable in the hands of the stockholders, nor are shares of stock of
corporations created by other States taxable, since the presumption
is that they are taxed upon their capital in the home States; negotia-
ble bonds, being evidence of a fixed indebtedness, are taxable at their
actual value. (4 Hun, 595; 62 N. Y., 630.) Under the Laws of 1866,
chapter 546, section 33, exempting the real and personal property of
railroad corporations until a single track of said corporation shall be
completed to return, held only for ten years, exempt only for ten
years from the date of the statutes,” etc.
Q. Now, will you describe the process which was employed for the
purpose of determining the value of bank shares for the purpose of
taxation? A. Under the law we are obliged to take from their
records a full list of the shareholders of the bank; it would be far
better, of course, as Mr Andrews-you will find Mr. Andrews'
pamphlet, twenty years ago, in recommending a change by which this
specie of property could be taxed the same as other corporations,
upon the capital stock, without going through all this detailed state-
ment we are obliged to go through now; to prevent the bank — for the
purpose of not being annoyed, generally give us a full statement of
each and every shareholder, and those are compiled and computed
by the secretary of the department; he makes an examination of the
marketable value of the bank, their assets, conditions, and makes a
statement by which he takes and taxes the real estate owned by the
No. 80.1
2367
bank, taxes the marketable value on it, and on that marketable value
is carried out against each individual.
By Senator FASSETT:
Does your board fix the marketable value of the stock? A. We
leave that to the secretary in going over, and, of course, he is under
these directions.
Q. I see your report shows, first, the ward in which the bank is
located? A. Yes.
Q. Second, the number of shares? A. Yes.
Q. Third, the par value of shares? A. Yes.
Q. That is all easy to know; no difference of opinion there? A. No.
Q. Then the capital, which is also a matter on which there is no
difference of opinion? A. No.
Q. Then the gross value per share? A. Yes.
Q. Who determines this gross value per share? A. We get that
from their statement, and I couldn't explain that any better than by
sending for any bank you would like to send for and bringing it right
over here now; it is only a small book; the secretary can be sub-
poenæed at any time and will go through any bank and show you.
Q. All right; then this gross value is fixed upon by a mathematical
operation? A. By information that we find, to a certain extent, that
will warrant us in putting a sum onto it, and from that we take and
deduct what they are not liable for.
Q. Do you take as an element in fixing this judgment, the sales of
the stock? A. That is one of the elements sometimes; yes, sir.
Q. Then there is the gross value of the entire institution; that is
all fixed— A. By the front page of the book.
Q. That would depend on the gross value per share? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Simply the number of shares multiplied by the gross value of a
single share? A. Yes, sir; exactly.
Q. Interest in clearing-house; what is that? A. Each one has a
certain interest in the clearing-house; the clearing-house pays sepa-
rate; we deduct that.
Q. The real estate? A. The assessed value is deducted, under the
twenty-third decision.
Q. That is the uniform practice all over the State? A. Uniform
practice; yes, sir.
Q. Then the total real estate A. That, of course, has nothing at
all to do with it.
Q. There may be a little something outside, and that was all
deducted? A. The assessed value; yes, sir.
<
2368
[SENATE,
Q. The assessed value per share; that is the value at which you
agree to assess each share of stock? A. Each share of stock, each
individual.
Q. Then here is the amount sworn off; that is sworn off by the
individual stockholders? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Here is a column for "exempt;" now, what could be exempt? A.
Well, if a stockholder comes in and says that he is I guess that is a
clerical error there, in regards to―
Q. Here seems to be a separate column; for instance, with reference
to the American Exchange Bank, it is $615,140 sworn off, 91,000 put
down as exempt? A. Oh, let me look at this; yes; 91,000 exempt;
property held in the hands of individuals not liable for taxation,
which they swear off, their indebtedness and things of that kind,
mortgages.
Q. What is the differentiating item between this and that; it is all
sworn off, both those two items, are they not; it practically amounts
to that? A. Yes, sir; but I wouldn't know without looking at the
affidavit; you couldn't tell; I couldn't tell the specie of property.
Commissioner FEITNER. There are certain charitable institutions
that are entitled to the exemption from all personal property.
The WITNESS.— You can tell by the affidavit.
Q. If this stock, in other words, were held by institutions? A. Yes,
sir; I had forgotten; we can tell by looking at the affidavit, and then
you can tell what it is.
*
Q. Looking down the line here I notice the Chemical National;
that bank has 3,000 shares, par value $100 each, capital stock
$300,000; gross value per share $1,769.36; the assessed value of that
share A. It would be better to have that record, then you could
see right on the record each individual shareholder, how much he
owns, how much he swore off.
Mr. IVINS.-We will send for a copy of that.
The WITNESS. You can send for the Chemical Bank. It is a
small book.
Q. Did not the last sale of that stock show it was worth four or
five thousand dollars? A. It was over 4,000, but I think it was only
a small parcel.
Q. They do not come on to the market very often, do they? A. No;
very seldom, indeed.
Q. I notice that there still remains against that bank on the books
of the receiver nearly $5,000,000 on which they pay taxes? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, glancing down here is the First National bank? A. Yes.
Q. That stock is, the gross value per share is $1,104.30? A. Yes.
No. 80.]
2369
Q. Its assessed value per share is $1,004? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Of that nearly 5,000,000 is sworn off? A. Yes; that bank has
not paid much personal tax.
Q. Leaving $560,000 subject to taxation? A. It is rather a close
corporation; it is held in the hands of a few individuals who have
always taken advantage of the law not taken advantage; I will not
say that, but
Mr. IVINS.- Availed of?
The WITNESS.-Yes; availed themselves of the law and placed them-
selves in a position where they were able to take and reduce the tax
to a very small sum.
Mr. IvINS.— Now, how can they accomplish that?
Q. Mr. Coleman, I was going to ask A. They have created
indebtedness there; last year I didn't take the statements last year
because they came in the form of affidavits before the board; the year
before that they were in condition to swear it all off, so they said when
they came to the department; and I informed them that if such a
thing was done, I certainly would call public attention to it, and then
they agreed to pay upon a million dollars, I think, by consent,
although they wasn't liable for it.
Q. Now, here are some banks that do not have any real estate; little
banks, like the East Side, Empire State and the Equitable, that are
assessed bang up, the gross value per share? A. Yes; well, they are
all held and scattered around in the hands of people who do not take
any advantage of their position they are in, and the bank pays on the
capital stock and take it from their dividend when paid.
Q. Same thing with the Bank of Harlem, Bank of New Amsterdam?
A. Yes; same way.
Q. They seem to pay right up? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Then these small banks and the small holders in the small banks
are among the class that you describe as being not either rich enough
or shrewd enough to protect themselves? A. They don't seem to be,
to take any advantage; if they are they seem to go on and pay the
taxes.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. I was going to ask you, in view of the fact of all these avenues
of escape, how do you account for it that out of a back capital of
nearly $90,000,000, so much as $69,000,000 pay taxation? A. A great
deal of it is held by non-residents, and we put so many difficulties in
[Senate, No. 80.]
297
2370
[SENATE,
?
•
the way of non-residents coming here and swearing off and continu-
ing to receive affidavits made out of the city not under personal exam-
ination, that we get a great deal more that way, chances are, than
we would otherwise.
&
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Is not this case of the taxation of bank shares, as well as the
case of the taxation of personal property, illustrative, so far as this
city is concerned, of the fact that the fewer hands, large capitals are
aggregated in, the more likely those capitals are to escape taxation?
A. I do not think that the decision in regards to allowing debts
against bank stock should have been made; I think no off-sets for
debts against bank stock should ever have been
Q. You think men who own all the capital they have invested ought
not to be allowed to do the banking business for the community? A.
They ought to pay.
By Senator McNaughton:
Q. They ought to be made to pay their debts out of the bank stock?
A. That is what I say, not being exempt from taxation.
* Senator MCNAUGHTON.-And then get it in the hands of someone
who would pay the taxes.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. It seems the gross value invested in banks, according to your
report, is $126,020,202? A. That is gross.
Q. There is $69,520,182; is that amount both personal and real?
A. That is the amount of personal all together; the real is paid sep-
arate from that.
Q. Then so far as the bank personality is concerned, that is the pro-
portion of which it pays? A. About sixty per cent.
Q. Yes, about sixty per cent; so that as far as it does pay, it pays
at a less rate than your estimated rate of the real estate? A. After
deducting the debts; that is where real estate don't have any chance
of deducting the debts, mortgages, etc.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Do you understand the theory of the law to be that the same
rate of valuation for the purposes of taxation shall apply to all classes
of personality and all classes of realty alike? A. Well, I should judge
that is the meaning of the law.
Q. That is the purpose of the law? A. Yes.
Q. Now, can you, as tax commissioner, called upon to execute the
law, tell me what, in your judgment, this means; this is from section
No. 80.1
2371
312 of chapter 409 of the Laws of 1882, of the act revising the bank-
ing laws and laws relative to trust companies: "But in the assess-
ment of said shares each stockholder shall be allowed all the deductions
and exceptions allowed by law in assessing the value of other taxable
property owned by individual citizens of this State, and the assessment
and taxation shall not be at a greater rate than is made or assessed
upon other moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens of this
State "what do you understand by that? A. Is that in the forma-
tion of trust companies?
Q. No; that is a provision with regard to the taxation of stock-
holders in banks? A. Oh, in hanks; well, I suppose they meant for
us to be equitable in regards to the assessment of real and personal
property, so far as we know how to act.
Q. What do you understand by "other moneyed capital;" do you
understand that to mean other personal property? A. Personal
property in the hands of individuals.
Q. Do you understand that there is any rule of difference between
the basis of valuing of personal property and the basis of valuing real
property? A. No sir.
Q. None at all; there ought not to be? A. No sir.
Q. But, as matter of fact, for the protection of the interests of
New York city against the possibilities of unequal assessments, or
inequitable assessments in other parts of the State, it is a fact that
New York city real estate is not assessed at more than eighty per
cent of its market value? A. As a general thing we try to hold
all the deputies upon a basis of equity; they might perhaps may
be differ in regards to the eighty or eighty-five or the ninety per
cent of the ordinary market value; but the object of the office is, no
matter what the basis is, that each and every individual shall pay his
share, his fair proportion, towards the expenses of the city.
Q. That is, that all men in the city who own personal property or
real property shall, so far as you are concerned, be compelled to pay
equitably and ratably; that is your purpose? A. Where we can reach
them, of property which is taxable.
Q. But it is, nevertheless, the fact, is it not, that these shall be
shareholders in small banks
Senator FASSETT.-In small banks.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q.-in small banks; pay on a larger basis because they pay on a
hundred per cent, than the real estate owners pay? A. Well, I don't
say a hundred per cent, because you will want to take a look at the
records, for this reason; you might find that in making up the figures
2372
[SENATE,
there of these small banks that the secretary did allow in every case,
perhaps may be, a percentage below what might be considered the
marketable value, so as to try and put them on a fair basis with other
property throughout the State; but I dare say that they pay a little
higher, providing the thing is properly examined on the small banks.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. The clearing-house banks seem to have better rates by this board
than those who are not? A. Yes.
Q. Supposing the State laws were remedied so as to allow no deduc-
tion for debts owed by personal property; would that close up all the
avenues of escape? A. Yes; but I would like to answer it this way
Q. Answer it any way you please? A. You must be very careful;
capital is very timid, and the position and the condition and location
in which we lay here in New York, for a city or a home of capitalists,
it wouldn't do to come down upon them hard and drive them to other
parts and distribute them; they tried that in St. Louis; they tried it
in Louisville; they tried it in San Francisco; and just as soon as they
tried it, they drove their best people out of the State.
Q. San Francisco people drove the capitalists right east? A. Yes,
sir; now, capital here is better protected, and we can protect it at a
less rate than any other part of the world; we can invite capital here
and can retain it, by having a tax law so we can protect everything,
and it costs us money to do it; we can gather as much on our records
that amount to as much as the real estate does, but we have got to
touch it so light.
Q. How can you do that? A. That can be very easily done; a law
can be framed not allowing any off-set for debts; of course, a law can
be framed by which everything can be got; if our present tax laws
were changed so that we could take and have a proper sum placed
upon capital which would be invited here, that inside of five years
there would be at least 250 to 500 capitalists living out of the State
that would now come and build their dwellings and reside here.
Q. You think it is possible to so touch all the property, both real and
personal, that the weight upon each dollar would be inconsiderable
and yet so that the capitalists would not feel its oppression? A.
No, sir.
Q. On the contrary, they would be attracted? A. They would be
attracted by it; as it is now, it is almost impossible to think of the
number of people wealthy people - people who have their wills
made, and the chances they take, that will go down every year, the
first of December, and convert their taxable securities into non-taxable
securities and hold them from twenty to thirty days, so that they can
>
t
7
No. 80.]
2373
make the affidavit, and change back again; that is done to the extent
of hundreds of millions.
Q. Suppose we should shut up the avenues of escape now open by
State laws, there would still remain the United States laws? A. That
is getting less and narrower every day; the government bonds are
being called in; they are scarce now, and those who hold them do not
let go of them, so you would close up a great deal of the avenues of
escape.
Mr. IVINS. And they are mainly held by banks?
The WITNESS. They are mainly held by corporations and banks.
Senator FASSETT. On behalf of the committee, I would deem it a
very great favor if you would, at some future day, propose to us
a draft of a law.
The WITNESS.-I will do anything, go anywhere with you, work any
hours; I will do anything at all that might try and help us in our
present condition.
Senator FASSETT. Because whatever would affect that reform in
this city would affect it the same thing through the whole State.
The WITNESS. Of course, it would reflect upon the State. We are
living so near New Jersey, two cents to carry across, with the best of
accommodations in the world; with half a dozen railroads tapping
New Jersey, that this capital would fly very quickly provided you
struck it very hard.
Senator FASSETT.- That is, if you put upon capital in the State of
New York more pressure than exists upon capital in Ohio or Pennsyl-
vania or the west, capital is going to move in that direction ?
The WITNESS.— Certainly.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Our present system is virtually nothing more than a rough and
ready way of catching what you can; is it not? A. It is trying to
pump water into a barrel that the sides are so that you can see day-
light through.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- And you allow fellows to take their gimlet
out of their pocket and bore a hole in.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Is there any reason why the laws in relation to assessment of
real and personal property should be different in New York from what
they are in Albany or Saratoga? A. Only the wording of the law
there it is "due to a solvent debtor; " here "ordinary value."
Q. You are familiar with the report of the tax commission, some-
where in 1882; are you not?
2374
[SENATE,
5
Senator FASSETT.-Cornell's tax commission ?
4
The WITNESS. Oh, yes; I worked with them all the way through
Wilson H. Green, George H. Andrews — that was not the tax commis-
sion of 1882; that was the tax commission of 1878, but there was a
tax commission of Evarts and
Q. I mean the one of which John Van Wert A. What was Evarts,
Mr. Knickerbocker and Mr. Green; those people I didn't never get no
report from them.
Q. They made reports? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And out of that grew this corporation tax? A. Yes; I know
that.
Q. And the collateral inheritance tax and some other things; don't
you think they did a good work? A. They didn't go far enough;
they done good work towards the State but not towards the city of
New York.
Q. What do you think of the proposition that a commission should
be appointed, either by the Governor or say by the Governor, to
revise the whole system of taxation throughout the State? A. I think
it would be a very good thing.
Q. Is not that the better way? A. The great trouble, Senator, is
this; that if you select people you have got to select intelligent, pro-
gressive and prosperous people, and just as soon as you do that you
always strike into something that they are interested into; there is a
selfish interest crops out there; they don't want their specie of prop-
erty touched very hard; I think, the State Board of Assessors from
their traveling around, see a great deal; they should have good
experience, providing they are men who would grasp the thing and
see the danger, troubles which we labor under here in New York, and
if a commission was appointed of the State Board of Assessors and
one or two men representing the tax office of different cities through-
out the State, why, let them have a year to go over the matter
thoroughly and carefully and report, I think it would do a great deal
of good; you want practical people, who have seen the troubles which
we labor under, more than you do those who think that they know
it all.
Q. Right in that connection, you testified the other day, Mr. Cole-
man, that New York city had no representation in the Board of State
Assessors? A. Well, Mr. Bogert is there, State Engineer.
Q. That the board of assessors that is not the equalization? A.
Oh, that is the equalization board; yes; no; we have not had since
Mr. Lawrence, from '65.
Q. We had eight governors since then? A. Yes; don't blame New
York for that.
No. 80.]
2375
Q. Are you aware of the fact that Governor Hill
Mr. IvINS.- Don't blame New York for the Governors, do you?
The WITNESS.- No; don't blame New York for that.
Senator FASSETT.- I don't know; I think she has been very largely
to blame.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. You have had a New York Governor from this city? A. Oh, yes;
Mr. Cornell, Mr. Dix, Mr. Tilden.
Q. Were you aware that on the 17th of May, 1887, Governor Hill
proposed the name of Charles F. Allen as State Assessor in the place
of Mr. Staley F. Wood of Hinsdale? A. I don't remember whether it
was in the place or not but I know Allen's name was proposed.
Q. Well, it was in the place? A. Yes.
Q. The other day you testified the Senate had no opportunity to con-
firm; if it was a fact that the Governor nominated and the Senate did
not confirm, then you were in error, were you not? A. No; I
didn't say that; I said, Senator, that those who were nominated and
appointed by the Governor must be confirmed by the Senate.
Q. You put it stronger than that; I thought very likely you would
be willing to correct that error? A. Yes-willing to correct anything.
Senator FASSETT.— I had in mind the State Board of Equalization.
Q. It came up in this way: "By Senator Fassett: Who makes the
appointment to that Board"; that is, the State Board of Assessors.
“A. The Governor, and they are confirmed by you gentlemen. Q. We
have not refused to confirm any appointment as to the State Asses-
sors"; "No," your answer was; next, Senator Fassett asks: "We have
not had any chance; are there any vacancies now? A. No. Q. Any
holdovers? A. Yes, sir." Now, it is a fact that Allen's name was
sent in by the Governor, and the Senate refused to confirm? A.
Yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT. I had forgotten about that.
Q. And at that very time Governor Hill sent a very strong message
to the Senate complaining that he had sent in very many appoint-
ments, and they took no action upon them-hung them up, as the
phrase was.
P
Mr. IVINS. How many holdovers were there ?
Senator FASSETT.— All holdovers — every one of them.
The WITNESS.-There was an effort to have two more, one from New
York and one from Kings.
Q. Do you know Mr. Charles F. Allen? A. Only by reputation.
Q. He has since been appointed quarantine commissioner, has he
not? A. Yes, sir.
2376
[SENATE,
!
Q. Fair, straightforward man? A. One of the members on the
board knows him, and told me he was a very good man.
Q. That would give them one representative on the board of asses-
sors? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How is the board of equalization made up? A. The one who
confirms it, do you mean?
Q. No; what is it composed of? A. The board of equalization?
Q. Yes. A. I don't know, outside of the Board of State Assessors;
they have to take and make up their table from the examinations they
make.
Q. Of whom is it composed? A. The names, you mean?
Q. Yes; or the officers, State officers? A. Ellis, Williams and Wood.
Q. Those are State Assessors? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now I refer to what is known as the State Board of Equalization ?
A. They are the Governor Lieutenant-Governor
Q. You don't mean the Governor? A. No; Lieutenant-Governor,
State Engineer, Comptroller, Secretary of State, State Treasurer and
Speaker of the House.
Q. Now, there are more; suppose I read them from the Red Book.
A. Yes; I forget, perhaps.
Q. Now, it is important to have this appear: Lieutenant-Governor,
Secretary of State, Comptroller, State Treasurer, Attorney-General,
the State Engineer and Surveyor, Speaker of the Assembly, and the
three State Assessors? A. Yes; of course.
Q. That makes a board of ten; that board has been in existence
since 1859, I believe? A. Eighteen hundred and fifty-nine; yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Bogert, the State Engineer and Surveyor, is from your city?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, have you any reason to believe that a board can be consti-
tuted that would be fairer in equalizing assessments between the dif-
ferent counties in that State than that board? A. I hardly think
that you can take and frame a law that would take more reputable
people in and at the same time distribute representations throughout
the different parts of the State; that is so.
Q. And discriminate between the counties?, A. Well, that ought
to be so but it has not been so, Senator.
Q. That is your conclusion, but can you recommend to this com-
mittee any suggestion that will constitute a board in different form,
of different men that you think would be a fairer board than that,
as now made up? A. I think by adding on one from New York proper
would be a fairer board, so long as we pay forty-
Q. Why should you add on one from New York? A. Because we
No. 80.]
2377
pay forty-five per cent of the entire State expenses, and not only
forty-five per cent, because I want you to understand that when you
take up a budget of thirty-five or six millions, that is not all the
money we are spending in New York; we are spending nearly $40,-
000,000.
Q. That is foreign to my inquiry. A. I ask you the reason why.
Q. Let me pursue that inquiry with one more question. A. Yes.
Q. If the city of New York does not pay in that forty-five per cent
any more than she really ought to pay, then why are you entitled to
a representative? A. Because I think that in all cases where there is
such a large portion, and where they are composed of people like
New York-because the people of New York are not like the country
people, Senator, with all due respect; they are a more careless class
of people for their own interests and they want some one all the time
looking after their interests.
Q. Yes, this exhibition of the exemption of personal property shows
New York is careless about personal matters. A. It shows we do the
best we can under the law.
Q. They succeed, don't they? A. They succeed in evading us, so
far as that is concerned, but you must remember, Senator, that here
in that little small book, I will show you that the personal property
throughout the State between 1852 and 1873-ten years of the most
prosperous times after the war, personal property throughout the
State decreased $18,000,000, while in New York-here were thirty-five
counties throughout the State that in 1852 and 1873—and you know
that between 1861 and 1873 was prosperous times, during the war,
personal property decreased in those thirty-five counties $18,000,000,
while in New York it increased from $98,000,000 to $298,000,000.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Is not this a fact; that in New York, in this city with a popula-
tion of almost one-quarter of the entire population of the State, and
paying taxes within almost one-half of the entire taxes of the State,
we, nevertheless, have only one representative in a board of ten? A.
Well, and not a permanent one.
Q. So that the principal of representation and population and
representation of the basis of taxation-neither principle is recog-
nized in this law is it? A. Neither one, neither one; now in all
matters appertaining to the legislation in regard to New York,
although done in a fair way, still is rather against our interests; you
take our armories; take the insane bill last year, that was passed,
where Monroe, Kings and Erie was exempted-about our insane bill.
[Sentae, No. 80.]
298
2378
[SENATE,
there; you see here we are the dumping ground of the entire world,
to a certain extent; here we have 2,000 acres of land covered by
buildings, and the paupers and the business, still, for all that, we have
to take, and out of the excise moneys alone, which we take and raise
one million and a half, almost every year; when it comes to New
York, it is divided into pensions and divided into private charities.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. That excise money is divided here, is it not? A. It is divided
here; but why not go back to the treasury.
Q. What treasury? A. City treasury.
Q. It has the same effect, does it not; goes to charitable institu-
tions? A. No; it has not, by no means; it goes to the pension funds.
Mr. IVINS.-If we get into that at this point, we will get away from
our basis of taxation in the other department, and we have got to
examine Mr. Coleman on the general work of the board of apportion-
ment and estimate, as a member of that board, but I sought to take
that up at another time.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Can you tell us, however, while speaking of this matter of tax-
ation, what proportion of the school taxes New York city pays, and
what proportion New York city pays of the aggregate amount raised
for school taxes? A. We pay forty-three per cent of the entire edu-
cational system of the State, which cost us last year, I think,
$1,550,000, and we received back $561,000; that is all.
Q. So that we support our own school system at a cost of between
four and five millions a year, and also have to contribute to the sup-
port of the school system of the rest of the State about a million of
dollars in excess of what we get from the rest of the State.
**
Senator FASSETT.-Certainly.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Mr. Coleman, does not any one rich man in any community
really pay more for the support of the schools than his poor neigh-
bors? A. In proportion to what he uses the schools for; yes.
Q. Does not New York city, being the richest part of the State,
naturally have to pay more for everything, for all matters of State
government? A. We are willing to do that, but not so much.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Is that because we ought to, or because we are not represented
in the Legislature according to our population? A. Because we are
compelled to by the table that is made up.
No. 80.]
2379
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-That is what we need, is a re-apportionment.
Mr. IVINS.-Is that the answer to that?
The WITNESS.-Well, anything that will take and relieve us from a
little of that.
Senator FASSETT.-Which the Legislature has twice given you an
opportunity of having.
By Senator McNaughton:
Q. Right in this connection I would like to call your attention to one
little item; you know Hon. Roswell P. Flower, do you not? A. I
know him when I see him, I think; I know very few politicians.
Q. You know of him; man of sound judgment; your representative
in Congress, is he not, now, of the twelfth district? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I found in a newspaper this statement made by Flower, he says:
"My district, the twelfth, is richer than any State in the Union except
New York and Pennsylvania; it is richer than Massachusetts or
Illinois, or Ohio, or California; the twelfth Congressional district
extends from East Fortieth street to Eighty-sixth street, and from East
river to Seventh avenue; in it live the Vanderbilts, the Rockefellers,
Jay Gould, Russell Sage, D. O. Mills, and, in fact, almost all the very
rich persons in the city except the Astors, who live in the eleventh
Assembly district; the united possessions of the residents of the
twelfth Congressional district must be more than $4,000,000,000?" A.
Yes; we always point with pride to the old nineteenth ward.
2
Q. "Illinois is only valued at about $3,000,000,000, and Ohio and
Massachusetts at a billion and a half;" now, have you any reason to
doubt the correctness of that statement of Mr. Flower's? A. Well, I
would have to take and go over it; I don't know; I don't believe in
what Mr. Flower might take and say in relation to the wealth of men—
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. So far as that district is concerned, is it not a fact that so far as
that district is concerned, if those figures be correct it shows a wealth
in that district many times larger than the total assessed valuations
for the purposes of taxation of the entire city? A. Yes.
Q. And of the entire State? A. I dare say that there is; I dare say
that there is living in the nineteenth ward, in a small area there, a
few of the richest men in the world; no doubt about that; there is no
doubt about that, but don't blame those men, as long as the law allows
them-
Senator MCNAUGHTON.—I don't blame anybody. We are only now
seeing if there is not some device by which property that now escapes
*
2380
[SENATE,
*
taxation can be put upon the assessment-roll and pay its just propor-
tion of the taxes. That is what we are looking for.
The WITNESS.-That I help you to, sir; I will help you to do that.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Let us see whether this particular water front of the twenty-
second ward pays its proportion of the taxes; we have the map here
now; that is the Union Stock Yards Company's property at Thirtieth
street? A. That is the twenty-second; we want Thirtieth street
[referring to book]; I made the mistake; I was thinking about the
upper stock yard.
Q. We will wait a minute while we finish that; now, Mr. Coleman,
will you describe to the committee the constitution of the board of
assessors and the relation of the board of assessors to the board of
taxes and assessments? A. Under the law we are obliged to appoint
those gentlemen; we have no option in the matter, one way or the
other; there are to be four assessors; we make four assessors; after
they are appointed they become a distinct body by themselves; we
have no power over them whatsoever.
•
Q. You appoint them how long? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You say you are obliged to appoint them; you mean by the law?
Senator FASSETT.- The law requires it?
The WITNESS. The law requires it; yes.
Q. You have your own selection in making the appointment? A.
We have the oral selection; yes, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Does it have to be a unanimous vote? A. No, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. A majority vote appoints? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are they removable at the pleasure of the board? A. I think
they are, although they claim, under the Veteran Act that they are
not; I don't know whether they are or not.
Q. The practice has been to remove them at your pleasure when
any removals have had to be made? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Prior to the enactment of the law prohibiting the removal of
veterans without cause, etc., in certain of the departments, there was
no question whatever, was there, as to the power to remove? A.
There was no question whatever.
Q. And now the only way in which the question would arise would
be upon the point as to whether or not any particular assessor was a
veteran soldier? A. Well, that would have to be decided in the
f
No. 80.]
2381
+
courts; I think that we have the right to take and remove them irre-
spective of that, I don't under their appointments that we made the
last time.
Q. Who are the assessors at present? A. Edward Gillon, Mr. Wendt,
Mr. Haverty and Mr. Cale.
Q. When was Mr. Cale appointed? A. Mr. Cale was appointed
about, I should think, three years ago.
Q. Three years ago? A. Between two and three years ago; yes sir.
Q. At whose request did you appoint Mr. Cale? A. think Mr. Cale
was appointed at blest if I know whether - I think Mr. Grace spoke
to me about it.
Q. Was not Mr. Cale appointed during Mr. Grace's term? A. No.
Q. Subsequently? A. Afterward.
Q. During Mr. Hewitt's term? A. Mr. Hewitt's term; yes.
Q. You think Mr. Grace spoke to you? A. I think Mr. Grace spoke
to me.
Q. Is Mr. Cale a member of Tammany Hall? A. Yes, sir; from
what I hear; I don't know.
Q. Was at one time a Tammany Hall leader, was he not? A. I
don't know that.
Q. Did Mr. Cale, at the time of his appointment, so far as you knew,
have any particular qualifications for the performance of the duties of
an assessor? A. Nothing more than the average man would have in
regard to having plain common sense and having experience and
being a New Yorker; I had no other knowledge about the man except
that; I wasn't very well acquainted with him except knowing him
merely by sight for years and years.
Q. How long ago was Mr. Haverty appointed? A. Mr. Haverty
was appointed in 1885.
Q. At whose request was he appointed? A. I think Mr. Haverty
came with a petition signed by General Hancock, and also testimonials
in regard to his qualifications and his loyalty during the war.
Q. Did he have any particular or peculiar qualifications for the
performance of the duties of his office? A. Nothing except I found
he had been a book publisher, a man of intelligence, a man calculated
to take and figure out perhaps may be what would be necessary in that
department, that is, it is merely a clerical department- mostly
clerical.
Q. When was Mr. Wendt appointed? A. He come with recom-
mendation from Artendorfer and Mr. Steinway and other gentlemen
connected with the Liederkranz society, as a man well qualified to
take and fill the department; he has been accountant and we needed
2382
[SENATE,
OL
someone over there to do part of the arithmetic that is necessary to
carry out the assessment laws.
Q. Why did you need someone; were not the other assessors arith-
metical assessors? A. Well, for several years they had allowed a
number of assessments that had been ready to confirm, to stand in the
desk, and the cry was by the comptroller's department that these
should have been pushed through so that the city could receive back
the money that they had already paid to the contractor; the city was
losing that interest.
Q. What assessments are they? A. Oh, a large number of assess-
ments amounting up into the millions.
Q. Was the Brook avenue sewer among them? A. No; the Fifth
avenue sewer-
Q. Brook avenue. A. Brook avenue.
Q. Yes. A. The Brook avenue sewer was at that time laying in the
office but since that time it has been revised, you know.
Q. Been revised; is it finished? A. I think now they say it is
finished.
Q. Do you know whether the assessment for the Brook avenue
sewer has actually been levied or not? A. I think they are through
with that, very lately.
Q. Since we asked that question in the spring, is it not? A. Yes.
Q. Then this Brook avenue sewer assessment was one of those
assessments which was in arrears at the time you put Mr. Wendt in
there as an accountant? A. Well, part of it; part of it.
Q. Who was the other assessor? A. Wendt, Haverty, Gillon—
Q. Gillon. A. He was appointed in 1885.
that
Q. At whose request? A. I think that Mr. Grace appointed
Mr. Grace asked me if I knew Gillon, and I knew him because he had
been collector of assessments for a number of years and had been in
the real estate business, and he told me that Mr. Voorhis would like
to have Mr. Gillon appointed, and knowing him for a number of years
as being a sober, industrious man, he was appointed.
Q. Do you hold yourself, as a commissioner of taxes, in any way
responsible for the work of the assessors? A. Only to see that they
do. not delay anything, that is all.
Q. Are you responsible for their delays? A. No; we are not
responsible, but at the same time that would be injurious to the city;
if anything like that happened I certainly would see after it.
Q. What steps do you take to prevent delays? A. We have our
reports from them.
Q. Anything more than their quarterly report? A. Not except to
No. 80.]
2383
talk to the secretary may be once every two weeks to find out what is
going on and to see what is in their department or is coming in.
Q. Their reports come to you quarterly? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And on receipt of those reports, what course is pursued by your
board? A. We take a memorandum of the different things that are
the number of assessments that have been introduced since the last
report, and have it filed with the secretary, and then make a report
to the mayor.
Q. Then what steps do you take to expedite the work which
appears on those reports themselves to be in arrears? A. Nothing
except it is to find that; we find out what is being held back, and find
the reasons why it is held back.
Q. What does that particular board cost the city per annum, it and
its subordinates? A. About fourteen or fifteen thousand dollars,
and the rent and things of that kind.
Q. And the rent? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Could not all the work which is done by that board, be done
equally well by a deputy tax commissioner appointed particularly for
that service, and directly under the eye of the commissioners of taxes,
as a part of the tax department of the city, such deputy tax com-
missioner having the additional clerical help that is necessary? A.
If the law so ordered it, it could be done.
Q. Could it not be done if there were a law to that effect? A. Yes;
I dare say that the work could be done a good deal cheaper than it is
done now.
Q. Is there not, in your opinion, one of the departments or bureaus
that could be dispensed with, and in dispensing with which and throw-
ing those burdens on your department, proper facilities to your
department, nevertheless, and economy, could be effected? A. They
could, but there is the law, of course; we have to obey it.
Q. We are now talking about the possibility of economy through
an amendment of the law. A. Yes; that is right.
Q. And, in your judgment, would it be desirable or possible to so
amend the law as to have that work done by one single responsible.
person instead of by four persons, as it is at present? A. If it was
my own private business I certainly would have an assessment all
under one head, so that the maps and the surveyor and everything
would be under one head, so that we could be responsible and meet
the taxpayers would have business with that bureau.
Q. Is it not a fact that these four offices are generally regarded as
being quite as nearly sinecures as any other offices in the city? A.
Well, they have been regarded so; but I would like to tell the com-
2384
[SENATE,
mittee here that New York, as it was laid out years ago and the`
improvements that have been going on in New York for the last
twenty years in regard to what, the board of assessors are required to
do, is very little in regard to what they will be required to do now as
long as there is a new commissioner going to be elected in the
twenty-third and twenty-fourth wards who will perhaps make rapid
strides there in laying out streets, in looking after sewers, in looking
after flagging and curbing and all those things, and the chances are
that these men will have a great deal more to do; I don't say but
what it could be done with all that, a great deal cheaper though.
By Senator Fassett:
Q. With the utmost that there is any prospect of their doing it
could be done a good deal more cheaply than under this system?
A. The chances are equal, yes; but here we have got a new territory
now, and we have a great deal of work to do ahead there.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Don't you think it would be done more thoroughly, even?
A. I hardly think so; perhaps may be more thoroughly, because those
men over there are fairly good men and the secretary over there is
thoroughly competent; they are fairly good men; they are as good as
the general average of men.
Q. As a matter of fact, the board of assessors, as it stands consti-
tuted to-day, is quite as intelligent and capable a board as we have
got in the city government, isn't it? A. I should say for their work,
perhaps they are.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. It is not a question of personnel, is it?
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. It is not a personal question at all? A. No.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. It is not substantially an extravagant department? A. No.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Isn't it a sort of fifth wheel to the coach? A. Yes; but it is only
$14,000 altogether.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. It costs $14,000 to do work that might be done for $5,000?
A. For about that.
No. 80.7
2385
=
:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. How long did you say you had been in this department? A.
Over twenty years.
Q. What were the relative functions and duties of the commissioners
and the deputy commissioners prior to the law which constituted this
board in 1872 or 1873, I think it was? A. In 1873.
Q. In 1873, and their present duties? A. Under the charter of
1869, there were four commissioners appointed, consisting of Nathaniel
Sands, George H. Andrews, Thomas J. Cramer and William King.
Q. That is the commission of 1869? A. Yes.
Q. That was what was known at that time as the deal commission,
wasn't it? A. Yes; that was the deal commission; but don't say deal
when you put Mr. Andrew's name, because he was down south at that
time sick, or with a sick son, and he knew nothing at all about it; he
was in no deal whatever; he knew nothing at all about it until he was
telegraphed about it and told that he was appointed.
Q. As a matter of fact, he was put in as the leaven to save the loaf,
wasn't he? A. Well, he could save almost anything; he was a good
man, no matter where he was put; in that department then, the com-
missioners got $10,000 a year, the counsel, $10,000.
Q. Who was counsel? A. Chester A. Arthur, and in the depart-
ment at that time, the deputy got $4,000 and the clerks $3,000, and the
entire pay-roll was about $248,000; now it is $104,000; that was twenty
years ago, and that was before the annexation, of course.
Q. Was it ever required of the tax commissioners that they should,
under oath, verify or certify to the assessments? A. No.
Q. Is there any reason why the tax commissioners should not certify
to the assessments and made responsible for them?
Senator FASSETT.— Under oath ?
The WITNESS. Well, I think it would be almost impossible for any
man to take an affidavit up of 175,000 pieces of property in New York
that he had thoroughly each and every one and would know the
market value thereof.
Q. Then assuming that to be the fact, this follows, does it not, that
our deputy tax commissioners to-day are really, for the actual
purposes of assessment and taxation, the tax commissioners of the
city? A. Well, they are and they should be to a certain extent; if
there is anything wrong, the commissioners have the power to correct
it between the second Monday in January and the first of May, that is,
so wrong that it would call public attention to anything; but where
we had never for the past twenty odd years seen that, I don't see why
we should take and change the law.
[Senate, No. 80.]
299
2386
[SENATE,
Q. They are the actual roots of the system, are they not? A.
They are.
Q. And the whole system rests on them? A. Well, to a certain
extent.
Q. And springs out of them? A. And springs out of them; but
still they are under the control of the department.
Q. Are they so sufficiently under the control of the department
for them to make erroneous assessments without being held strictly
responsible? A. Oh, it is almost impossible for them to make what
you might call erroneous assessments without their being held; it
is almost impossible what you might call erroneous assessments
we might differ in regard to assessments.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Supposing they were erroneous and wholly in favor of the
property holder, then you wouldn't be apt to have your attention
called to it, would you? A. Well, I don't know whether we would
have our attention called to it; but at the same time the examinations
that are made of these weekly reports and from the knowledge that
we possess, we would know it ourselves.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. How much are these deputy tax commissioners paid? A.
Seven hundred dollars.
Q. And they have the most important possible duties, haven't they?
A. The most important in the city of New York; yes, sir.
Q. And are they not subjected peculiarly to temptation? A. I
should think years ago that might have been asked; but lately I have
not, for the last eight or ten years, except in one or two cases, heard
anything in the shape of temptations being offered in regard to any-
body connected with our department.
Q. Let us take a hypothetical case of this kind: suppose a corpora-
tion owns a new building, which it has just put up, and which has
cost it anywhere from $1,000,000 to $3,000,000, the corporation has a
deep interest in not being taxed for a higher amount than it can pos-
sibly avoid; is it not customary for these corporations or these owners
of large buildings and large properties to put themselves into com-
munication with the deputy tax commissioners in the first instance as
touching the amount at which the tax commissioner is about to
enter their properties on his field book? A. No; not now it is not;
it was a few years ago the custom of a deputy that was located in the
lower part of the city to call upon the different corporations and to
put himself into communication with them; they didn't want to see him.
No. 80.]
2387.
Q. But he did put himself in communication with them? A.
He did.
Q. In the first instance? A. He did.
Q. Who was that deputy? A. He is dead now.
*
Senator FASSETT.— Never mind then.
Q. In your judgment is the salary paid to the deputy tax commis-
sioner sufficient both to compensate him for the class of work which
he has to do, to employ the best ability and the best capacity for
doing the work, and to get a guarantee of honesty and fidelity in the
performance of the work? A. I have always claimed that perhaps it
was not; but you must remember that under the civil service law I
always felt as if we would like to have control of the men under an
examination which we were obliged to employ, and if we paid them
$3,000 or over we would lose control of them so that they wouldn't
have to go through a civil service examination.
4
Q. Don't you think that you could establish a civil service examina-
tion of your own if the responsibility were on you, which would be
quite as good as the examination under which you got Mr. Perry?
A. It would perhaps be as well, perhaps may be better; I like to
know myself whom I am going to hire or employ.
By Senator McNaughton:
Q. Right in that connection, in what respect was the examination of
Mr. Perry insufficient? A. I only say in general cases where we don't
know the men.
Q. You knew Mr. Perry? A. He was in the office before.
Q. Wasn't his examination thorough? A. It was thought so by the
civil service board; as far as the questions were concerned he was a
man who had experienced before that time to answer those questions.
Q. And his answers were intelligent? A. Yes; he was intelligent.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. If there had been no civil service intervention in that particular
case, would you have sought around among a number of people for
the purpose of picking out the fittest whom you could get for the
salary? A. I suppose I would; I would feel as if I was responsible
for it. *
Q. Wouldn't you have felt that that was your duty? A. I have
only made one appointment since I have been commissioner and I
didn't do it out of politics.
Q. As it is you were forced to take the one man who was sent to
you? A. That is the law.
#
[SENATE,
2388
Q. And for taking him you are in no sense responsible? A. Still if
anyone had asked me in regard to Mr. Perry I couldn't have stated
any objections to him from his experience in the office before.
Mr. IVINS.— This is not for the purpose of discriminating against
Mr. Perry, it is for the purpose of considering the bearings of the
civil service law upon this particular question; that is all.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Were not there some circumstances surrounding the appointment
of Perry that don't always occur-Mr. Martine had been stricken
down by paralysis, and you testified that you required a man at once
and made the application at once? A. Yes, sir; it was in the fall
while he was going through his district one day, they were marching
up Broadway in the Old Guard, and he was stricken down with
paralysis, and we didn't have any time, so we applied at once.
Q. And the appointment had to be made at once? A. And they
sent us down that man in a few days.
Q. That accounts for the haste with which that appointment was
made, does it not? A. I suppose so.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. But for all that you don't mean to testify that you find any-
thing in exculpation of the civil service people for not having seen to
it that more applications were put in? A. I didn't have anything at
all to do with them; I didn't go into their method of doing business
at all.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Why did you need a man right off at that time? A. Because
the law says that we shall go on and make assessments after the first
Monday in September and complete our assessments the second
Monday in January; Mr. Martine had five wards, and this was after
the work had been commenced; we sent up to the hospital and found
out that they couldn't give us any reasonable date by which he could
come out, and it devolved upon the commissioners to go on and make
this assessment, so we had to have a man to do it.
Q. You had to have a man at once? A. We had to have a man at
once.
By Mr. Ivins:
Q. From whom shall we inquire to discover what proportion of the
assessments levied by the board of assessors are set aside on applica-
tion to the courts? A. The comptroller and the corporation counsel,
both would be the proper people, although I dare say that if you
·
#
No. 80.]
2389
subpoena Mr. Jasper, of the board of assessors, the chances are that
he has a record of all of them.
Q. Mr. Jasper is the secretary of that board? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You are a member of the board of estimate and apportionment?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who were members of the board of estimate and apportionment
who made the estimates and appropriations for the year 1889? A.
There was Mayor Grant and the comptroller, and the president of the
board of aldermen, Mr. Arnold and myself.
Q. No; for the year 1889? A. For 1889; that was Mayor Hewitt,
the comptroller, Mr. Meyers, and the president of the board of alder-
men, Mr. Beekman and myself.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. That was in 1888-that is in 1888 you prepared it? A. We
made it in 1889, for 1890.
Q. And you made it in 1888, for 1889? A. In 1888, for 1899.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. The board of estimate and apportionment for the year 1888, con-
sisting of Mr. Hewitt, yourself, Mr. Beekman and Mr. Meyers made
the appropriations for the year 1889? A. Yes.
Q. And the present administration of the city government was in no
sense responsible for those appropriations? A. No.
Q. Directly or indirectly? A. Well, you say the present city
government?
Q. I say the present administration that is the present board of
estimate and apportionment? A. Well, we are to a certain extent,
those succeeding members; we are to a certain extent still.
Q. Mayor Grant was not responsible for it in any sense? A. No;
nor Mr. Arnold.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Mr. Meyer and yourself were? A. Yes.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. The tax rate of 1889 as incident to the estimates and appropria-
tions by the board of 1888, was 1.95? A. Yes.
Q. That is the lowest tax rate that the city has had in many years,
is it not? A. Oh, long before 1864, I think it was.
Q. And neither Mr. Grant nor Mr. Arnold took any part in making
that tax rate, did they? A. No; they were not members of the board.
Q. They took no part in making it whatever? A. No.
•
2390
[SENATE,
Q. But inherited a low tax rate, for the first year of that administra-
tion? A. Well, yes.
Q. Is not that the fact? A. Well, it was made 1.95.
Q. They did, however, take part in making the tax rate for the cur-
rent year, which is 1.97? A. That is correct.
Q. Now, although there is an increase of two points in that rate, is
it not a fact that the increase in expenditures for the year 1890, over
the year 1889, is between four and five millions of dollars? A. That
is if you were to take and include what I am afraid we will have to
include, it would amount to that sum.
Q. The actual expenditure for the city government? A. Yes; still
you must remember that what we did we did for a good purpose, in
relation to deducting what the State tax does, because the decision of
the referee in relation to the question of New York being overtaxed
for 1887, the decision of Referee Countryman was, that as long as we
had collected the money, to take and pay the sum fixed against us by
the State from the people of New York, we should pay it, and the only
way that we felt that we might get justice done would be to take and
deduct that amount.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. And not collect it? A. And not collect it.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Right in that connection, explain fully that whole transaction;
explain fully what there is about it, so that there may be no mis-
understanding? A. What is it that you want.
Q. You say something was deducted? A. Yes.
Q. That you thought you ought not to pay? A. Yes.
Q. Why was that?
A. Because the decision that had been rendered
by the referee in the case of 1887, was that as long as we had col-
lected the sum taxed against the city for State purposes, we had no
right to withhold it, and it should be paid over.
Q. What was that amount? A. It was nearly $1,600,000.
Q. That came from the act of the Board of Equalization in throw-
ing upon your city an amount that you thought was disproportionate?
A. Yes.
Q. That comes back to my former inquiry; the equalization of
taxes between the different counties is made by the State Board of
Equalization? A. Yes.
Q. Made up of ten members, of which you have one, and the others
are State officers? A. Yes.
No. 80.]
2391
Q. Can you suggest now, after consideration, any fairer board, or a
way of making up a board better or fairer for the whole State, than
that board is now made up? A. I wouldn't want, from my experi
ence, from what I have seen in Albany for the last twenty years, in
relation to following a matter up about State taxes, to say here what
I have seen in relation to what the State Board of Equalization does
in regard to using the power that they have about making the exam-
ination of that table made by the State Board of Assessors; I have
never seen the table of the State Board of Assessors; I have never
seen it changed after it was printed, and it has never been presented
until it has been printed to the State Board of Equalization.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. You mean that the board never acts? A. The board never acts;
they always confirm; they have not changed.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. You mean that the Board of Equalization adopts the suggestion
of the State Board of Assessors that is what you mean? A. Yes.
Q. The duty of the State Assessors is once in two years to visit per-
sonally every county in the State? A. Yes.
Q. To examine, under oath, supervisors, assessors and men whom
they consider intelligent men, in regard to county affairs? A. Yes.
Q. And to report to this Board of Equalization? A. Yes.
Q. And then they act upon it? A. Yes.
Q. The result of that action is, that the board, as a board, hold their
sessions in executive session? A. Yes.
•
Q. And you are not informed as to what proceedings take place in
that session, are you, except when you see the table come out and see
the table of changes made in different counties ? A. Yes.
Q. Is it not the fact that that board each year takes from several
counties and throw on to several counties a tax? A. They have always
distributed it.
Q. They deduct from one county and virtually that adds to another?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you any reason to believe that that board has now made up
or as it has been made up for ten years past, would have any object or
reason other than to do what was precisely fair between those
counties? A. I wouldn't like to answer that question.
Q. What objection have you to answering it? A. I wouldn't want
to answer it.
Q. Does not that go to the very foundation of this inquiry here?
A. I wouldn't want to answer that.'
2392
[SENATE,
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. If you have any reason to think that they have not been fair, I
think it is perfectly proper to state it? A. I feel this way, that as
long as it is the duty of the State Board of Assessors to go and make
these examinations, that what takes up perhaps may be an entire year
of the closest work of forty men; can't be done in a couple of hours,
the same as they have done it for the city of New York.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. That is not just? A. Why?
Q. The work of the State Board of Equalization may be done within
two hours? A. I am talking about the State Board of Assessors.
Q. But the work of the State Board of Assessors occupies weeks and
months during the whole year? A. I have never seen it that way,
although I have offered my services year after year to go with them
to visit all different places throughout the city, to open every record in
our department, they have never accepted my services, and I certainly
know that they have not made a minute examination of our records
and the details of our office.
Q. I want to call your attention to the report of the State
Assessors for the year 1889; the assessors, each of them are under
oath and make their reports under oath? A. Yes, sir.
Q. This is found at page 17 and is in connection with their report
of the different counties; I refer now also to page 9 of their report;
at page 9 of their report I read: "The complaints against the equaliza-
tion of New York county as made by the State Board of Equalization,
continue, though to a less extent than formerly; it is unnecessary to
say to citizens who are competent to judge of the facts, without pre-
judice, that these complaints are utterly without foundation, and in
nearly every case are made by newspaper writers who have but a
superficial knowledge of the subject they undertake to discuss, by
persons who confound the county and State tax, and presume that
the State Board of Equalization is altogether responsible, and by per-
sons desiring to advance their political or private interests. A care-
ful comparison of the sales made at the real estate exchange for any
late year, many thousands in number, and of the vast number of private
sales, with the assessed value, will not show an average assessment of
fifty per cent, and still we have taken into consideration the fact, that
a considerable portion of the realty which has not been sold or
exchanged for several years is assessed at a slightly higher rate, and,
giving the county the benefit of every doubt, we have found that the
county is assessed at an average of sixty per cent of its full value, and
No. 80.]
2393
that this is a fair and absolutely just conclusion can be clearly demon-
strated to any who will give the question that unprejudicial and
thorough examination which the question demands;" have you any
reason to doubt that that statement is exactly true? A. I have.
Q. State your foundation for it? A. Because I know from experi-
ence and I know from personal knowledge that the real estate offered
at the exchange, perhaps, may be, seventy per cent, might be bona
fide sales - there is not over seventy per cent- and I dare say that
if we were to find out the record of the different auctioneers who sold
the property and find out the purchasers of it, we would find a
higher basis than thirty per cent which were either bought in or put
up to be knocked down for the purposes of finding some person who
would take and gather it in at a price which they sell it for; and not
those sales alone even; I will take those sales and go through the
records with those men, which I offered to do, and I will tell them and
show them there that their statement there as regard to fifty per
cent was wrong.
Q. Will you furnish the committee the information which you
offered to the State Board of Assessors? A. I have not got a record
of what I sent them; I sent them about 800 pieces scattered through-
out the city of New York showing the basis of assessment between
sixty-eight and ninety per cent, and I didn't confine it to any one.
ward; I took different streets in any ward.
Q. The State Assessors at page 18 say: "We have during the last
summer devoted some six weeks to a thorough and complete investi-
gation of values in that county," meaning New York? A. Yes, sir.
Q. "To the end that we might change our former basis upon a
thorough revision of our work should the facts warrant; we have
tabulated a vast number of sales made at the Real Estate Exchange
and by individuals aggregating many millions of dollars; we have
consulted many managers of large estates, lawyers, bankers, real
estate dealers, corporations and individual owners and experts in real
estate, and all the evidence establishes beyond controversy that the
realty of the county of New York is not assessed upon an average at
more than sixty per cent of its actual value; in fact the most com-
petent and reliable real estate experts outside of the commissioner of
taxes and assessments do not claim that it is assessed at a higher rate;"
you see they except your board from that statement; now have you
any reason to doubt the absolute truthfulness of that statement? A.
I have.
Q. Give us your reason? A. Because they gave us the names of
certain men in regard to their experience as experts who had been
[Senate, No. 80.]
300
2394
[SENATE,
called on behalf of people who wanted to sell the city property and
who in every case gave twenty to twenty-five per cent or forty per
cent above what the city paid for it, and the city certainly paid full
value for everything; I know nearly all the experts in the city of New
York; I am thoroughly acquainted with them and they know me and I
know the managers of all the large estates and nearly all the managers
of all corporations and I volunteered go with those gentlemen before
they published that and I asked them to let me accompany them and
said I wouldn't say a word except to ask proper questions before
them; I was perfectly willing to stay one week, one month or three
months with them night and day; they didn't accept my service; but
all the testimony that they did receive was of men in different places
throughout the city whose names they refused to give except in a few
cases, and from that testimony they got this statement, and in every case
I offered to prove that the statement before it was published was wrong.
Q. Will you furnish the committee with the evidence that you pro-
posed to submit to the State Assessors? A. I didn't propose to
•
submit anything any more.
Q. Will you furnish it to this committee? A. Yes; I will try and
and furnish you with anything you want.
Q. We want that. A. What is it you want now in relation to
sales to the city?
Q. We want what you proposed to furnish to the Board of State
Assessors? A. We did furnish them some time ago; but I didn't
proposed to furnish them anything more because I felt it was useless.
A.
Q. Here is a Board of State Assessors selected from different parts
of the State who are sworn to do their duty; they make a full report;
they state that the basis of their report is by a personal examination
and an exhaustive examination, and they make that statement.
You must remember that it is pretty hard for those gentlemen, although
they might be disposed to act fair with New York, it is pretty hard for
them to come down; when New York was not protected in any way at all
we were paying fifty-one per cent of the entire State tax, and it went on
without a protest for years and years; when Mr. Andrews took that mat-
ter up in 1871, and pleaded with the State Board of Equalization for
justice, he did get a little off; but it was slowly going down and going
down; New York should never have been over forty per cent instead
of fifty per cent; but we were on a high basis, and certainly the State
is not getting poorer and New York richer all the time.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. The Senator calls your attention to the statement of the State
Assessors: "We have during the last summer devoted some six weeks
No. 80.]
2395
to a thorough and complete investigation of values in that county?'
A. I didn't see them six hours.
Q. Did they devote six days to it? A. I don't know; they might
have devoted six months; I don't say that they didn't.
Q. Did they in your office devote any time to it? A. They did come
in there for a couple of hours, a couple of days there, when I thought
may be they were going to go through my records, and I was ready
for them.
Q. They say they have "tabulated a vast number of sales made at
the real estate exchange and by individuals aggregating many millions
of dollars; we have consulted many managers of large estates, lawyers,
bankers, real estate dealers, corporations, and individual owners and
experts in real estate, and all the evidence establishes, beyond con-
troversy, that the realty of New York is not assessed upon an average
of more than sixty per cent of its actual value," etc.; did they at any
time, themselves or by their agents or servants, come into your depart-
ment and compare the specific values, as shown by transactions on the
real estate exchange, with the assessments as made on your books for
for particular pieces of property? A. They did have several memo-
randums of very important pieces of property that rather startled the
community as to the prices at which they were bought or paid for; I
mean they took exceptional cases in every case.
ار
Q. With what thoroughness did they do that? A. They asked me
about it and I told them where there were corners to be filled out by
corporations who didn't stop at any price.
Q. Did they take 100 pieces that had been sold at the real estate
exchange and compare those 100 pieces with the assessments as made
on your books in the tax department? A. No; they generally ask
about very important pieces of property like the Astor House, and
things like that, that were a standing mark all the time for people to
look at and see.
Q. Then there was no investigation and examination of the figures
on your books, compared with the sales at the real estate exchange,
so far as you know, to indicate any thoroughness on your part? A.
Except the few pieces they asked me about.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. They could obtain the same information from the receiver of
taxes, couldn't they, that they could from your office? A. No; not
the same; they could find the names and the amounts.
Q. And the property? A. They couldn't find the sizes, the area,
and things of that kind.
2396
[SENATE,
Q. They could find the amount for which each piece of property
was assessed, could they not? A. Not each piece, because sometimes
there is an amount that probably covers several lots as one piece.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Isn't it the fact for this reason, that on the books of the tax
receiver, the taxes appear as on plots, which plots may be anywhere
from one to twenty lots? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Or may be anywhere from one to ten buildings? A. You can
get the area.
Q. A whole plot? A. Yes, sir.
Q. But sales of real estate in New York city, particularly of
improved property, are made per lot and not per plot, as the plot
appears on the tax book? A. That is in some cases a plot or lot,
it does not make much difference; but at the same time you couldn't
get from the receiver's office the information you could from our
office any way at all.
Q. Are not the values as they appear in the records of the real estate
exchange usually applied to specific lots, buildings and corners? A.
Yes, sir; but they give the area.
Q. But that area may be included in a very much larger area?
A. Yes, sir; two or three ward numbers or a half a dozen.
Q. How many plots for purposes of taxation have we got in New
York city? A. We have quite a number; I wouldn't want to say.
Q. It is about 70,000 plots for purposes of taxation, isn't it? A.
Ward numbers you mean?
Q. Yes? A. Oh, more than that.
By Senator Fassett:
A. It was
Q. One hundred and sixty-five thousand, isn't it?
159,000 two years ago, and I think we go on pretty near from a two
to a five per cent basis every year.
Q. That is not one-half of the actual city lots that there are in New
York city? A. Oh, no.
Q. Is it one-quarter? A. Yes; I should judge it is one-quarter.
Q. Then the number of plots for the purposes of taxation is only
about one-quarter of the number of city lots in the city? A. That
has to be subdivided yet.
Q. And it is just because of that divergence, that difference, that
the comparison couldn't be made by going to the tax receiver's books,
isn't it? A. It couldn't be made.
Q. And your books are the only books on which it could be made?
A. The only books in the city of New York.
No. 80.]
2397
Q. And if they said they did it thoroughly and they went to the tax
receiver's books, the fact that they went there on its face shows that
they didn't do it thoroughly? A. The parties connected with the
receiver's office must come to our office for that kind of information
themselves.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Do you know of your own knowledge what work the State
Assessors did when they visited your city? A. I couldn't swear to that.
Q. You have been swearing to it? A. No; I say what they did in
our office.
Mr. IVINS.— He has been stating what they did not do.
Q. They say that they were here six weeks? A. Yes; they might
have been.
Q. And they devoted that time to an investigation of the city of
New York? A. They might have.
Q. You don't know of any reason why that statement is not precisely
true, do you know? A. I don't know in regard to the time they
spent here; no.
Q. That is what they say; but as to their method of finding it out
that you don't know anything about? A. They only told me that.
Q. They make their reports to that effect? A. Yes.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. They say here "These complaints come mainly from persons who
we know have not given the subject such investigation as would
warrant their criticism of the action of the State Board of Equal-
ization;" is it not a fact that those complaints have come from the
city of New York as a corporation, and upon those complaints of the
city of New York as a corporation, litigations have ensued? A.
Certainly.
Q. Then that statement which I have read there is not correct, is
it? A. No.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.—I wouldn't go as far as that. The com-
plaints of the citizens of New York
Mr. IvINS.— No; they come from the corporation and they have taken
the form of litigation.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- They may have no knowledge of values
in the country. Now, if the city of New York is assessed too much
or too little in order to determine that you have to have a comparison
with values in other counties and they have no knowledge of those
values.
2398
[SENATE,
assessors for something else but
"These complaints come mainly
Mr. IvINS.— That may excuse the
not for this statement. They say:
from persons whom we know have not given the subject such investi-
gation as would warrant their criticism of the action of the State
Board of Equalization." Now, who is warranted in criticising if the
great corporation, the mayor, aldermen and commonalty of the city of
New York is not warranted in making it?
Senator FASSETT.- Mr. Ivins I don't think that suggestion is up to
your usual logic.
Mr. IVINS.- Do you want somebody who lives in Onondaga to criti-
cise values in New York city?
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-I want somebody who is familiar with values
throughout the entire State; and the Board of Assessors acquire that
knowledge by the investigation of property and the examination of
supervisors and assessors and others and looking into the property
themselves, and from that they are able to pronounce upon this
question while your citizens of New York, looking at it from their
own pedestal, are not.
Mr. IVINS.-Their pedestal is very high; it is higher than any
other in the State.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.— If Mr. Coleman is correct, one ward ought
to be able to pay it.
The WITNESS. We are not able to reach that property.
Mr. IVINS. The theory is, that inasmuch as the law exempts certain
laws from taxation and the bulk of property exempt from taxation
happens to be in New York city, by process of equalization the exempt
property shall be brought back within the taxable domain.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.—No; that is not a proper statement.
Senator FASSETT—I don't think this committee is the place to fight
out this quarrel, but I must protest against the arguing of this case
here. It is not the place to do it. The fact is that the State Board of
Equalization have not made an unfair or improper statement. The
report says: "These complaints come mainly from persons whom we
know have not given the subject such investigation as would warrant
their criticism.” They don't say that no complaints have come from
any person who is qualified to judge. On the other hand, on Mr.
Coleman's own statement that each parcel of property in this city was
assessed upon a basis of equality with every other parcel of property
in the city, there should be no such thing as exceptional cases, and any
number, or half a dozen cases taken ought to be a just basis of judg-
ment as to the way in which this board has done its work.
Mr. IVINS. That is perfectly true.
No. 80.]
2399
Senator FASSETT.-So that if they have taken a dozen cases or a
hundred cases only out of the 165,000, on Mr. Coleman's own testimony,
they would be justified in reaching whatever would be shown by those
dozen cases.
The WITNESS. If they were ordinary cases.
Senator FASSETT. Another thing appears and that is this, that even
after the Board of Equalization have finished their work and put the
burden on the city, still the amount of property assessed up against
the city of New York is less than the tabulations than the board of tax
assessors themselves show should be placed against the city; so I don't
know that the Board of Equalization has done any special damage to
the city of New York. But this is not the place to try that question.
Mr. IVINS.— Certainly, these questions have a most direct bearing.
Senator FASSETT.— I think it is hardly in order.
Mr. IVINs. It is part of the cost of the city government, and if we
have to put in our tax levy each year more than we ought to put in,
which goes to the debit of the city of New York none the less in its
accounts for this purpose, it seems to me this is a proper part of this
inquiry.
Senator FASSETT.— Certainly.
Mr. IVINS The inquiry seems to be closed, however. We diverted
from our main line here when we asked about these tax rates.
Senator MCNAUGHTON-Not exactly from the main line, because my
inquiry is this, is the city of New York to arrogate to itself the
right to judge and to say that New York will not stand that and we
ought not to pay it.
Senator FASSETT:- That has been tried before a Court of Appeals.
The WITNESS.—That one case has, of course, and we are going to
try the other the same way.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. The other case relates to Governor Hill, does it not? A. That is
another matter; that has been decided against us so far.
Q. The $850,000? A. Yes.
Q. Will you tell how it comes that the city can take that course
and justify herself? A. We feel as if the supply bill passed by the
House, and the sums stricken out by the Governor, that the total
sum was not required for State purposes, and we took our percent-
age of the bills that had been passed and signed by the Governor
and appropriated that amount for it, and of course that left us with a
credit of eight hundred dollars and odd thousand dollars; of course
we didn't think we ought to pay that to the State because there was
no necessity for it.
ì
2400
[SENATE,
Q. The other counties in the State paid their proportion to that
tax? A. I know they did; yes, sir.
Q. Perhaps you may suggest something that will remedy that;
isn't this the course of procedure that the Legislature meets in
January and sits through January, February, March and April and so
on? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And each day or each week as the case may be certain appropria-
tion bills are passed to meet the State taxes? Yes, sir.
Q. Now in May usually the Legislature adjourns? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is it not under the law the duty of the Legislature to fix the
percentage of the State taxation? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is fixed in this way, is it not; they obtain from the Comp-
troller this information, how much money he has on hand applicable
to State taxes? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what will be the probable receipts from the collateral inheri-
tance tax and form the corporation tax? A. Yes, sir; and everything
else.
Q. From all sources? A. Yes, sir.
What cash he has on hand applicable to State taxes? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Those are added together? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then they take the bills which have been passed the Legislature
and have been approved by the Governor in which appropriations are
contained? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then the Comptroller takes which has been passed by the
Legislature and which have not yet been approved by the Governor
and he assumes they will be approved and he adds those altogether?
A. And makes up a basis.
Q. And deducts the amount that will probably come into his hands?
A. Yes.
Q. And the balance is the amount on which they fix the fraction of
State tax? A. Yes.
Q. In this instance Governor Hill vetoed amounts to nearly $2,000,-
000? A. Not quite.
Q. One million seven hundred thousand dollars, I think it was?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You assumed here that as he has vetoed those amounts they
were not required to be raised for State purposes? A. Yes.
CC
Q. And your argument is, we ought not to assess upon our citizens
an amount that is not required for State purposes? A. That is it
exactly.
Q. But the other counties in the State paid it all? A. Yes.
No. 80.]
2401
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Didn't they get it back? A. No; they want to have a bill drawn
up for that purpose.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.— That leads to this inquiry, would it not be
well for the law to be so changed that the amount of that assessment
for State purposes should not be made up until after the thirty days
had expired in which the Governor should approve or disapprove bills?
Senator FASSETT. You can't do that; the Legislature have got to
fix that.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- I know they have; but couldn't that power
be delegated to the Comptroller?
The WITNESS.— We wouldn't have time to put it in the budget.
Senator FASSETT.— It is not for Mr. Coleman to answer that ques-
tion. It is a constitutional question.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Then here you meet the objection every
year that if the Governor vetoes a large amount of bills, then every
tax officer has to raise a large amount of money that he ought not to
raise.
The WITNESS.—We won't have that next year, for we will have a
surplus next year.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-But the taxpayer who pays the taxes this
year may not be a taxpayer next year.
The WITNESS. Yes, sir; that is so.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. That is an injustice and sometimes it is a great injustice? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. This comes down to a practical statement; the city of New York
pays to the State, or her taxpayers do, by the courts' decision $800,-
000? A. We don't know whether we will or not.
Q. But up to the present time? A. Up to the present time.
Q. The other counties have contributed to the State $800,000? A.
Yes, sir; and I recommended to the corporation counsel to draw up
the bill for the State to pay back the amount of those appropriations,
but the corporation counsel thought the State Legislature wouldn't
do it.
Senator FASSETT.
You can't equalize all the inequalities of taxation.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-- But that is a great amount.
Senator FASSETT. It is in the aggregate a large amount but in the
distribution it is a very small matter; it will cost more to remedy it
than to meet it.
[Senate, No. 80.]
301
2402
[SENATE,
Senator MCNAUGHTON. It is a very large sum, $800,00 0.
Senator FASSETT.—It is in the aggregate, but as distributed to the
individual it is a very light matter.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. We have a tax rate of 1.95 for the year 1889, being the first
year of Mayor Grant's term? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which, however, was made by Mr. Hewitt? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the board of estimate and apportionment as then consti-
tuted? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Under the law is it not a fact that the board of estimate and
apportionment has to conclude its estimates on the thirty-first of
December of each year? A. On or before the thirty-first.
Q. Is there any practical reason why that date should not be thrown
forward until the first of February, so that in each case each mayor
would be a party to the budget which is to be used during the years
that he is responsible for the city government? A. You could take
and change it; I don't think it would be to the detriment of the city
to have that change.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Would that be any advantage? A. There might be an advan-
tage in this way, sometimes there would be an advantage and some-
times a disadvantage; it is altogether owing to the man who has
control.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Isn't it the fact that an outgoing mayor making an estimate for
an incoming mayor might see fit to cripple the city government? A.
As a matter of equity perhaps may be it ought to be the first of Feb-
ruary, but it altogether depends upon whom we have in that board.
Q. But as fixing responsibility and at the same time having the tax-
payers themselves understand who is responsible for the rate, is it
not in your judgment better that each administration should be a
party to the rate for which it either has the credit or the discredit?
A. Then the people could just take and hold the board as constituted
at the commencement of the year responsible for it.
Q. Do you think that it is fair that a man should be called upon to act
as mayor of this city and find after his election as mayor that, through
partisan or other motives, the outgoing board of estimate and appor-
tionment have not given him and his departments sufficient money
with which to administer the city fairly or creditably, but for which
failure of administration he would nevertheless be held responsible?
No. 80.]
2403
A. In a case of that kind, or in all cases, no doubt if he showed the
Legislature of New York that he was maliciously crippled, the Legis-
lature would come to his aid by allowing him to issue bonds.
Q. Do you not think it would be decidedly the better if the date
for closing the budget were made the first of February instead of the
first of January? A. It would do no harm whatever.
Q. And it might do much good? A. It might do much good.
Adjourned to Tuesday, October twenty-first, 10.30 a. m.
NEW YORK, October 21, 1890.
Present-Senators Fassett and McNaughton.
THOMAS L. FEITNER, called as a witness, being duly sworn, testified as
follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Mr. Feitner, how long have you been a tax commissioner? A.
About seven years.
Q. And by whom were you appointed? A. When was I appointed?
Q. By whom? A. Mayor Edson.
Q. What is the term of your office? A. Six years.
Q. Your term has expired? A. It did expire.
Q. Were you re-appointed? A. I was.
Q. By Mayor Grant? A. By Mayor Grant.
Q. Did you hear the testimony of Commissioner Coleman before this
committee? A. A considerable part of it; I was not here all the time.
Q. You heard the testimony of the commissioner with regard to
certain pieces of property, did you, that is certain property of the
Astors in One Hundred and Twenty-ninth street and One Hundred
and Thirtieth street, and on Thirty-third street? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And relative to the house known as the Kernochen House, and
the property known as the Cram House in Thirty-eighth street, and
the Sloane House in Thirty-eighth street, the Eno property and the
property of the Reform Club on the corner of Twenty-eighth street
and Fifth avenue? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the White, Howard & Company property on Madison avenue
and Thirty-fourth street? A. I do not remember specifically every-
thing that you relate here; some of them I do.
Q. Did you directly or indirectly at any time have your attention
called to the assessment of those particular pieces of property? A.
I do not remember that I have had.
2404
[SENATE,
Q. How is your attention called to assessments when made? A.
Well, through the reports of the deputies between September and
January, and by complaints between January and April.
Q. What do you do with the reports? A. I go over them, compare
some valuations, especially whenever there is a raise or a decrease.
Q. Do the reports show that there has been a decrease or increase?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the basis of your comparison; you say you compare
valuations? A. Well, the sales and situation, what knowledge I may
possess of rental values in that neighborhood.
Q. Well, do you do that thoroughly or in a casual way? A. Well,
it is more of a casual way.
Q. These reports during the time that they are coming in, that is
from about this time of year until the end of December A. Excuse
me, so far as a casual way being in connection with the reports on the
complaints.
Q. I mean in connection with the reports? A. On the complaints
the board acts together.
Q. But your supervision through reports is more casual than
deliberate? A. Yes, sir.
Q. There are upwards of 200,000 parcels, as I understood — between
175,000 and 200,000 parcels? A. One hundred and sixty-five thousand.
Senator FASSETT. Between 165,000 and 166,000.
The WITNESS. About that; yes, sir.
Q. If these reports were all made with thoroughness and regularity,
and the commissioners examined each report and each parcel as
reported, with thoroughness and regularity, the commissioners would
thus have brought to their attention and actual supervision the entire
work of the assessment of the 165 parcels, would they not? A. They
could if they had the time to do that.
Q. As a matter of fact you do not have the time to do it, do you?
A. No; sir.
Q. It would be absolutely impossible for you to do it, would it not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You would have to work all day and possibly some part of the
night during this particular part of the year? A. Yes; I think so.
Q. Your system then, so far as reports are concerned, is one which
makes that thorough supervision of the work of the deputy tax com-
missioners as assessors practically impossible? A. I do not quite
understand your question.
Q. Your system then, so far as your reports are concerned is one
which makes that thorough supervision of the work of the deputy tax
No. 80.]
2405
commissioners as assessors practically impossible? A. In so far as a
personal examination of every building is concerned; yes.
Q. Furthermore, that system of supervision, through examining the
reports, involves a knowledge on your part, sitting in your office, of
each particular piece of property and the building that is on it and
the character of the building and all? A. Yes; we have information
in the office that warrants us in judging the general condition through
reports of the building department and maps of fire insurance - fire
insurance maps, which indicate the size, and indicate the height and
indicate the length and breadth of a building and so on.
Q. At the same time, if you take each report and then take each
plot on each report and study it in detail, comparing the values
placed on that plot with the values on neighboring plots and then
refer to the insurance maps, you three commissioners would be doing
a volume of work during three month of the year which it takes your
entire staff of twelve deputies the major part of the year to do? A.
Yes, sir, with a personal investigation and examination.
Q. On its face it is apparent that those reports only serve tentative
purposes? A. That is about it.
Q. And that unless in looking over those reports your attention is
called to some particular piece of property which strikes your eye or
awakes something in your memory, you pass it over? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now how much time each day from now until the first of Dec-
ember, has it been your custom to devote to looking over these reports,
the reports themselves I mean now? A. Well, I could not tell you
exactly.
Q. An hour a day? A. Yes; at least that, off and on.
Q. An hour off and on? A. Yes.
Q. An hour every day? A. I think it would average at least that.
Q. Well, you have twelve reports each day, do you not, one from
each deputy? A. No; reports come in about once a week.
Senator FASSETT.- Have you arranged by the way, to get one of
those field books here; they are locked up and in charge of the
deputy.
Mr. IVINS.- I will send for one.
Q. In this casual and rather haphazard way then, you supervised
the work of the deputies though the examination of their reports?
A. Yes.
Q. Now you have referred to another way, that is through com-
plaints? A. I want to say right here that under a resolution that
was passed by the board when Mr. Coleman was chief of the
department-
2406
[SENATE,
$
Q. Do you mean chief deputy? A. Chief deputy- we requested
that the chief deputy should perform considerable of that work and
make reports to the board each week.
Q. Well, is that resolution still in force? A. That was done up to
the time that Mr. Coleman became president of the board; not in
writing but verbally, as to whether any complaints or irregularities,
or matters of that kind occurred.
Q. By that you mean that Mr. Coleman as chief deputy used to
report verbally irregularities and anything that came to his notice?
A. Yes; since that time off and on Mr. Bell has made some reports
in addition to what we may do individually.
Q. Oral reports or written reports, so far as Mr. Bell is concerned?
·A. I think some may have been written and some oral, that was the
special duty of the deputy when Mr. Coleman was deputy for the two
years that I was there.
Q. In addition to this matter of reports you have complaints?
A. Yes.
Q. Now tell us what course is pursued by you as one of the com-
missioners as a member of the board and by the board when complaints
are made?
A. Complaints are not generally filed until near the end
of the time, which is the thirtieth of April; our very busy season, in
relation to personal property, runs along from January to April.
Q. I do not mean complaints on personal property, complaints on
realty? A. I understand, therefore we have not much time to con-
sider realty during the months of January, February, March and April,
for the reason that complaints in the first place are not filed until
near the thirtieth of April; during May the law gives us power to
consider these matters, and the board generally sits from day to day
going over the complaints that are made, sometimes having the
deputy commissioner in the board with them to consider the matter
and make what suggestions he may deem fit, and to answer questions
of the commissioners, and in that way we consider the valuations and
the complaints that are made and render our decision.
Q. Well, do you render your decision acting as a board, or does
one commissioner decide and then seek the concurrence of some other
commissioner who is present?
Senator FASSETT.- This is after the books are open to the public, is it?
The WITNESS.—In May the books are closed, but after the books
have been opened.
Q. This is after the books have been opened?. A. Yes.
Senator FASSETT. That is, the books are closed the first week in
April, are they not?
No. 80.]
2407
The WITNESS.— The thirtieth of April.
Q. Do you render your decision acting as a board, or does one
commissioner decide and then seek the concurrence of some other
commissioner who is present? A. We have acted as a board generally.
Q. You keep minutes of those particular proceedings as minutes of
a board in meeting? A. Not in the meeting; no; the minutes of the
proceedings is the application as filed, the record of the department is
the application as filed, with the indorsement of the commissioner on
it, signed by at least two of the commissioners.
Q. Well, apart from these two methods then and calling the atten-
tion of the commissioners to the facts concerning the assessment, there
is no other means of doing so, is there; that is, on the reports and on
the complaints? A. Yes.
Q. Then if there were a grave overassessment, and you failed to
detect it on the reports, it would still pass, provided no complaint
were made? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, suppose there be an underassessment; suppose property
is assessed so far under its value that the owner, being sensible and
self-seeking, does not complain of the low assessment, how is it
possible for you to check the work of the deputy commissioners in
that regard? A. The taxpayers are always looking after their
interests, and in that connection, if they find any unjustness as they
would deem it in comparison with their own property, they would
make the point in their application that they are unjustly taxed in
comparison with somebody else in the neighborhood.
Q. Then, in that case where there has been an underassessment,
you do not find that out unless some taxpayer living in the neighbor-
hood complains of the inequality; is that what we are to understand?
A. Well, the probability is that we would find it out through the
report of the deputy, as we would in looking over the courts discover
a decreased assessment; they can not make a decrease of assessment
without its being noticed.
Q. Let us assume it is not a decreased statement; let us take the
Reform Club, which, as a matter of fact, the Reform Club has paid
$250,000 to Mr. Eno for that house; that house stands on your books
assessed at $85,000; it may have been so standing any time this five
years; but it is apparent on the face of it that the property is worth
more than $85,000, and it is sure that it has sold for $240,000; now, by
what provision is it possible for you or your fellow commissioners to
to detect an erroneous assessment such as that? A. I do not
know of any.
Q. You do not know of any? A. No.
2408
[SENATE,
Q. Then is it not quite possible that underassessment might
exist on a very large scale and quite generally in the city of New
York- A. I don't think so.
Q. [Continuing.] Without you knowing it? A. I don't think so;
there might be a special case, an isolated case, as Mr. Coleman put it.
Q. Well, let us take that up; is not every case isolated; is not each
particular piece of property taxed on its own basis? A. Yes; every
case is, in that sense.
Senator FASSETT.-Just in so far as there are such cases as this just
in so far your system is imperfect?
The WITNESS.-We go over our books and if we discover errors of
that kind-we are making examinations-I am constantly going over
them all the time.
Q. That is not an isolated case but an exceptional case? A. That
is an exceptional case.
Q. How are you going to find out whether these cases are
exceptional or not? A. Well, by discovering that fact.
Q. Well, is there any case that you discovered to be put down as an
exceptional case simply because you have discovered it? A. No; but
from our general knowledge of the department we will see whatever
was an exceptional case.
Q. Well, now what general knowledge have you of cases exceptiona
or otherwise, except what you get through examination of the reports,
from listening to complaints? A. I do not know as we have any
other that I can think of just now, except our comparisons.
Q. We have seen that your comparisons are based on these two
methods and does not bring out every exceptional case? A. No;
perhaps not.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Do you think, Mr. Feitner, that there are many cases where the
assessment of real estate is on a thirty per cent basis? A. In this
city?
Q. Yes. A. No; I do not.
Q. Do you think that the Eno House, the Reform Club house, is a
glaring exception to the general rule? A. Yes; if the price that they
paid for it is to be determined as the valuation of it.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Do you not think that we could take the New York Herald of
to-day and go through the record of sales at the Real Estate Exchange,
or take the Real Estate Record or Guide of this week and go through
the record there and find that the sales as recorded in almost every
No. 80.]
2409
instance showed a purchase price much in excess of the assessed
valuations as they appear on your books? A. No.
Q. Do you not think that that could be done? A. I do not think
that would be a reliable data to go by.
Q. Why would not that be reliable?
Senator FASSETT.-Wherein wouldn't it be reliable?
The WITNESS.-Very many cases now days they are putting a higher
consideration in their deeds for the purpose of encouraging people to
buy. That is one of the reasons.
Q. Have you power to compel the attendance of witnesses? A. In
connection with valuations?
Q. Yes. A. No.
Q. Can you subpoena property owners to come to you? A. Not
that I know of; I have never seen such authority.
Q. Can you call a property owner and put him on his oath to
testify as to the price that he actually paid for the property? A. No.
Q. Is there any reason why tax commissioners of this city, should
not have that power? A. I do not know about it, except one of
inquisitorial examination, which the people are generally opposed to.
Q. Is not the function of every tax commissioner an inquisitorial
function? A. Yes; if it does not go to extremes.
Q. Is it not inquisitorial, anyhow; are you not there to inquire; is
it not your fixed duty? A. Yes; in that sense, but in the general
sense that people understand it, it means to go into every little item
of their general business affairs.
Q. Yes; ignorant people suppose the word "inquisitorial" to mean
seeking information about matters that do not concern you, but edu-
cated people understand the word "inquisitorial" to mean that it is
to conduct an examination under the scope of the law; do you think
of any power that you should not make such an examination? A.
No; there is a disposition on the part of the public, intelligent as
well as otherwise, who do not think that the government should
inquire into every little item of their matter.
Q. Do you, as a tax commissioner, think the government should not
inquire into the actual value of lands, and not the suppositional value
of lands for the purpose of collecting taxes? A. I think, if the law
should give us power to inquire in any way, the commissioner should
do what the law required him to do in that respect; that is for the
law to determine; as a tax commissioner, there might be a limit as to
how far you might inquire, I might say in relation to values of that
kind.
[Senate, No. 80.]
302
2410
[SENATE,
Q. Is there any reason as to why you should be prevented from
putting a man on his oath, and making him tell exactly what he gave
for a piece of property? A. I know of no reason why that should not*
be done; and, in fact, perhaps I would recommend that.
Q. Is it a fair assumption to assume that the considerations set out
in the records of deeds in this city, are in a majority of cases false
considerations, and not actual considerations? A. I do not know as
you could say it was so in a majority of cases.
Q. Do you, as a tax commissioner, know of any reason why, if a man
sees fit to set out A. Excuse me; there are not only false con-
siderations, but there are no considerations at all, or a nominal con-
sideration of one dollar.
Q. Now, where there is a nominal consideration of one dollar, you
certainly do not tax it at one dollar? A. No.
Q. But you find out the value as best you can? A. I am only
speaking of that in relation to the matter of taking values as repre-
sented by considerations, which you suggested.
Q. It is apparent, on its face, that when the consideration is one
dollar, it is nominal? A. Yes.
Q. But suppose I own this property opposite, and it is really worth
$50,000, that I sold it to you, and put in the consideration in my
deed as $75,000, what means have you of finding out whether that
expressed consideration is actually or nominally one of the
maximum instead of the minimum? A. We have no means only the
knowledge we have and our experience in that respect.
Q. Do you know of any reason why a man should not be taxed on
the value which he himself puts into his own deed as a maximum mis-
representation of the price of the property? A. Well, if the rate
is to be on a certainty of fair basis, I think there is no reason for it.
Q. Then we will take the Real Estate Record and Guide- A. If you
take a piece of property at its real value, there is no reason why you
should punish a man for something that appears as a fraud.
Q. But you, as a lawyer, are familiar with the doctrine of estoppel?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know of any reason why the doctrine of estoppel should
not apply in cases of real estate as well as in other matters in
ordinary business life?
Senator FASSETT.- That is, if a man lies about the price of his
property, should not he be held to stand by that lie?
The WITNESS. Perhaps he might if you adopt that principle as
applied to taxation, but I do not think it would be fair in questions
of taxation.
No. 80.]
2411
Q. Then we will go back to the Real Estate Record and Guide again;
we will take the transactions for last week; why then under all the
circumstances is it not perfectly fair, so far as the property owners
themselves are concerned, notwithstanding the fact that in many
cases they may have put in excessive prices for their own secret pur-
poses, to treat all of those transactions as having been honest and fair
transactions, just as you treat other transactions in life as honest and
fair until they are proved to be unfair, and to levy your taxes accord-
ingly? A. That was rather a long question.
Q. [Question repeated.]. A. I do not know what effect that would
have on the financial credit of the city if we based our assessments
on a high valuation like that, especially when that property would
change hands and go down to the lower valuation that somebody else
might purchase it for.
Q. Well, what proportion of these transactions do you think are
made on an overvaluation? A. Well, it is pretty hard to say.
Q. Do you think that half of the real estate transactions in New
York city are made on the basis of wash prices? A. No, sir; I do
not think so.
Q. Do you think that one-quarter are made on that basis? A.
Well, I would not be surprised to find that one-quarter was.
Q. What are your reasons for thinking that there was one-quarter?
A. Well, it is just from my general knowledge, from what I have heard.
Senator FASSETT. You think the tendency of those who sell land is
to boom the market?
The WITNESS.-I think the tendency is to boom the market and
keep up the prices so as far as the particular pieces of property that
they are interested in are concerned.
Q. Do you think that is a public service on their part? A. No.
Q. Do you not think it is rather an injury to the whole community?
A. I think it is.
Q. Do you not think the best way to stop that would be to tax them
on their own valuations? A. Well, it might be a means to the end.
Q. Let us take our Real Estate Record and Guide again, and take a
single column of transactions, and strike out one-quarter of those
transactions; pick them out at random, because your judgment is one
of random, I understand, and leave the other three-quarters, which,
on your own assumption, are fair transactions; do you think that in
those cases your books will show an assessment of a valuation as high
as the consideration set out in those particular transactions? A. No.
Q. How much do you think it will fall below? A. From thirty-five
to forty per cent.
2412
[SENATE,
Q. Then you think that the average basis of assessment
I will say from thirty to thirty-five per cent; that is my idea.
A. No;
Q. Then you think that the average basis of assessment in New
York city is really sixty-five to seventy per cent of what the property
would sell for under ordinary circumstances? A. No; I do not.
Q. What do you think it is? A. I think it is from thirty to thirty-
five per cent of what it would sell for in the market.
Senator FASSETT.-Is not that under ordinary circumstances?
The WITNESS.—That is a question.
Q. Now let us see; I think you are doing yourself an injustice there;
did I understand you to say that the assessments would fall from
thirty to thirty-five per cent below the market price? A. Below the
high market price.
Q. Below the high market price? A. Yes.
Q. Then that would leave the assessed valuation at from fifty-five to
seventy per cent of the high market-price? A. Yes.
Q. Then you mean to say that real estate in New York city, so far
as you can now judge, is assessed at about sixty-five to seventy per
cent of what it would bring under ordinary circumstances, taking the
majority of the transactions in real estate as evidence of work of ordi-
nary circumstances? A. Well, I do not wish to put it in that way; I
make a distinction between ordinary circumstances.
Q. Just put it in your own way? A. Ordinary circumstances has
been construed by our department, and by every person interested in
real estate, and assessors throughout the State in taking their posi-
tion under the law, as a difference in rate between the actual
valuation -
Senator FASSETT.- No; that does not answer the question. What
are ordinary circumstances with reference to the sale of real estate in
New York city, without reference to the other part of the State at all,
because the oath is different, the returns are different, and the method
is different?
The WITNESS.- Ordinary circumstances in New York city has been
recognized by the department to be a difference in rate of valuation
as between sixty-five and seventy per cent, and those ordinary circum-
stances are based upon the fact that New York city —
By Senator Fassett:
Q. Mr. Feitner, you do not mean that ordinary circumstances is a
difference.in rate; I ask you what you regard to be ordinary circum-
stances, in reference to the sale of real estate; for instance, real estate
is sold from possessor to purchaser, either by individual contract, or
No. 80.]
2413
as the result of an auction sale, or an order of the court, or foreclos-
ure of a mortgage; it may be a forced sale; it may be an exceptional
sale, where there is a tremendous desire to possess and a great reluct-
ance to part with the property; now, then, what are ordinary circum-
stances with reference to the sale and purchase of real estate in New
York city? A. One of the circumstances is that the property is
bought because of location.
Q. Would not ordinary circumstances mean, does not that phase
mean the method under which a great majority of real estate ordinarily
changes bands; is not that what is meant by the ordinary circum-
stances of sale; does not ordinary mean the usual, the general circum-
stances? A. Well, I can not answer it in that way.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Well, Mr. Commissioner; let me read you
the law under which you act, to make it more clear.
Senator FASSETT.— I will read it; "Among other duties of a deputy
tax commissioner are to fix the sum for which such property, under
ordinary circumstances, would sell;" now, what is meant by the
ordinary circumstances under which property sells, unless it means
the circumstances under which property is ordinarily sold?
The WITNESS. What elements may go into the question of ordinary
circumstances of the city different from any other place I do not
know, except so far as location of property is concerned.
Q. What has location to do with the method of a sale? A. Well, we
are assessing on valuations fairly, in our judgment.
Q. No; you are not? A. We may take circumstances as being
ordinary circumstances for the sale of that particular property.
Q. How can you make a general rule in reference to the sale of an
individual piece of property? A. Well, as applied to the whole city,
yes.
Q. Well, but that is just what you say you do not do; you make a
general rule, and say the ordinary circumstances under which an
individual piece of property would be transferred; is that what you
mean? A. No; so far as that particular piece of property is con-
cerned, yes; we would take that in connection with the circumstances
of its probable sale.
Q. Its probable sale; how? A. Any way.
Q. Does this not mean that you are to fix the sum at which any
given piece of property should sell, were it to be transferred from
possessor to purchaser in the ordinary method of sale and transfer;
that is the method pursued generally in transferring property in the
city? A. You may interpret it that way, or construe it that way.
2414
[SENATE,
Q. I am not construing it at all; I am asking you? A. If that is
the construction; the rule of the department has not been such.
Q. What has been the rule of the department? A. The rule of the
department is to make a difference of between thirty and thirty-five
per cent from the full market value of the property, and considering
that what it would sell for under ordinary circumstances.
Q. How do you determine the full market value of a piece of
property? A. By our general knowledge of values, by comparisons,
by what everybody-
Q. By full market value, do you mean the highest possible value
under the most favorable circumstances? A. Yes; under the most
favorable circumstances, perhaps; what people would pay for it.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Well, is what people would pay for it a better rule than what
people do pay for it? A. One of the ordinary circumstances that
you speak of that is in the minds of the commissioners is what people
will lend on the property, as to determination of value, as to what are
ordinary circumstances of sale.
Q. Is it not the rule in the city of New York to lend about sixty per
cent on the fair marketable value? A. Yes; and sixty-five and seventy
per cent.
Q. Now, do you not know that it is a fact, with reference to a great
many pieces of property in this city, that there is a larger sum loaned
on bond and mortgage than those properties are assessed for on your
books? A. I
A. I suppose; that may be so.
Q. Do you not know that there are a great many pieces of that
kind? A. No; I do not know of that fact.
Q. Have you never investigated it? A. Yes; I have.
Q. What was the result of your investigation ? A. I found it
generally about the same.
Q. In other words, you found that lenders are willing to loan an
amount equal to about what you assess as the assessed valuation?
A. Yes.
Q. And that in each case that amount is about thirty to thirty-fivė per
cent less than the selling market value? A. Yes.
Q. You say that has been the rule of the department? A. That
has been the rule of the department from time immemorable.
Q. Did you make that rule? A. No; there is no special rule about
it; it is a recognized rule in tax matters.
Q. If there is no recognized rule about it -
Senator FASSETT. He means it is an immemorial custom.
No. 80.]
2415
The WITNESS.
Yes, sir.
Q. Do you hold yourself responsible as permitting immemorial cus-
toms? A. I think it is a fair and just custom.
Q. You do not have to swear to any assessments, do you? A. No.
Q. The deputy tax commissioners do? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know, upon the testimony you have given now, if that
testimony is true, every tax commissioner is subject to an indictment
for perjury? A. I question it.
Q. Well, now, tell us what makes you question it? A. Because the
Court of Appeals have held that what administrative officers continu-
ously do year after year is a just interpretation of the law that they
are administering.
Q. What case is that? A. I will find that case; I have it in my
mind.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. You say this has been the question in the office from time
immemorial; that is very many years? A. Yes.
Q. Have the laws changed any in recent years? A. Not since I have
been there, and not for a great many years before.
Q. Would it be deemed immemorial to go back to the year 1882?
A. No; I would not consider that time immemorial.
Q. Well, in 1882, the Legislature anew expressed its will in this
matter, and created a law which they put on the statute books and
called it volume 2 of the Laws of 1882, being the Consolidation Act,
and in that law they newly referred to the city of New York; that
would wipe out the validity of any established rule that your depart-
ment had, so far as the law was concerned de novo, since this act took
effect? A. That might be so.
Q. Well, is it not so? A. You say that it is 1882?
Q. Don't you know when the Consolidation Act was passed? A
Yes; but the Consolidation Act consists of laws in existence; I do not
know but what that provision may have been in existence before.
Q. Supposing the law had been identically in existence before, but
was re-enacted and reaffirmed, does it not become, so far as the
expression of the law-making power is concerned, a new law? A.
Yes; it would have the same construction if it were in existence before;
there wouldn't be anybody held liable, criminally, if they followed out
the same construction that had been pursued by the department for
years.
Q. Are you quite sure of that? A. I am satisfied in my own mind;
I think it is just.
2416
[SENATE,
Q. You think if a person breaks the law long enough and with per-
sistence, dogged enough, it may not only be not a crime, but a virtue?
A. No; I do not think anything of the sort; and I do not think it is
fair for you to try to put me in such a position.
Q. Well, what do you mean; do you mean that a custom in any city
department, which is an open violation of the law, may have the sanc-
tion of legality if it is only persisted in long enough? A. It only
depends upon what construction you put on what are ordinary cir-
cumstances; what would the property sell for under ordinary
circumstances.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Each deputy tax commissioner takes an oath of office? A. Yes.
Q. And each commissioner takes an oath for himself? A. Yes.
Q. Each commissioner takes an oath to observe and carry out the
law; he does not take an oath to carry out the rule at the office; he
takes an oath to carry out, to enforce the law? A. Yes.
Q. Since he takes an oath of office to enforce the law, has anybody
in the department the right to say to him, authoritatively, the law
means so and so; have you, as commissioner, the right to say that to
the deputy commissioner? A. No; and we never have said it.
Q. Consequently, in each particular case he is left entirely alone;
confronted by his own oath and the statute? A. Yes.
Q. Then where does the immemorial custom come in so far as con-
cerns him? A. That appears to be the judgment of men generally
that ordinary circumstances, as construed by law means a difference
in rates as between thirty and thirty-five per cent.
Q. Do men generally, who have come to this conclusion, as to what
ordinary circumstances are, take any oath of office, and are they
responsible to any one? A. Yes; they take an oath of office and are
responsible.
Q. You mean the deputy tax commissioners? A. Yes.
Q. But you say that this rule as to what ordinary circumstances
means is what men generally say; by that do you mean the whole
community? A. I think the whole community agrees with us on that
question.
Q. Do the whole community take an oath of office? A. No.
Senator FASSETT.— What you mean by that is, you think most of the
community approve of the act of the commissioners in assessing
eighty per cent of the ordinary value?
The WITNESS.-No; thirty to thirty-five per cent below the ordinary
value.
No. 80.]
2417
Q. That you think has the approval of the people of New York?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you tell me how much, in your judgment, would be an eva-
sion of the law? A. I do not know that I can say what that
would be.
Q. Would fifty per cent under valuation be an evasion of the law?
A. I think the interpretation that the public puts upon ordinary cir-
cumstances in that connection would be a fair judgment for the com-
missioners to go by, and if they put generally, as has been for years
done as I have told you, a difference in the rate as between thirty and
thirty-five per cent, there is a judgment of mankind generally, and I
think it is fair for the commissioners to follow that; now, if they
should undertake to put it less, then there would be an evasion.
Q. Then forty-five per cent would be an evasion? A. Perhaps so.
Q. Is there any definite point beyond which you are clear in your
mind that there would be an evasion; for instance forty-five to fifty
per cent under valuation, would that be an evasion of the law? A.
Well, it might be; it depends upon cercumstances.
Q. Well, fifty-five to sixty per cent under valuation, would that be
an evasion of the law? A. Yes; I think it would.
Q. You think that would be an evasion of the law? A. Yes.
Q. I do not want any misunderstanding here; I want to see if we
understand each other; you say the general practice adopted by your
department, by its deputies, and approved generally by the public, is
after you fix the fair valuation of property you can assess it at sixty-
five to seventy per cent of that there value? A. Yes, sir.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Right here in that connection, Mr. Feitner, when a party who
considers himself aggrieved by your assessment of his real estate
makes it known to your office, you give him a blank? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which he fills out or you fill out for him? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you do not require any affidavit to that, do you? A. No.
Q. Now, if a party comes in and is assessed, as he thinks, too high
on personal property, you require him to make an affidavit? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Now, why do you make a distinction; why do you allow the man
who desires a reduction upon his real estate to come in on an unveri-
fied petition, and when he desires a reduction from the assessment of
personal property, he has to verify that petition; why do you make
that distinction? A. I do not think there is anything in the law that
[Senate, No. 80.]
303
2418
[SENATE,
requires an examination, so far as the reduction of real estate goes,
while there is for personal property.
Q. I ask you why you make that distinction; that is the inquiry?
A. There is no reason except that the law requires an examination in
relation to personalty under oath and does not so far as real estate is
concerned.
Q. Can you give any reason why that should be so? A. No; I do
not think of any reason why it should be so.
Q. Well, now, Mr. Feitner, does it not arise from this; we will
suppose that a piece of real estate is fairly worth $10,000; now you
assess that real estate, that very piece, for $6,500; that is your rule, is
it not? A. About that.
Q. Now, when the real estate owner finds out that he is assessed for
$6,500, he compares that assessment with the assessment against an
adjoining land owner; you do not ask him to swear that that prop-
erty is not worth much more, but you ask him to swear or represent
that in proportion to some other piece of property it is assessed too
high? A. Yes.
Q. Well, does not that look as if you at once lead right up to this;
that you put a person in a false position; he can not testify before
you that his property is not worth that; but in proportion to some.
other property, his assessment is too high; is that not it? A. Yes.
Q. And you embody that in your petition; you say here, "whereas
the same should have been in his judgment valued at not more than
$..... in proportion to the assessed value of adjacent property."
Now, will you point to me in the laws governing new erections, where
you have the authority to take that statement from a man only, that
is, that he is assessed in proportion? A. There is no authority.
Q. There is no authority? A. No; it is just an application; there
is no special authority in making it in proportion; it is an application;
we do not always reduce because it is not actually in proportion; if
we consider it a fair valuation, we will maintain it for that year and
increase the other the next year.
Q. Yes; but what you seek to ascertain is, not whether it is a fair
valuation of the property, but whether it is assessed in proportion to
the other property? A. At that time.
Q. At that time? A. We consider an equitable valuation
what we consider an equitable valuation.
we make
Q. I mean when the man comes before you and relates his griev-
ance, then you seek to ascertain if he is assessed more in proportion
than some of his neighbors? A. Well, we do not follow that rule
absolutely: if we find the neighbor is assessed a little too low, wę
No. 80.]
2419
assess him a little higher the next year, and if we consider it right
according to our judgment about valuation we leave it as it is.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Is there anything thorough, systematic and exact in the way in
which this work is done at all, or is it not more or less a slipshod
guessing sort of business? A. Well, I do not think you can put it as
strong as that.
Q. Well, is it thorough, systematic and methodical? A. I think it
is pretty thorough.
Senator FASSETT.-With scientific accuracy?
Q. Do you think it is an evidence of thoroughness? A. No; I do
not think in connection with the assessment of against any place that
there is scientific accuracy nor would there ever be a perfect equaliza-
tion; we try and do as well as our judgment and experience in line
will permit.
Q. But you move this neighbor up because that neighbor is high
or this neighbor is down, because that neighbor is low, and within
half a dozen neighbors it seems your valuations are based more or less
upon an equalization of those neighbors? A. We take a district of a
deputy and have him go through and equalize up, if it is necessary,
in connection with other wards.
Q. Can you equalize down? A. Yes.
Q. Suppose a deputy were to assess at the actual market value of
property as shown by the real estate transactions, and that in his
district the full value of the property, that is 100 per cent, was being
assessed, whereas in an adjoining district or ward only sixty-five or
seventy per cent was being assessed, how would you equalize those
two assessments? A. That is a supposable case that is not in
existence.
Q. Mr. Coleman said it was in existence? A. What, that a whole
ward was assessed at 100 per cent?
Q. He said that one commissioner might assess at eighty or ninety
per cent, and if another commissioner assessed lower, that it was
impossible to equalize the assessments by compelling the one who
assesses higher, provided he was in the market value of the property,
to make a reduction? A. I do not think it is impossible altogether;
up to the second Monday in April, the law gives the commissioners
power to increase.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Let me ask right here, supposing a deputy commissioner, when
his attention is called to a large number of increased assessments, and
2420
[SENATE,
he is told that they are out of proportion to the rest of the city, and
he answers “gentlemen, that in my judgment is the sum for which
such property under ordinary circumstances would sell," how can the
commissioners cut down that assessment? A. Well, they are given
power under the law to cut it down if their judgment disagrees with
the other.
Q. Then Mr. Coleman was mistaken when he said they did not have
that power? A. Well, I might disagree with him as to that part.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Well, now, if the commissioners did cut it down, who has to
swear to the roll? A. No one.
Q. Does not the deputy tax commissioner have to swear to the roll
in case of a reduction? A. No; the roll is already sworn to by him in
making his assessment, and we certified to it.
Senator FASSETT.— It is not a roll then, it is merely a record book;
does not the deputy tax commissioner swear to the roll?
The WITNESS.—Yes.
Q. Now, suppose a deputy tax commissioner were to assess a piece
of property on his record book or field book at $100,000, and you
would say to them "I think that is too high," and the board would
say "we think it is too high, it only ought to be taxed at $75,000,"
and it is assessed then at $75,000, does not the deputy commissioner
swear to that roll? A. Yes.
Q. He swears that $75,000 is its full value here for purposes of
taxation? A. Yes.
Q. Notwithstanding the fact that he had been of the opinion that
the value is $100,000? A. Yes; that would be so.
Q. Well, now, is that a legal, a lawful and a proper interference in
your judgment, on the part of the tax commissioners, with the deputy
tax commissioner who has to take the oath? A. I have never under-
taken to interfere in any particular case; I think, under the law, the
power is with the commisssoners to give general instructions to the
deputies; now, if that includes a specific direction as to individual
property, that may be a question, but my own judgment is that it is
in the nature of general directions.
Q. It is a general direction? A. Yes.
-
Q. Now, notwithstanding the fact that it is a general direction A.
No; not in that principle, because the power is general directions.
Senator FASSETT Here is section 813 of the Consolidation Act, "The
commissioners of taxes and assessments shall appoint persons to be
known as deputy tax commissioners, who shall perform, under their
No. 80.]
80.]
2421
1
direction and supervision, such duties as the commissioners shall pre-
scribe; they shall hold their office during the pleasure of the said
commissioners."
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Now, have these commissioners any duties and powers that the
tax commissioners do not specifically bestow upon them? A. No; I
don't know as they have.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. But your right in the premises is confined to prescribing general
duties; that is, you say to the deputy tax commissioner that he shall
assess property? A. The law makes the duty of the deputy tax com-
missioner to assess property.
Q. And you prescribe the duties to be performed by him; but you
prescribe his duties generally; when he shall come to the office, how
long he shall stay at the office — A. Assign him to his district.
Q. what part of the year he shall do his work; what work he
shall do this part of the year and what another part of the year; that
is the general prescription of duties? A. Yes.
Q. But does that vest in you or in your board the right to say to him
that it is his particular duty in a particular case to assess property at
a particular valuation? A. I don't think it is.
Q. You do not think it is; neitheir do I; that being the case, what
right have you to interfere in any matter of complaint whatever for
over-assessment? A. Because the law gives us power of
an
equalization.
Q. Does it give you power to equalize by reducing the assessment
where it does not appear that the assessment is actually higher than
the market price? A. No; it gives us power to equalize, so that there
won't be any injustice done any taxpayer, and that equalizes values as
values are.
Q. Now, you say it gives you the power to equalize; how do you
exercise that power and how can you exercise that power, in view of
Mr. Coleman's testimony and in view of the fact that you make no
assessments whatever in your own proper person?
Senator FASSETT.— They have to assess under the direction of the
tax commissioners.
Mr. IVINS.-That is the method of assessment. That is not the
amount of the assessment in any particular case.
Senator FASSETT.- The law fixes what the amount shall be. It shall
be the amount at which the property shall sell under ordinary circum-
stances; still I don't know that we had better pursue this question of
A
2422
[SENATE,
the individual liability any further than necessary to determine some-
thing wrong in the actual method.
Mr. IVINS. The only point I want to bring out is the fact that as
between the commissioners and the deputy commissioners, in view of
the fact that one set of men have to take their oaths and the other set
do not, the subordinate officer is actually responsible while the
superior officer is only apparently responsible; that there is a loop-
hole here existing, by virtue of the condition of the law, through
which misadministration at least can occur.
Senator FASSETT. Can occur?
The WITNESS.— Here is the language of it: "The commissioners
may, at any time before the second day of April in each year, increase
or may diminish at any time before the closing of the books, of any
record on the first day of May in each year, the assessed valuation of
any real or personal estate in said city as, in their judgment, may be
necessary for the equalization of taxation.”
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Now, do you take that to be a limitation or qualification- A.
Now, the statute, in addition, gives us power an amendment to the
statute I don't know whether it is there or not - gives us power to
consider all applications during the month of May.
Q. Well, now, take this hypothetical case, Mr. Feitner, suppose it
were shown that your deputy tax commissioner in the first ward had
systematically pursued the rule of assessing properties at ninety per
cent of their actual sales value; that your deputy tax commissioner in
the second ward had systematically taxed properties at sixty-five per
cent of their actual sales value; that would be a case of equalization,
would it not? A. Yes.
Q. Now, how would you equalize; by reducing the assessments in
the first ward or by increasing the assessments in the second ward?
A. Well, it is a supposable case; it is not fair to be giving supposable
cases of that kind, because it is not the fact and it is not likely to be
the fact.
Q. We will take the case of the seventh, tenth, thirteenth and seven-
teenth wards, in which cases Mr. Coleman has said exactly that thing
occurred, and he has sworn that he filed his protest because of that,
but he has said that he could not
Senator FASSETT. How many dollars does the return show increase?
The WITNESS. Five millions in the seventeenth ward.
Q. He said he could not equalize by reducing those rates, those
assessments, in view of the fact that although those assessments were
No. 80.]
2423
high compared with other assessments, they still were below the market
value of the property? A. Well, I don't doubt but what we have the
power to take the ward and equalize.
Senator FASSETT. If you had the power you did not exercise it in
that instance, did you?
The WITNESS.- No; and I don't think we ought to; I am willing
to stand by those assessments on an equalized basis all through the
city of New York, and I have told those people themselves, a great
many of them are personal friends of mine, I think those assessments
could be maintained on an equalized basis.
Q. On an equalized basis? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then there is a necessity for an equalized basis in order that they
shall be maintained? A. Yes.
Q. Well, why don't you equalize the basis; it is your duty under
the law? A. The equalized basis is from sixty-five to seventy per cent
and you wont find those assessments are any more than that.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Aren't those assessments any more than that now? A. No; I
don't think so.
Q. How were they before this raise took place then? A. Well,
there might have been a difference of five, five per cent in the ward.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. How were they before Mr. Perry went in? A. I say there might
be a difference of about five per cent.
Q. You have been how long a member of the board? A. Seven
years.
Q. Then for seven years you have let that go on? A. No; it has
not been so for seven years, probably; there has been considerable
improvement in that section within the last two or three years, which
justifies you know every new building that goes up enhances the
neighborhood to a certain extent in value; $1,000,000 a year I noticed
for one year for improvements, or very near 1,000,000 for one year
last year, in that ward.
Q. Do you think if a deputy tax commissioner were to assess
property at only four or five per cent, or fifty per cent of its value, he
would be recreant in his duty? A. I think he would if it was as low
as that.
Q. How is it then that he is not recreant when it is fifty-seven?
A. Well, you can't get things, as I say, perfectly equalized, and the
deputy he didn't make that assessment; he was not in the district
(
2424
Į SENATE,
when that assessment was made; if there was any deputy recreant it
was the deputy-preceding him and the deputy preceding him.
Q. The thing would be perfectly equalized, would it not- A. But,
of course, things have been booming in the city of New York for the
last four or five and six years, in the way of real estate, you know.
Q. The thing would be perfectly equalized, would it not, if sixty-five
per cent were taken in every case? A. Yes.
Q. On the presumption, however, that it was sixty-five per cent of
the actual value? A. Yes; on the presumption it was sixty-five per
cent of the actual value.
Q. Suppose that you calculate fifty-five per cent on figures that do
not happen to be actual valuation; then your equalized valuations
would all break to pieces again, would it not? A. Yes.
Q. Is not that just what happens all the time? A. I don't know as
it does.
Q. How do you vary it and change it by saying, "we will take
sixty-five per cent equally instead of taking a hundred per cent.
equally?" A. How do I vary it?
Q. Yes. A. Or how do they vary it?
Q. If the basis of a hundred per cent is correct in each particular
case, nevertheless the taxation will be equal whether they are taxed at
a hundred per cent or fifty per cent, or ten or ninety per cent, pro-
viding they are all taxed on the same basis? A. There is no doubt
about it; it is on the same basis.
Q. The starting point is the value, after all? A. Yes.
Q. And it is not the question of percentage, after all? A. It is the
percentage so far as equalization is concerned.
Q. No; that is the very point; how does taking a percentage, pro-
viding the same percentage is applied in all cases, produce an equal-
ization, provided the assessed valuation of the sum from which the
percentage is to be taken, is not a fair assessment? A. Well, I
don't quite understand what you are after; of course, the difference
of percentage, if we take it at forty per cent and make it all equal,
there is equality and then, under the circumstances, it would be
Q. Very well then; taking a percentage basis is not an instrument
for equalization at all, is it? A. Unless it is regular, unless it is
regularly recognized.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Unless the value is fixed on a proper basis the mere indicating
of a given percentage does not secure equalization, does it? A. No, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. No matter how uniform the percentage is? A. No.
No. 80.]
2425
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. That is to say, if one were wise enough and honest enough and
brave enough to actually fix the actual value of all the property in
this city, it would be a very easy thing to say "we will take a certain
per cent of that," would it not? A. Oh, yes.
Q. And after that value was once fixed, if you took sixty per cent in
one ward, sixty-five in another, seventy-five in another and eighty in
another, that would be such a gross inequality that you could easily
remedy it? A. Yes.
Q. Now, the most difficult thing in your department is, is it not, the
exercise of a wise judgment in fixing the actual value of the property
as a basis for operations? A. I think so; yes, sir.
Q. And the only method you now have is the judgment of the deputy
tax commissioner? A. And our own judgment of equalization; yes.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Do you know the Wendell property, Broadway and Thirty-seventh
street, Thirty-eighth street? A. No; I don't know as I do; I know
of it.
Q. What do you know of it? A. Well, its location and so on.
Senator FASSETT.-Knows there is such a property?
The WITNESS.-Yes.
Q. Do you know that Mr. Wendell is one of the largest real estate
taxpayers in New York city? A. I believe he is.
Q. Don't you know that he is numbered with the first half-dozen
who
pay
the largest taxes on real estate? A. No; I don't know as he is.
Q. Say the first dozen then. A. I don't claim to be acquainted with
the large taxpayers in New York city; we don't recognize indi-
viduals in our department; it is property that we are assessing; we
don't even attempt to keep a correct list of owners.
;
Q. Assuming it is property you are assessing, do you know the
property at Thirty-seventh street, Thirty-eighth street and Broadway,
on the east side, running east? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know that that property is covered with small, poor,
old-fashioned buildings? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know that that property stands in there and virtually
has broken the growth of Broadway at that point, and that it stands
there as an impediment to development at present? A. As to whether
it does or not, that may be a question.
Senator FASSETT.-Perhaps it is not fair to ask the witness. He can
describe the condition of things.
[Senate, No. 80.]
304
2426
[SENATE,
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. I want to get at that for this purpose
of the buildings on that property? A. Yes.
you know the character
Q. You know that they are not A.-Equal to Broadway property
generally.
Senator FASSETT.— On either side of it?
The WITNESS.
Yes, sir.
Q. - Modern buildings, and that they are not equal to property
adjoining on either side? A. Yes; nor anything like it; small, one-
story houses.
Q. What is the basis of the assessment of the value of the lots in
those cases, as compared with the assessment of the value of the lots
on either side where there have been complete, fine, modern improve-
ments ? A. I know of no reason why there should be any difference;
the basis of assessment is the same, as I understand it.
Q. As you understand it, the basis of assessment is the same? A.
Yes.
Q. What is the difference in the basis of assessment on the land
itself in cases where the land is built upon and in cases where the
´land is not built upon, assuming the two plots to be adjoining and
equally well located? A. I don't know as there is any difference;
the basis is the same.
Q. We understood Mr. Coleman to say that there was a difference
in the basis of about fifteen per cent in favor of the unimproved land.
A. That arose from what we might consider a question of "ordinary
circumstances" in determining valuation of anything, as I under-
stand it, if there was any difference.
Q. Well, now, you have fuller powers and completer powers, have
you not, in the matter of reduction of taxes as touching personal
property than you do as touching real property? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, will you describe the process of the reduction of the per-
sonal tax sought to be levied on an individual? A. The process?
Q. Yes. A. Well, the deputy, Mr. Cadwell, who has charge of that
matter, he makes the assessments; Mr. Coleman has described the
process, I believe.
+
Q. But what do you do as a commissioner? A. And notices are
sent out to the individuals; they go under an examination, before
either of the commissioners, as to the assessable property that they
may own; the questions arise as to what is assessable property and
what is not, and after having been examined, they make the oath that
Mr. Coleman described yesterday.
Q. During what part of the year are these examinations made?
Between January and the thirtieth of April.
A.
さ
​No. 80.]
2427
Q. That is for a period of four months? A. About that.
Q. Now, during the period of four months of last year—no; pardon
me; this present year, it appears from this report that you have con-
ducted 4,762? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is, during a period, leaving out holidays and Sundays, of
about a hundred days? A. Yes.
Q. So that you heard some forty-seven cases a day? A. Yes.
Q. On the average, during that period of a hundred days? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Tell us the extent of the investigation made by you generally in
such cases? A. Generally ask them what their business is and what
amount of personal assets they have; that depends upon circum-
stances; if we find that a man is in a large mercantile business we go
into the question as to the total amount of his interest in business;
whether he has anything in the way of assets outside of his business,
and then the question as to whether he is in debt; they generally set
that up themselves without being asked.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. They hasten to do that, do they not? A. Not always, although
some of them are only too anxious to swear off, on the ground that
their debts exceed all their personal assets, but we don't allow that;
that is a conclusion, we claim, and we examine them as to their gen-
eral assets.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. As matter of fact, when they come to you personally as a com-
missioner, they come with their affidavit already prepared, do they
not? A. No.
Q. They prepare the affidavit in your office? A. No.
Q. Where do they prepare it? A. We have a little stamp which we
stamp when they come before us we stamp the paper
Q. What paper? A. The notice that they have received; there is a
blank on the notice that they receive of about three inches, three or
four inches, and we put a stamp on the paper and then begin the
examination with them, and that affidavit — that stamp is a short affi-
davit as Mr. Coleman described it.
Q. Now, commissioner, have you never put that stamp on and taken
that affidavit without having put the party through an examination?
A. How is that?
Q. Have you never put that stamp on and taken the affidavit and
approved of the striking off of the assessment without actually hav-
2428
[SENÁTE,
ing put the party through an examination? A. Have I—I don't
quite un
Senator FASSETT.-On the mere filing of a written affidavit have you
not placed that stamp on it?
The WITNESS.-No.
Mr. IVINS.-No; that is not it.
Senator FASSETT.-Isn't that it?
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Have you never, when the party came to you, affixed that stamp
and taken his affidavit and approved of striking off A. Without
any examination ?
Q.
The assessment without any examination? A. No.
Q. Have you had that examination in all of these 4,762 cases? A.
Yes, sir; I can not think of an exception.
Senator FASSETT.-How long did it take?
Q. How long does it take to do that each day? A. Why we swear
off a hundred men, a hundred to a hundred and fifty a day; those
examinations run into-in January there are more people come in
and in April there are more, the early risers and the late, and during
March and April - during March we don't have so much to do, Feb-
ruary and March in that connection, although they keep straggling
in at the rate of about twenty, thirty or forty a day, but they pur-
posely, I think, a great many of them, purposely delay coming in until
near the thirtieth of April and we have got to do it almost by machine
work.
Q. What do you mean by doing it "almost by machine work;"
let's get that more definitely? A. To attend to the people's wants,
the applications of the tax-payers, we have got to do it as rapidly
as we possibly can.
Q. Which is your first duty, to attend to the want of the tax
payer who is seeking to escape taxation, or to attend to your oath of
office and the want of the city, to compel every man to pay his tax as
he ought to pay it? A. I don't think you are putting it right when
you say they are seeking to escape taxation; they are coming in for
the privileges that the law gives them.
Q. Has the city any right or privilege in the premises? A. The city
has the right to see that assessments are properly made.
Q. And you have a duty in the premises, have you not? A. Yes.
Q. Is it your duty to rush them through, as it were, by machinery,
simply because they come there to swear off? A. No; not altogether,
but that was the fault of the law, I think.
No. 80.]
2429
Q. In what regard is it the fault of the law? A. In not limiting it
as to time, in relation to wards, I think, in the place of having the
whole city come in on us at once; if the law provided which wards
should be heard of at certain times, we would be able to regulate it;
the law would regulate it then for us; it gives 10,000 people the right
to come in on the thirtieth of April, if they pleased; it might be our
duty to hear them.
Q. You could not hear 10,000 men on the thirtieth, unless you
built a machine to do it, could you? A. Yes.
Q. Then you would do it literally by machinery? A. Yes.
Q. Now you proximate that as closely as possible, do you not?
A. No.
Senator FASSETT.- Have a rubber stamp built?
The WITNESS.-Yes.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Why, in view of many avenues of escape from personal taxation,
does not this question of the assessment of personal property become
the merest form in the world? A. Except on corporations, yes.
Q. Except on corporations? A. Yes.
Q. With regard to any man who desires to swear off his personal
assessments, he can do so without any trouble? A. Yes.
Q. No matter how earnestly you may seek to discover his personal
assets, he can easily avoid it? A. Why, yes.
Q. Well, then, does it not degenerate into the merest kind of machiue
work? A. To a great extent, yes, as I say.
Q. Why would it not be better to abolish all taxes on personalty
and let the real estate carry it all in law as it does in fact? A. I don't
know but what it might be quite feasible in the city of New York; I
never satisfied myself in that connection as to doing that; in large
cities where it is next to impossible to understand the situation of the
people, as to what they have who have personal property - here we
don't know our next door neighbor; we can't tell anything about what
he may own, and if he does own considerable amount of property, it
may be all untaxable assets.
Q. What do you say as to the continuance of a system which leads
to the perpetration, not of fraud, but of subterfuges against the law?
A. Well, I don't think the system that we have in operation now is a
good system; I think it could be changed.
Q. Do you think it is possible to devise a way so as to reach all
personal property? A. I do not.
Q. For the purpose of taxation? A. I do not; I think the elements
of uncertainty that are connected with the ownership of personal
2430
[SENATE,
property, which are, principally, a situs, you have to go by situs, and
have to follow the individual, in some cases; changeable conditions
of ownership readily — all these elements have a tendency to destroy
effectively the taxation of personal property.
Q. Do the names of the deputy clerks appear on your rolls? [No
answer audible.]
Q. Were they in the list presented by Mr. Coleman? A. I don't
know.
Mr. IVINS. In the list presented by the accountant, which we had
here and submitted to Mr. Coleman; they are in the list of employes?
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Then a deputy tax commissioner can have no connection with
you who is not known to the department? A. The deputy
- he is an
employe of the department; he is assigned to the deputy, the clerks.
Q. Is there a class of attorneys or agents who habitually appear
before you to urge the reduction of assessments on real estate? A.
A class; no; not that I know of.
Q. No such recognized calling as a taxbroker, for instance? A. No;
I never heard of it.
Q. You never heard of such a thing as that? A. I say I never
heard; I have heard of such things being, but I never knew one
recognized as a taxbroker.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Will you send for ten applications for reduction on the assess-
ment of real estate and ten on personal property, as they have been
acted upon? A. Blanks
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- No; actual applications, upon which action
has been taken; ten of each.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. How are the entries made in the field book; are they made in
lead pencil? A. Yes.
Q. Would the books show
A. That is only a memorandum for
his record you know; that is all, practically.
Q. Are these field books ever open to the inspection of any one
except the deputy tax commissioner? [No answer audible. ]
Q. Could they be seen by any one on application at the office? A. I
suppose they could; I suppose they would show then; I don't know
that the question was ever raised.
Q. I wanted to find out what the practice was?. A. The records are
the books that are open to the public by law; not the field books.
Q. The law requires the records to be open? A. Yes.
No. 80.]
2431
Q. But the field books, as matter of practice, are open to any one
who desires to see them? A. I have never heard the matter
questioned.
Q. Do you know whether they are ever inspected? A. I do not
think they are.
Q. Would the books themselves show any alteration that might be
made in the original entries in the field books? A. Yes.
Q. They would show; would they? A. You mean the field book as
compared to the record book.
Q. The field book, as compared with the record, would show any
difference between the record and the field book? A. Would not
show.
Q. Would show; would it not? A. The difference?
Q. Yes. A. No; the field book is supposed to be the first valuation
that he puts on it; he don't change it; of course, if he did he would
make a record in his field book again.
Q. An entry is made originally in the field book? A. Yes, when he
goes through the field.
Q. If there was a change made after that original entry, before the
transcript was made into the record, would that change be indicated
on the field book? A. Yes.
Q. Or would the original entry be erased with a rubber, and a new
one entered? A. Oh, yes; there would be a new one, I suppose,
entered.
Q. Then the field books would not necessarily, on their face, show
whether there had been any tampering with the original estimate of
value placed on any given piece of property? A. No.
Q. Are you familiar with the class of institutions known as co-oper-
ative building and loan associations? A. Somewhat.
Q. Are any of those institutions exempted from taxation? A. I do
not remember now that they are.
Q. Have they ever made any application to be exempted from taxa-
tion? A. Yes; one of them, I believe, did; made a fight in court
about it.
Q. That is the East Side Association, is it? A. I think it was.
Q. On what ground did they claim exemption from taxation? A.
That the act of 1875, I think it was, exempted those associations; they
were incorporated though under the act of 1857, or some other year.
Q. Eighteen hundred and fifty-one? A. Eighteen hundred and
fifty-one, in which there was no exemption; I think that was the point.
Q. Do you know whether the department makes any difference
between those institutions that were incorporated under the act of
1
2432
[SENATE,
1851, and those that were incorporated under the act of 1875? A.
They don't, I think, not so far as I am concerned; I haven't made
any in some way or other that got on the assessment-list for that
year, and was assessed.
Q. Is that the only one on the assessment-list? A. I shouldn't say
that it was.
Q. Do you know how many are on the assessment-list? A. No; I
couldn't tell you.
Q. Would your books show? A. Well, by name, yes; that is, if you
can tell all these associations by their name, you know; they do not
always indicate what kind of an association it is by name; if we get a
list of those associations I should be able to tell you.
Q. Who has charge of that? A. The deputy, Mr. Cadwell.
Q. One given deputy, Mr. Cadwell? A. Yes; one given deputy.
Q. If I wanted to find out how he determines their property so as
to tax it, he would be the witness to call? A. Yes.
Q. You don't know then whether any distinction is made between
the so-called State associations and so-called National? A. Never
heard the question raised as to whether there is any distinction or
not; I do not think there is.
Q. Mr. Feitner, I am going to suppose a case for the purpose of
seeing if you can give us any help; supposing a deputy tax commis-
sioner should assess on his field book, a given piece of property at,
say $500,000, and that were twice the amount at which the property
had been assessed at any previous time, and the owner of the prop-
erty should be informed that his asssessment had been violently
doubled; could that owner make any arrangement whereby that
assessment could by reduced to the original $250,000, without having
that fact known to the tax commissioners? A. Oh, I suppose so.
Q. How could it be done? A. It would have to be done with the
deputy, if he was dishonest.
Q. Would it necessarily imply dishonesty? A. If he ought to have
been assessed at $500,000 and was kept down to $250,000, there would
not be anything honest about that.
Q. Did you ever hear of anything of that kind being done? A. Oh,
I have heard of a good many things that way, but I have never been
able to find out anything substantial about it.
Q. Did you ever pursue an investigation into any such accusations?
A. Well, I have never heard of anything as to particular pieces of
property; I have heard of it in a general way, that a deputy —
Q. You have never had any A. I heard there was one man in
the department - I don't want to mention his name now.
No. 80.]
2433
Q. That is the man who is dead now, is it? A. Yes; I think he is;
I am not sure; I do not know whether he is dead or not.
Q. Well, what did you hear? A. Well, that he was disposed to be
looking to the property owners to do something for him in the way of
protecting their property.
Q. If deputies did look to property owners for something in the
way of protecting their property, the owners could deal with them
pretty safely, could they not? A. Well, no; not through our method
of following up things; there might be an exception once in a while,
but not in a general way.
Q. Might be isolated cases here and there? A. Yes-"exceptional
cases," we put it now, if you please.
Q. Exceptional cases? A. Yes.
Q. Have any definite complaints ever been made to you or to your
board that such is the practice or has been the practice? A. No.
Q. Not since you have been commissioner? A. No.
Q. Not since you have been commissioner? A. No.
Q. Have you heard, in a general way, that any such abuse was
practiced since you have been a commissioner? A. No; a general
abuse do you mean, or a special one?
Q. No; have you heard in this general way that this practice was
in vogue? A. No; I don't think there is any such practice in vogue
in the city of New York to-day, or has been for a great many years in
the tax department; I have a good deal of confidence in the gentle-
men generally, the other deputies in that department, as to their
personal honesty and fairness.
Q. The only way anything of that kind could be done would be by
tampering with the tax commissioner? A. Or with the deputy.
Q. I mean the deputy? A. Yes.
Q. The tax commissioner could not be reached quite that way,
could he? A. If he is a dishonest man, there is no reason why he
could not.
Q. After the deputy has made his return, has filed his field book,
and that has been copied into the record, no change can be made
there without becoming a matter of public record, can there? A. No;
not at all, without becoming a matter of public record.
Q. But assessments in the field book before it is copied into, the
record, then the changes might be made at the will of the deputy?
A. Of the deputy; has to be followed up by the commissioners, so far
as their examination is concerned.
Q. Now, without reference to the fact as to whether such practice
is in existence, is not that the only way by which any tampering can
[Senate, No. 80.1
305
2434
[SENATE,
;
be done with the assessment of property without becoming a matter
of public record? A. Yes.
Q. Supposing one of you tax commissioners wanted to do a favor to
some friend and secure a general reduction of his assessment, you
would have to do it openly? A. On the record the record would
show it.
Senator FASSETT.— Have this deputy, Cadwell, subpoenaed; I want
to ask him, before we finish this investigation, some questions about
these co-operative associations.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Mr. Feitner, what is your opinion of the existing system of taxa-
tion throughout the state, both real and personal property? A. In
relation to the board of equalization.
Q. No; the system of taxation? A. Oh, the general system.
Senator FASSETT. Whether it is satisfactory?
The WITNESS.-It is satisfactory to me, except on personalty, that
is all; by the way, I want to suggest here, this committee ought to
take notice of the fact, you know that the insurance companies have
been made exempt by legislation, for local purposes.
Senator FASSETT.- Fire insurance companies?
The WITNESS. Fire insurance companies; yes, in the city of New
York; that was an act passed two or three years ago, and the Court
of Appeals has held that they are entirely exempt for local purposes.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Well, what do you think is deficient in the system of assessing
personal property; what have you to suggest in regard to that? A.
Well, it is a subject that I have often thought of, but I have never
come to any satisfactory conclusion as to how we would be able to
arrange it; I think it requires the consideration of a great many
minds interested in different businesses, by which the thing could be
properly regulated; I don't think one mind, especially a lawyer's
mind, can altogether regulate the method of assessments, by which
equality or anything like equality would fall upon the different busi-
ness interests of this city or this State.
Q. Would you advise that a commission be appointed to revise the
assessment laws of this State? A. I should think it would be well; I
don't know of any other method of getting at it in any way satisfac-
tory, except through a commission.
Q. Mr. Coleman testified that so far as personal property was con-
cerned, that the assessment was confined to widows, and orphans and
No. 80.]
2435
those who didn't know enough to get rid of their assessment; now, do
you think that that assessment should continue long? A. Well, I don't
agree with
although we do assess estates, as a class, more than,
perhaps, any other class, yet it is because of the fact that we have
more positive knowledge as to the situation of the property, and the
additional fact that there is no person especially interested to try to
evade the law; as they represent a fiduciary capacity they are not
especially interested to evade.
Q. Well, don't you think a very great injustice is done that class of
people under the existing law? A. Well, as a class, putting them as
a class, I don't know as it is an injustice; as long as they as a class
are equalized there is a good deal of fairness in that; now, you take
another class, for instance the banks of this city; by law you classify,
to a certain extent, the taxation upon different kinds of corporations;
the theory in my mind is that if we can get competitive interests in
business so far as taxation is concerned on an equality as to method
of assessment, it would be better than to put all the people on the
one basis; in that way you would be able to obtain, I think, a better
condition of affairs in the way of assessments of personal peoperty;
for instance you might say that we will take estates now at one per
cent; suppose you fix a one-per-cent basis or valuation for estates.
Q. Would you suggest that? A. Well, I don't know as I would
without further consideration, determine the figure, but I think it
might be well to do it, so far as the method of doing it; and in place
of having the assessment made at the residence of the executors I
would make it at the residence of the decedent; because we are now
involved in the question as to double taxation, perhaps, in this State,
under that law; there being two or three executors, one living in
each county, each claimed that ought to be assessed in his county; if
we assess higher in this county than they do in Westchester or
Orange, why they will transfer the assets to Westchester or Orange,
and the courts have maintained that where there are three or four
residences of that sort, that wherever the assets are is one of the ele-
ments to determine where the assessment is to be; so that involves
quite a number of questions, and then the question of residence out-
side of that.
Q. Have you a question of that kind in the court now? A. Oh,
that has been decided in the case of Darrow; I think it is.
Q. Darrow? A. Yes.
Q. By what court? A. By the Court of Appeals; thinking the
question in relation to the State and the city of New York might
come up again, I have prepared a table of comparison for you so that
2436
[SENATE,
1
»
you might consider how the city of New York is affected in com-
parison with the State on assessments, from 1885 to 1889, taking a
certain number of counties which have obtained perhaps the largest
reductions by the State Board of Assessors, and evened it up in co n-
parison with the amount that is put upon the city of New York, one
hundred and thirteen to one hundred and twelve million reductions,
one hundred and ninety-nine to eighty-eight, and so on, one hundred
and nineteen; and that shows, as I claim, that there is a county that
by the assessors in their different counties, in 1884, was made upon a
basis of that kind, Cattaraugus was sixty per cent; Cayuga sixty-
five per cent, and so on; these lead pencil figures is a calculation
upon the figures that they give us of the ordinary sales; the others is
a statement, some by oath and some by statement of the Board of
Assessors as to their percentage of valuation; now I claim that, for
instance-
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. What are these leadpencil figures in here; what are these lead-
pencil figures inside of the column giving the names of the counties?
A. Oh, that is the valuation that the State Board of Assessors
must do, find the valuation of those counties for the purpose of
reducing, for the purpose of giving the introduction which
they do give in those separate counties; in other words, Catta-
raugus, they find, is assessed ninety-four per cent of its actual valua-
tion, for the purpose of giving a deduction of $7,000,000 a year to that
county all the way along; now that, I think, is such a preposterous
statement in that connection, I don't think anyone can believe it; that
is part of the injustice that is against New York city; and yet the
'assessor, when asked the question, in this book says that those assess-
ments up there are sixty per cent, and the Board of Assessors had to
find that the assessment was ninety-four per cent to give the reductions
that they did; and so it runs all through those different counties.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Why do you go back to 1884, Mr. Feitner? A. I went back to
1881 and 1885 with the State Board of Assessors, and so I didn't want
to make the paper too long and I made it from 1885 down to date
now; that was all there was of it.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Well, if you will leave that here we will
examine it.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Mr. Feitner, what became of the case of The People on the rela-
tion of The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty against the State
No. 80.7
2437
Board of Equalization? A. That case, as I understand it, was deter-
mined in the end by a decision to the effect that as long as the city of
New York raised the State taxes, that the city was compelled to pay
and couldn't go into the merits of the question.
Q. Was that the decision of the Court of Appeals? A. I under-
stood it was; I am not so sure about that, though.
Q. All I wanted to get at was whether or not the appeal to the
Court of Appeals was actually heard and whether we had a decision
of the Court of Appeals in this action? A. I don't think the Court of
Appeals has decided; I think it was the General Term.
Q. You think it stopped at General Term? A. I think so.
Q. Although an appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals? A. I
do not know whether it was or not.
Q. This appeal book, just produced, is an appeal book to the Court
of Appeals containing a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals; I
ask whether or not it has been determined in the Court of Appeals or
whether the decision to which he refers is the General Term decision?
A. I am not so sure, but that — I didn't have the book of the case for
that point; I had the book for the purpose of the statement of the
different assessors throughout the State.
Q. Now, Mr. Feitner, why should there be three tax commissioners
instead of one? A. Well, as a matter of appeal; I think it is fair to
the taxpayers in the city of New York that when they make an
appeal from a deputy who has already given his judgment, that
they are entitled to the judgment of three men; that is recognized in
all proceedings in court; it is upon that general principle.
Q. These three men, as we have seen, take no oath, are not assessors,
and only nominally act as a board with regard to these appeals; they
do not actually act as a board? A. Yes; we do.
Q. Do they sit down as a board and have meetings and send for
parties and papers? A. No; no.
Q. Now, why is it not quite as proper, quite as just and quite as fair
to permit one man to determine an appeal, as it is to permit one man
to levy the assessments in the first instance? A. I do not think the
judgment of one man in that connection is as good as the three.
•
Q. Do you think the judgment of one man is as good as the judg-
ment of three men for the purpose of making assessments?
A. Yes;
I do, as long as there is the right to fair appeal.
Q. You think that it requires more persons to honestly and justly
determine an appeal, under the methods now pursued in your office,
than it does to make the assessments fairly? A. No; I do not think
there is any question of honesty about it; I think it is a question of
2438
[SENATE,
fairness and judgment; that is all; three men ought to be able to
determine the thing, if there is any question of unfairness, better than
one man, at all times; and you are taking away men's property; I
think you should not commit them to the judgment of one man with
immense power in the tax department in the city of New York
very dangerous power.
Я
Q. Are they not virtually in the hands of one man now? A.
No, sir.
Q. Are they not virtually in the hands of the deputy tax commi-
sioner? A. No; not while they have the right to appeal to the board
of tax commissioners.
Q. Would they be any the less in the hands of the commissioner if
they had the right of appeal to a single commissioner instead of three?
A. I think it would be a dangerous power to put the tax department
in the hands of one man.
Q. In how many cases do you know of a discussion among the tax
commissioners? A. Oh, a number of cases.
Q. Actual discussion? A. Yes, sir; long consideration.
Q. Well, those long considerations are generally in the case of these
big buildings and large estates; are they not? A. That, generally,
and wards.
Q. And the point under consideration is as to how much below their
market value they shall be assessed at; is it not? A. No.
Q. Is not that really it? A. A matter of fair assessment, according
to our judgment.
EDWARD L. PARRIS, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Mr. Parris, I do not propose now to plough over any part of this
ground again that we have gone through, unless, having heard the
testimony of Mr. Coleman and the testimony of Mr. Feitner, there is
anything that you want to add to it, or any particular regard in which
you wish to make a statement of facts where you think their statement
of facts has either not been full enough, or has been incomplete for
any reason whatever. A. Well, I made no special memorandum with
that in view; it may occur to me before I get through with the
examination; I am not prepared now to state exactly in what way, I-
their views, you know, do not accord with mine entirely.
Q. At what percentage of the actual salable value of the property
is it your judgment the real estate of New York is now assessed at?
A. Well, my judgment is based entirely upon representations that
have been made to me by my associates, my fellow commissioners,
and by the deputies.
No. 80.]
2439
Q. Yes. A. And I should say, from that, that it is twenty to
twenty-five per cent.
Q. Below? A. Twenty to twenty-five per cent below, I should judge;
I am not prepared to say that that is my opinion, however.
Q. Well, it is certain that whatever it may be, that it is a fluctuat-
ing percentage? A. It is a fluctuating percentage, as all values of
real estate are fluctuating in this city.
Q. No; you have got a little confused there; it is a fluctuating per-
centage; values of real estate are fluctuating, but there is no necessity
for the percentage to be fluctuating. A. No occasion for it.
Q. If you are going on a percentage basis at all, you ought to have
one percentage absolute to apply to all, ought you not? A. I
think so.
Q. It is uncertain whether it is twenty or twenty-five per cent
below, or as Commissioner Feitner has sworn, thirty per cent below,
or thirty-five per cent below? A. Well, I don't know how you are to
determine what that percentage is below, for the reason that the
standard is not fixed.
Senator FASSETT.- Exactly; that is it.
Q. Then we find that, having no fixed standard, we not only have
fluctuation in valuations, but we have a fluctuation in the percentage
of valuations that is going to be assessed? A. Yes; the difficulty
arises in what individuals would regard as a sale under ordinary
circumstances; there is the difficulty in the whole matter.
Q. That is the first difficulty, and then the next difficulty is that
anywhere from thirty-five to twenty-five per cent will be taken off
from that? A. No; that is not you ask me what the facts are, and
what my judgment is, are two different things.
Q. Now, what are the facts?
g
Senator FASSETT.- Let's have them both.
The WITNESS.-In regard to the facts, the general impression I
have, derived from the short time I have been in the department, is
that the percentage — that the assessment is perhaps twenty per cent
below what would be regarded the market value; whether the market
value is the price at which the property would sell for under ordinary
circumstances, is another question.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. What is the market value? A. Well, a market value is vary-
is a value that varies every day.
ing
Q. That is not only true of real estate, but every salable piece of
merchandise, is it not? A. It is true of everything.
2440
[SENATE,
Q. Then the market value is what property of any kind would sell
for under ordinary circumstances on any given day, is it not? A. No;
not necessarily; not under ordinary circumstances.
Q. Is not that the market value? A. The market value is what it
does sell for as a matter of fact without regard to circumstances;
assuming that it is sold in open market, I mean.
Q. What do you mean then by the phrase "Why, that is sold way
above the market value?" A. That is something I cannot explain;
I do not profess to know.
Q. Then you think that what property ordinarily sells for, is not the
selling value of property under ordinary circumstances? A. No; I
won't say that; the market value is not always what, in the opinion of
many, would be regarded as a sale under ordinary circumstances.
Q. No; not always; but ordinarily? A. You are fixing a very vari-
able standard here.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Well, don't you think if you are going to operate on a percent-
age basis at all, that it ought to be a fixed standard? A. I do; abso-
lutely.
Q. Then there are two faults, are they not; first, that you operate
on a percentage basis at all, instead of on the actual basis, which
fault is necessitated by the fact that everybody else does the same
thing? A. That is the reason given for it; whether that is a sufficient
reason or not, that is another thing; that is a question of morals.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. And not a question of law? A. No; not åt all.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Then after that first fault has been committed, whether it is a
fault of morals or a fault of law, the second fault is committed in
that you have a variable standard of percentage to be taken,
which may be anywhere from twenty to thirty-five per cent, and your
fellow commissioner who has just occupied this place, says it is from
thirty to thirty-five, and you say it is from twenty to twenty-five
below the market value.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-And Coleman says twenty to twenty-five
below.
The WITNESS.-I should say that his opinions in that regard and
Mr. Coleman's opinion in that regard would be better than mine for
the 'reason that they have had much longer experience in the depart-
ment, for I have been there but a year and a
No. 80.]
2441
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Yours agrees with Mr. Coleman? A. I don't know that it does;
it does, as a matter of fact, does it?
Q. Yes; he said from twenty to twenty-five; he says from twenty to
twenty-five; Feitner says thirty to thirty-five below; then it is quite
possible, not only, but is actually the fact that assessments as levied
are not levied on a basis of a uniform, fixed percentage of the value
under ordinary circumstances? A. I don't know as to that; I am
not a deputy.
Q. Who is the responsible man in your department, and who really
lies at the foundation of your department, you or the deputy? A.
The deputy in the first instance, and we as an appellate court.
-
Q. Is it not a fact, to your knowledge, that in some of the districts
in the city, a higher percentage of the ordinary market value is
assessed, than in other districts of the city? A. Well, that is a diffi-
cult question for me to answer; I should judge from the testimony
that I have heard given here during this investigation, that that was
the case; as a matter of fact I cannot answer in the affirmative.
Q. Do you believe there has been an increase of five millions and a
half in round figures in the values of property in the seventeenth
ward this last year, as compared with the year before? A. In the
seventeenth ward, that is a very large ward.
Q. It is five and a-half millions more this year than it was last; now
do you think there has been that increase within that time? A. I
should hardly think that there had been.
Q. Then, one or two things is certain, either it is overassessed now
comparatively with the rest of the city or else it was heretofore never
assessed comparatively with the rest of the city-one of these two
things follows? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Neither of these two things could follow unless there was a
failure in the first instance to take the ordinary market value, or in the
second instance assuming that the ordinary market value had been
taken there was a fluctuating percentage for the purpose of assess-
ment in the different districts? A. Not necessarily; I do not think that
would follow; it might be from a variation in judgment as to values
of different deputies; now, I can see how a deputy might under his
oath and in entire honesty fix a sliding scale of values which prop-
erty might sell for under ordinary circumstances, and by that I mean
that under ordinary circumstances it might sell for a sum which was
much lower than another sum that he might suppose it to sell for
under ordinary circumstances, and at the same time the judgment and
the conclusion be entirely honest ones; perhaps I can illustrate it
[Senate, No. 80.]
306
2442
[SENATE,
better by supposing that in fixing the value of a piece of property a
deputy might say that under ordinary circumstances that property
would sell at from eight to ten thousand dollars, and that in his
opinion the assessment should be under those circumstances $8,000,
at the same time it might sell in his opinion for $10,000 under ordi-
nary circumstances; but as the standard is so variable, he, with a
perfect propriety might fix it at the smaller amount which would be
in that case twenty per cent less than the larger one.
Q. That would be entirely accidental though, would it not, in such
a case as you have taken? A. Not necessarily accidental; I assume
that there are not two persons in this room, for instance, that can
assess property within twenty per cent of each other.
Mr. IVINS. I think that is very possible; I do not think that any
two persons in the room here would assess property within twenty per
cent of each other.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. But when there is a divergence between the assessed valuation
and the apparent value on the salable value of sixty or seventy per
cent, so that the assessed value is only thirty per cent of the selling
value, that can not be accidental can it? A. Well, it might be; these
sales at auction and the private sales here in the city are entirely
misleading as to the value of the property, and as to what they would
sell for under ordinary circumstances.
Q. All private sales? A. No; not all private sales, but I say some
private sales, because under ordinary circumstances it is a pretty diffi-
cult term to define what constitutes the marketable value of property.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Don't you think there ought to be legislation to make that defi-
nite? A. I do, certainly; I think that there ought to be legislation
to make that definite; it is indefinite now.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Let me ask you, and in plain Anglo Saxon, is not this under
valuation the result of a long enduring conflict between New York
city on the one hand and the rural counties on the other—is there not
a persistent and well defined effort on the part of your department,
for instance, while you keep these valuations equalized with reference
to the various wards, to keep them as low as possible with reference
to the actual value? A. Do you mean as compared with values out-
side of the city?
Q. Yes.
A. I don't think it is; I think that we are charged with that,
No. 80.]
2443
2
however; it is so charged, but I do not think the charge is true and
well founded.
Q. Do you think that the charge is true that country assessors keep
down their valuations for the purpose of protecting themselves against
the city? A. It is so charged.
Q. Well, do you believe it? A. Perhaps I ought to answer that I
have not sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief.
Q. If you did believe it, wouldn't you feel that your department was
justified in doing the same thing in return? A. Not in law.
Q. Well, in fact? A. Nor in fact.
Q. Why is it done then? A. I do not know that it is done.
Q. Why is this eighty per cent valuation indulged in? A. Well, I
have suggested how an eighty per cent valuation might be indulged
in and indulged in honestly by a deputy, because he would be unable
to fix the exact amount.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. That is not eighty per cent of the valuation; that is the valuation
itself, the thing that you are talking about? A. There would be
twenty per cent variation, I mean; that a deputy might vary twenty
per cent.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. He might do that in one case and in the very next case he might
fix it at the $10,000 limit? A. Very likely he might; I mean to say
this, that I do not think the deputy, under his oath, has any right
after he has fixed in his own mind and his best judgment that the
value of property is so much, a fixed sum-I do not think then, under
his oath, he has any right to deduct twenty per cent, for instance.
By Mr. IVINS:
·
Q. Then, you think in the case such as I pointed out, of some of the
houses belonging to Mr. Astor in Harlem, where the property is
assessed at $8,000, and where Mr. Coleman swore that it was worth
$12,000 as a minimum price in his judgment, and where it is quite
possible that we could call witnesses who would swear that it was
worth from 16,000 to 17,500, if it was assessed at $8,000 you would
think that the deputy had not done his duty? A. I do not know; if
I was a deputy, I could answer the question better.
Q. Do you think a person is a proper person to be deputy who
will assess at $8,000 for a four story, high basement, twenty foot front,
brick house on One Hundred and Twenty-ninth street within 150 feet
2444
[SENATE,
of Fifth avenue? A. I should have to examine the premises first; I
never assess property without examining the premises.
Q. How far are you personally acquainted with property in New
York city? A. I can not answer that question.
Q. Have you any familiarity with it? A. Some.
Q. As a dealer or trader? A. Not as a dealer; no, sir.
Q. Have you ever been in the real estate business? A. I have not.
Q. Have you ever been an expert in fixing real estate values? A. No.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Then, as a court of appeals, you are entirely unbiased? A. If I
considered myself an expert, I should not want to swear to it on the
stand; I have had more or less experience in appraising property in
connection with street opening proceedings; I never dealt in real
estate here in my life.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Have you any suggestions to make to the committee in regard
to changes in the law that would improve the administration? A.
Well, I don't know; it would be rather presumptuous for me, in the
experience I have had in that office, to make any suggestions as against
the judgment of men who have been there twenty or thirty years.
Q. How long have you been there? A. I have been there a year
and a half. `
Q. That is six months longer than the term of a Member of Assembly,
who introduces and advocates the passage of all kinds of bills? A. I
have never been in the Assembly; I am clearly of the opinion that the
tax upon personal property under the law is almost an entire failure;
I am satisfied that it is inequitable and unjust; that it leads to efforts,
and very strenuous efforts, on the part of capitalists to remove their
capital beyond the jurisdiction of this city and this State; it offers no
encouragement for capital to come to this city or this State; the law,
as now construed by the courts, enables any one who chooses to so
* dispose of his personal property that it will be impossible for the tax
department to reach it; they may do so properly under the law, and
those who understand the law and can take advantage of it, do in the
majority of cases; those who are ignorant of the law and do not
understand their rights, pay the taxes; the result is that a large
amount of capital, which the law intended to reach in the first
instance, is now, by operation of law and by the decision of the courts,
taken out of the category of taxable property.
Q. And it might as well be done thoroughly and completely as to
be left as it is now, where it is a mere delusion and a snare? A. It
No. 80.]
2445
would be much better, because the people at large would be much
better satisfied; as it is now, it creates suspicion in the minds of people
at large that capitalists are favored by the tax department, and that a
man of moderate means is assessed more than he should be for that
reason; that it is not equitable and is not just; it gives the impression
-that the commissioners are open to influences from moneyed men that
the ordinary citizen can not reach.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. How would it do to abolish the present system, so far as per-
sonalty is concerned, and impose a tax upon all personal property as
it passes through the surrogate's office, and thus catch it once in a
century and make it pay a greater tax?
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-The result would be that they would not
die.
Senator FASSETT.- Do you think it would be a premium upon
longevity?
The WITNESS. It might; at the same time it would affect a class of
people who as a rule are not able to look after themselves, that is,
infants and widows; as the operation of the law now is it enables our
department, and we are obliged under our oaths to take cognizance
of the property of estates as represented by the records of the surro-
gate's office; in many of those cases the estates are held in trust or
for the benefit of infants and widows, and in some cases the estate
left invested in such a way that the securities can not be changed, and
no advantage can be taken of the law in that regard; as an illustra-
tion, I know that in one case quite a large estate was left in trust for
the benefit of infants with directions to the trustees to deposit the
money in the United States Trust Company, which at that time was
paying two per cent; that property had to be assessed by our depart-
ment and that estate was obliged to pay 2.22 per cent tax, which was
twenty-two hundredths per cent more than the infants were getting
from the estate; there is an illustration of the equity of this law.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. But I do not think you understand my question; my proposi-
tion would be to extend the Collateral Inheritance Tax Law to all
inheritances of personalty only not at so high a rate of interest, and
thus, once in a century at least, personalty would pass under the law
and pay its toll for the protection which it had enjoyed during the
lifetime of the testator or decedent? A. Well, that might to a cer-
tain extent be a remedy; I have not given the matter sufficient
consideration.
2446
[SENATE,
}
Mr. IVINS.-Such laws prevail elsewhere.
Q. Have you ever given it any thought? A. I have given it some
but not sufficient to warrant me in giving a conclusion.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Do you know of any reason why the work of the present board
of assessors could not be done by a single deputy tax-commissioner
especially appointed for that purpose? A. Well, the assessors are a
board that fix values; they take property and they determine values.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. They fix it for the purpose of assessing it with the area of
improvement, do they? A. They do that and I think in all cases
where matters of value are to be determined that it should not be left
to one individual.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. It is left to one individual in all other cases, is it not virtually?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. Is not the whole tax system of New York virtually left to one
individual who is some one of the deputy tax commissioners? A. It
is left in the first instance, but the right of appeal enables the three
commissioners to pass upon values.
Q. Why should not this assessment of the value of property within
the area of assessment be fixed in the same way subject to the same
appeal to the tax commissioners? A. Well, that might be done in that
way, but I think where it comes to the question values that it should
be determined by more than one person, or that the right to pass upon
it should be in the hands of more than one.
Q. The work done by the board of assessors is not one-half so
important, or one-tenth or one-hundreth part so important as the
work done by the board of tax commissioners, is it? A. It is not so
voluminous, or so great in value.
Q. Nor so important? A. Nor so important.
Q. Why, as being the smaller part of the work of the department,
should not the assessments made in those cases, that is the assess-
ments now made by the board of assessors, be made in exactly the
same way that the assessments made for general purposes of taxation,
are made, subject, of course, to an appeal to the board of three com-
missioners that now prevails in the case of general assessments, for
the purposes of taxation? A. Well, the operation and the object of
those two departments - you might term them departments - is
entirely different; one is to determine values for the purposes of
No. 80.]
2447
taxation, and the other is to determine the damages; to fix the
damages.
Q. They are only two different phases of the same general principle?
A. Yes, sir.
1
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. You can not determine damages without determining values,
can you? A. Certainly not.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. They are only two different phases of the same principle, are
they not? A. Yes; but you might extend that to street opening
matters, and the opening of public places.
Q. Why should it not be extended to street opening matters, and
the opening of public places, and instead of appointing a number of
boards, which appointments are made by the judges of the several
courts, and many of which boards are now in operation, why should
there not be some single individual, with a sufficient staff of clerks
sworn to perform that class of duties, subject to the same appeal as to
whether he has performed them well and truly to the tax commis-
sioners, as now lies over the deputy tax commissioners to you? A.
Well, it would be putting a great deal of work into one department.
Q. On how many boards of street opening or sewer commissions
have you served? A. I never served upon a sewer commission.
Q. Did you ever serve upon a commission to appraise the benefits
or damages for street openings? A. I have.
Q. On how many? A. I can not tell.
Q. Fifteen or twenty, haven't you? A. I should say so; more than
that.
Q. More than that number? A. Yes.
Q. Twenty-five or thirty? A. Well, perhaps so; I can't state.
Each of those boards is constituted of three members, isn't it?
A. Three members.
Q. And what do you suppose has been the average payment made
to you for services on those boards? A. It is no average; I have
received a fixed amount by law.
Q. You have received a fixed amount by law I know; but what will
it average in each particular case; what was the largest amount you
ever realized as compensation for serving on any one of those com-
missions? A. Well, I think $470.
By Senator Fassett:
Q. For forty-seven days? A. No; it is a little less than seven cents
a lineal foot; that is the fee of the commissioners; I think I served
2448
[SENATE,
upon one commission where I received five dollars and one cent,
which took us several months and something like forty or fifty hear-
ings, if I recollect right about it; I may be mistaken in the amount.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Do you not think that a large saving could be effected to the
public treasury by having all of that class of work done by one
permanent board? A. I do.
Q. And as one who has had very large experience in serving on
such boards would you recommend provision for that work being
done by a single permanent board? A. My impression is now that
it would be better if you could have men of experience, trained men,
and make a permanent board; that is my impression.
Q. Well, is there any reason why, assuming that the board of
assessors was to be continued in existence, the board of assessors
should not be made the board to do that work? A. They might be
the proper men to do that work.
Q. So far as you as a commissioner of taxes know, they have ample
time within which to do such work in addition to the work they now
do, have they not? A. I should not suppose they would; no.
Q. You should not suppose they would? A. No.
Q. Do you, as a tax commissioner, think that their present work
takes all their time? A. No; but I do not think that they would be
able, in addition to their present duties, to properly attend to all the
duties that might be devolved upon them as a board of street opening.
Q. They would if their staff was sufficiently full, would they not?
A. No; because it depends upon the individual judgments of the
commissioners rather than upon any staff that they might employ.
Q. Even then the volume of their work would not begin to be as
large as the volume of work done by your three commissioners as tax-
commissioners, would it? A. Under the present law it would; I mean
under the present law as it affects street opening matters.
Q. If it were to be thrown in on them? A. Yes, sir; because there
are a certain number of days when complaints must be heard under
the statute; with the law as it exists at present I do not think it would
be possible for one board to attend to all the duties of street
opening matters; it would be utterly impossible for them to do it;
you asked me if it would not be better if they could; I think it would
be better, but I think it would be a physical impossibility for one
board to entertain all these street opening matters as the law exists
-to-day.
Q. To whom shall we appeal for the purpose of getting a record of
No. 80.]
2449
all of these several street opening boards that have been appointed
during the past five years-is the comptroller's office the place to get
that? A. The corporation counsel's office.
Q. Is there a special corporation counsel for the purpose of advising
these boards? A. I think there is now.
Q. Who is it?
A. I do not know his name.
Q. You do not know the present one? A. No.
Q. Mr. Perry was at one time? A. Mr. Perry was at one time.
Q. But you do not know who is now? A. I do not know who is
now; I know there is one deputy in the corporation counsel's office
who has charge of all those matters; he attends to all the matters
before the courts, prepares all the papers, makes all the motions, and
I understand advises the commissioners in each proceeding when they
require legal advice.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Does your board seek to equalize assessments between wards in
your city? A. We never have since I have been in the board.
Q. Was it ever the practice? A. I do not know that it ever was; I
am not prepared to say that; Mr. Feitner can answer that question.
Q. In your judgment, is the board of tax commissioners at all
responsible for an assessment on real or personal property except in
cases where a complaint is made?
Senator FASSETT.— As a matter of law or as a matter of fact?
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Both?
The WITNESS.—As a matter of law we are responsible where an
appeal is made.
Q. I except that? A. In the question of equalization, as to how far
we are justified in changing assessments, either increasing or diminish-
ing by way of equalization, that I am not prepared to state, for the
reason that that question has never come up since I have been in the
department.
Q. Do you ever look into that except where a complaint is made?
Senator FASSETT. He says the question has never come up.
The WITNESS.— The question never has come up, that question of
equalization as between wards extending over a large area of property
that question never has come up since I have been a commissioner.
Q. Since you have been a member of the commission, can you
recollect of a single case where upon your own motion, your sugges-
tion, you have changed the value of property, either added to it or
deducted from it? A. No; I do not think I would have any right to
make the change; I do not think I have any power as a commissioner.
[Senate, No. 80.]
307
2450
[SENATE,
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. You have never exercised any such power? A. I have never
exercised that power; I have called the deputies' attention to what I
considered perhaps discrepancies and asked for explanations, and so
forth, but I do not think that our powers in that regard go any further
than in the matter of suggestion.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Nothing further? A. I do not think they do; the deputies are
selected or it is assured they are selected by reason of their ability to
pass upon questions of this kind.
Q. By reason of their fitness for the office? A. By reason of their
fitness for the office; and we have no right to make the assessments;
under the statute the deputies make the assessments subject to our
revision on appeal; I do not feel that I would have a right to insist
upon a deputy making a change in an assessment simply because I
considered that the assessment was too high or too low. If I believed
that the assessment was erroneous by reason of absolute ignorance
on the part of the deputy, or if I believed that the assessment was
wrong by reason of corruption on the part of the deputy, then it
would be my duty as a commissioner to take action for the removal of
that deputy.
Q. That is not the state of facts that I set forth at all; what I
want to get at is this: If your board, as a board, are responsible in
any way for assessments on real and personal property except in
instances where complaint is made to you? A. I do not consider that
we are; I think that the deputy himself is the responsible party.
Q. That is what I thought? A. I think we are responsible for
retaining a deputy in office where we are satisfied that he is either
ignorant or corrupt; but the difficulty is this: We have the power of
removal, and where we should insist upon a deputy making a change
in an assessment, although he might consider that the assessment
ought not to be changed and that he was right and that we were
entirely wrong, still I think he might be, under the pressure, induced
to make that change for fear of losing his position, and for that reason
I think we ought to be very cautious how we make suggestions, and İ
think we never ought to insist on changes being made unless I say
that there was gross ignorance or corruption.
Q. Do you think it would improve the equalization of assessments
if a little more responsibility was thrown upon your board? A. I do
not know as it would as long as we have the general supervision.
No. 80.]
2451.
**
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. I understood you to say that you did not have the supervision?
A. I beg your pardon, we do have the supervision.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Your general supervision is confined to cases where a complaint
is made? A. Where a complaint is made.
Q. So the supervision is not general; it is only specific, referring to
specific cases? A. Well, the assumption is that appeals are made in
all cases where a wrong has been done.
Q. Now, this brings me to this inquiry: Where you assess a party
upon personal property you send him a written notice that he is
assessed for personal property? A. Yes.
Q. If you raise the value of real estate, if you double it, you send
the party owning the property no notice of the increase in valuation?
A. We are obliged to.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. No; only after that increase is made upon the record? A. After
the books are open we are obliged to.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. But before that, before the record is made, you notify the owner
of personal property that he is assessed?
Q. I understood Mr. Coleman to say so?
misunderstood him.
A. No.
A. I think possibly you
Q. Very likely I did? A. In personal property, after the books are
opened, we send out notices; these are not legal notices; they are not
notices that we are required to send out; we send them out for the
protection of the taxpayer as much as anything, so that he may know
what he has been assessed at on the books, and if it is erroneous
he can come before us and have the change made; in the case of real
property, that is not necessary, because every man knows that he is
assessed; every man that owns a piece of real estate knows that that
property has been assessed and that he is liable to be taken upon it;
but in regard to personal property, it is different; the individual does
not know that he is assessed, and the large majority of people are not
assessed; a very small portion of them are assessed, and appear upon
our books, and for that reason, as it is uncertain whether a man is
assessed or not for his personal property, we feel it our duty to send
out these notices to individuals where they have been assessed that
they may have an opportunity to be heard.
2452
[SENATE,
3
Q. That works an injustice then to owners of real estate? A. Per-
haps I have not made myself understood now; I mean after the books
are opened, not before; on the second Monday in January the books
are opened; that is, the books on real estate and the books of the
personal estate; then we send out the notices to individuals; we do
not send out the notices to real estate owners because they know that
they are assessed.
Q. But they do not know that their assessments have been increased?
A. Oh, no; they can come and see; we do not send out these notices to
individuals to inform them that their assessments have been increased;
we only send out notices that they have been assessed.
Q. That they have been assessed at all? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Jones, we will say, lives in the twelfth ward, and he is
the owner of a certain piece of real estate, and Mr. Perkins lives in
the twelfth ward and is actually worth in bonds and mortgages,
subject to assessment, $100,000; now, why should not Mr. Perkins.
expect that you will assess him? A. He does; the assumption in law
is that he does; but the belief is, that people do not know the law, and
we do this to protect individuals who do not know the law; as a
matter of fact, every man in New York city would, if he knew the law,
come down to the department of taxes and assessment on the second
day of January or days following, to examine the books, and he is
supposed to do that; the books are open for the inspection of every
citizen or every man who is liable to pay taxes, and it is assumed
that they will come down; but as a matter of fact, they do not; very
few of them will; and for that reason we take the trouble to give them
notice.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Less than 700 last year came to make complaints for real estate?
A. It was less than 700 I think; it was 680, I think.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. I asked Mr. Feitner to produce at this session of the committee,
say ten applications for reductions of real estate and ten on personal
property; will you see that they are all here? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Pick them out promiscuously? A. The applications for reduc-
tions of personal property are made in most instances by the
individual appearing in person and being sworn and subjected to an
examination and his affidavit taken; those are on record in our office.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. All the examinations? A. All the examinations.
Q. The questions and answers? A. Not in questions and answers.
No. 80.]
*
2153
117
Q. But simply pro formo, the same in all cases, a perfunctory state-
ment? A. There is a certain form and then in addition to that we
ask them questions.
Q. But the questions you ask are not recorded? A. But the sub-
stance of the answers are recorded.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Bring that up whatever it may be.
THOMAS L. FEITNER, recalled, further testified as follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. What did you have to do, directly or indirectly, with the appoint-
ment of Mr. Perry? A. Directly I had nothing specially to do with it.
Q. And indirectly what did you have to do with it? A. Indirectly,
of course, I had to do with it in voting for him in the board; directly
I had nothing to do with it.
Q. What did you have to do with it before that? A. Absolutely
nothing.
Q. Did Mr. Stokes never speak to you about Mr. Perry? A. No.
Q. Did Mr. Cockran ever speak to you about him? A. I spoke to
Mr. Cockran; I met Mr. Cockran one day after his name had come in
to our board certified to us by the civil service, and I found out then
that Mr. Cockran had recommended him, and I spoke to Mr. Cockran
about him casually one day, and asked him what sort of a man this
Mr. Perry was, and he said he was a very good man indeed.
Q. Did you never tell anyone that there was going to be a vacancy
in your board? A. I may have; I do not remember.
Q. And that an application had better be put in for the place in
behalf of someone? A. Am sure we did not; we appointed him under
the Civil Service Law.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. It was a perfectly legitimate thing for you to do, if you wanted,
wasn't it? A. Certainly; I would not hesitate to answer so if I did.
Q. It was part of your duty as a Tammany Hall man to help the
boys to a place, wasn't it? A. It was my duty to make appointments
as a board commissioner.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. It was part of your duties as a member of the board to make
appointments? A. Yes, sir.
Q. It was part of your duty to fill vacancies when they occurred, if
they were important? A. Yes, sir.
Q. It was important that that vacancy should be filled at once? A.
Yes, sir; it was quite important.
2454
[SENATE,
Mr. IVINS.- Mr. Parris wants to have entered on the minutes that
he does not feel any reliance on his own memory so far as concerns
these specific fees that he has sworn to in the street opening matters
and he does not want that to stand as in any sense absolute because
he may have erred.
The committee at this point took a recess until 2.30 o'clock P. M.
AFTER RECESS.
ISAAC S. BARRETT, recalled, further testified:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. I hand you a comptroller's report of the 31st of December 1889,
at page 148, Statement K; that is the statement of taxes uncollected
up to December 31 1889, is it? A. The amount uncollected.
Mr. IvINS. — I will say to the committee that we will consider that
as put in evidence here, page 148 of the Report of 1889 for the year
ending December 31, 1889. That shows that there was on December
31, 1889, uncollected of taxes on real estate for the years including
1888 and anterior dates $3,485,373.
Senator FASSETT. Uncollected?
Mr. IVINS. Yes; on the first of January of the present year.
Q. Of personal estate the taxes uncollected were $10,189,669; I find,
however, that for the year 1889 the items real and personal are entered
together in that column making the sum of $4,107,000; what propor-
tion of that item was personal property and what was on real property? ·
A. I could not tell now; it is not separated until the arrears of real
estate are transmitted to the bureau of arrears on the first of June
Q. And that has been done? A. Yes.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. What is the bureau of arrears? A. Bureau for the collection of
arrears of taxes, Croton water rents and assessments.
Q. What bureau are they a department of? A. The finance depart-
ment; it is really the department of the collector of assessments and
clerk of arrears; the bureau of assessments and arrears; the two are
consolidated.
Q. Who are these officers? A. D. Lowber Smith is the present
collector.
Q. Is not he the deputy commissioner of public works? A. He
used to be.
Q. Are these offices ex officio offices? A. They are appointed by
the comptroller; this is one of the bureau of the finance department.
No. 80.]
2455
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. I ask you to prepare a statement showing the amount of personal
taxes which had been written off the books during the past ten years,
and showing the amount of personal taxes uncollected on the first of
October of the present year? A. Yes, sir.
Q. This is your statement [handing witness paper]? A. That is a
statement I had prepared.
[Statement offered in evidence by Mr. Ivins and marked Exhibit 1
of this date and inserted at the end of this day's testimony.]
Q. This statement shows that in July of 1882 there was written off
the books of the city of sums due to the city for personal taxes
$1,634,670? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is correct from your books? A. That is correct from the
books, yes sir.
Q. It shows that on the 31st of January, 1888, there was written off
of sums due to the city for personal taxes $5,411,649? A. Yes, sir.
By Senator Fassett:
Q. Written off from taxes due?
Mr. IVINS.- Due, yes, sir. I will come to the reason of that in a
minute.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Showing that there was written off in the aggregate in the
1882 and 1888 $7,046,365 of taxes on personal property which had
been uncollected? A. Yes, sir.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Assessed properly.
Mr. IVINS.- Personal property, not real estate.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.—I say assessed properly.
Mr. IVINS.- Properly assessed, and where the propriety of the
assessments had not been contested, but where the taxes were simply
uncollected.
The WITNESS. And uncollectible.
Q. And uncollectible as far as it was possible to discover their col-
lectibility through the ordinary proceedings of the office. A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the provision of law in regard to writing off these claims
of the city against such persons so apparently owing taxes? A. A
personal taxes that remains uncollected and apparently uncollectible
for twenty years is considered to be absolutely outlawed, and you
will notice that the taxes that are written off there are twenty years
or more past due.
Q. They are all written off then on the basis of a twenty years'
statute of limitation? A. Yes.
2456
[SENATE,
A
:
Q. The result is that the $1,634,670 written off in July of 1882 was
taxes which had been levied more than twenty years prior to that
time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that that sum included the unpaid personal taxes for the
years 1852 to 1861 inclusive? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the sum written off on January 31, 1888, being $5,411,694,
included the personal taxes which had been levied between the years
1862 and 1871 inclusive. A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you state here that the personal taxes uncollected October
1, 1890, are $6,306,790? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That shows the figures as they ought properly to have been
shown provided this item at page 149 of the comptroller's report had
been divided? A. Yes, sir; at that date; you will find in those items
there is scarcely a change, as in the earlier years no change at all in
the amount occurred that are outstanding there.
Q. And those amounts outstanding have stood virtually at the same
figure year in and year out? A. There was no change for years; in
fact a personal tax that is two years old you can consider as practi-
cally worthless; the uncollected personal taxes, take the aggregate, are
not worth one-tenth of one per cent on the aggregate; take taxes
uncollected after two years and I would not give one per cent on the
amount that were for two years uncollected.
Q. I asked you to prepare a statement of the amount of assessments
that had been confirmed from 1880 to date? A. I didn't bring it
down to date.
Q. To 1889 inclusive; have you done that? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I asked you also to prepare a statement showing the extent to
which assessments had been vacated from 1880 to 1889, inclusive? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. And this is the statement [handing witness paper]? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And transcribed from the books? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it is correct? A. Yes, sir.
[Paper offered in evidence by Mr. Ivins, marked Exhibt No. 2, of this
date, and inserted at the end of this day's testimony.]
Q. This shows that during the ten years from 1880 to 1889, the
amount of assessments confirmed were $12,782,159? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That the amount of assessments vacated was $4,121,779? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. It thus appears that during this period the amount of assesments
vacated was one-third of the entire amount of assessments confirmed
or its equivalent? A. Yes, sir; but it should be said, in justice, that
No. 80.]
2457
those which were vacated were a very small proportion of those which
are confirmed.
Q. Of those which are confirmed at this particular time? A. Yes.
Q. The statement, however, shows on its face that as against
$12,000,000 there were $4,000,000 vacated? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Although they don't necessarily refer to assessments made at the
same time or for the same purposes? A. Not at all.
Q. In view of the fact that there are $6,306,790 of personal taxes
uncollected, and in view of the fact that the expenses for the support
of the government for the past ten years have been made upon the
theory that those taxes would be collected and would meet those
expenditures, how is the deficiency arising from the non-collection of
those taxes made good? A. There is an amount applied year by year
in the tax levy; an amount is raised year by year in the tax levy for
the supply of such deficiencies; you will see it from that statement;
that is a ten year's statement; you will see the amount that has been
raised year by year for the supply of those deficiencies.
Q. This is Statement G. inserted at page 143 of this same comp-
troller's report? A. Yes.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. How are those made- by the issuing of bonds for these defi-
ciencies in taxes? A. No; for instance the amount, as it will be shown
here I can illustrate it here take for instance, for last year, the
total appropriations- the total budget would amount to only
$30,000,000, but they added $764,000 to supply deficiencies, so that
the total amount of taxes raised actually was $30,345,000.
Q. In making your levy you estimate this deficiency? A. Yes; the
possibility of this deficiency.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You add to the budget of each year something to make good the
deficiencies of the budgets of past years? A. Yes.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. What you add is not the figure that you expect to be short, but
the figure which you have been short on the year previous? A. No;
it is not fixed in that way; it is not a fixed amount year by year; it is
usually an amount put in to make a round rate; for instance, the rate
his last year was 1.97; the exact rate would be, for instance, 1.93
and a great big fraction; it is to avoid that, to make an even fraction
that they put in a sum; it must not exceed three per cent of the
amount of the levy, of the amount to be raised.
[Senate, No. 80.]
308
2458
[SENATE,
EDWARD GILON, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. What office do you hold? A. I am a member of the board of
assessors.
Q. Are you president of that board? A. Chairman of the board.
Q. How long have you been in the board? A. Since the 1st of
July, 1885.
Q. How long have you been chairman of it? A. All of that time.
Q. Will you now generally describe to the committee the functions
and duties of that board? A. The functions and duties of the
board of assessors under the law are to make and apportion
the assessments upon all the real estate and property that is
affected by the improvements that are made in the city of
New York, such as regulating and grading streets, paving the
same, building and making alterations to sewers, and all other
improvements of a general character that may be passed by the board
of aldermen of the city of New York.
Q. When you say all other improvements of a general character,
what do you mean by that? A. Well, any other improvements of that
particular character such as you will find specified in the law; some
of them now have become obsolete, such as making wells and erecting
pumps, and all those things, that in parts of the city have now become
obsolete, and still they can be retained in the health department, and
again such as dredging the slips in front of private property by the
city of New York, which also comes under the purview of the board
of assessors.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Your authority comes exclusively and entirely from the Consoli-
dation Act, doesn't it? A. Entirely; you will find it all embodied in
the Consolidation Act, beginning at section 865, which is a continuation
of laws that have been on the statute books since 1787.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. How many subordinates have you in your office? A. We have
one secretary.
Q. None other? A. No, sir; not at present.
Q. What does your secretary do? A. The secretary does the gen-
eral duties attached to the office; he keeps the record of the minutes
and attends to such other duties as the board may assign him to do;
for instance, he assists in making and apportioning assessments.
Q. Doesn't he do the major part of the work in making and
apportioning the assessments? A. No; he does not, sir.
No. 80.]
2459
Q. Who does? A. The board and all together do their share.
Q. Acting as a board? A. Acting as a board; yes, sir.
Q. You say he keeps the minutes? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What do the minutes of the board show, generally speaking?
A. The transactions of the board at their regular meetings.
Q. And what part of the transactions — how far in detail? A. Such
as before the board comes up; for instance, when assessments are
received
[The witness then directed Jasper to bring over to the committee
the minute book of the board.]
Q. How much of the secretary's time does it take to keep the minutes?
A. It does not take a great deal of the time to keep the minutes; the
whole of that could be done in half an hour after the board has
discharged its duty in that respect.
Q. Does the board have stated meetings? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How often? A. They meet regularly on every Thursday, and as
often as special meetings may be required by the exigencies of cases
that may come up before them in the way of giving hearings to lawyers
who may appear, and to others under the law.
Q. What are the days that the stated meetings are called for
on Thursdays? A. Thursdays, at 11 o'clock.
Q. How long do those meetings last? A. They last various times,
according to the amount of business that may come before the meeting.
Q. Does it sometimes last until 12 o'clock? A. Sometimes they last
until 3 o'clock and half-past 3, and some as late as 5, I have known
them to last.
Q. In how many cases have you known the stated sessions to last as
long as 5 o'clock? A. There are not many instances of that kind.
Q. Not over two or three of that kind, are there? A. There may
not be over two or three.
Q. Isn't it a fact that your meetings usually last from about 11
o'clock to 2 o'clock? A. It is a fact that it takes about that length
of time.
Q. One afternoon of the week? A. One afternoon of the week; that
is to say where there are not special meetings held.
Q. How many special meetings have there been in the last year? A.
I don't remember; the minute book will show.
Q. Do you suppose there have been half a dozen? A. Yes, sir; a
great many more than half a dozen; I suppose there were three times
a half dozen.
Q. You suppose there must have been eighteen? A. I think so; it
is no smiling matter, Mr. Ivins.
7
2460
[SENATE,
Q. Who calls those special meetings? A. The board calls them
generally before they adjourn at the meeting previous to their being
held.
Q. Then, in reality, these special meetings are adjourned meetings?
A. They are generally adjourned meetings.
Q. Do the minutes show what was the occasion of the adjournment
to a special meeting? A. They will.
Q. Is all of your business conducted by the board distinctively as
such, that is upon motion and vote? A. With reference to what?
Q. Whatever business comes before it? A. It is generally done by
a vote, whatever business comes before the board at their meetings.
Q. What do you do personally as a member of that board; just
describe generally what you do; take any one particular case? A.
The duties that I have discharged there as chairman of the board are
first, all matters that come in the office in the way of objections to any
assessments that may be apportioned by the board, and all others.
who are making inquiry in relation to matters regarding assessments.
Q. Those come in during your office hours, I suppose? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What are your office hours? A. From 9 to 4.
Q. Are you there from 9 to 4 every day? A. Almost every day,
and I have been there as late as 7 o'clock at night.
Q. These complaints and correspondence and matters of that kind
come in to you during your office hours? A. Yes, sir; that is part of it.
Q. What do you do with the complaints and correspondence? A.
They are filed with the matters that they relate to and come before
the board for their action.
Q. When those matters come up? A. Yes, sir; in addition to that
I do my share of the apportionment of the assessments, and, in fact,
I have a general supervision over all the assessments that are appor-
tioned by the various members of the board to see that they are cor-
rect, and a part of the duty of the board is to correct the assessment
if any corrections are required when the assessment is received in the
office; they must be compared with the tax maps and tax books in the
tax commissioner's office in order to see that the proper ward and
block numbers are on the diagrams that are attached to the assess-
ment-list; that of itself is a great labor requiring considerable time,
and you will notice a great deal of attention must be given it in order
that it may be correct, because were it not correct and an assessment
were levied against a piece of property that hadn't the proper ward
and block number attached thereto, it would to a certain extent almost
invalidate the assessment against that piece of property.
Q. As a matter of fact many assments have in the past been invali-
No. 80.]
2461
!
dated through carelessness in such way as to require the utmost
care to prevent the recurrence of that sort of thing, have they not?
A. Not on the part of the board of assessors
Q. I say carelessness generally; I don't characterize it in any quar-
ter. A. There has not been an assessment vacated in ten years by
neglect or carelessness or negligence on the part of the board of
assessors; almost every assessment, in fact I believe the whole of the
assessments that have ever been vacated, have been vacated in conse-
quence of the negligence on the part of the department under which
the work was performed.
Q. That is it might be the department of public works? A. Yes;
it might be the department of public works.
Q. Or the department of parks.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Or the department of docks? A. Or the department of docks;
very little, as a matter of course, comes from that; there is only one
assessment-list in probably fifteen years has been received by the board
of assessors from the board of docks, and it is enjoined especially in
the Consolidation Act there that work of the nature just described,
such as dredging out of slips in front of private property 'should be
assessed the same as other property.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. When you say that you assist in the matter of getting out the
assessment-list, as I understand you to say- A. Yes, sir.
Q. What do you mean by that? A. If I had a few of the assess-
ment-lists here I could show you; but I presume you know what they
are; they are a detailed statement of the property that is affected by
the improvement and the pieces of property on the assessment-list
will run sometimes from fifty to 10,000; we have an assess-
ment-list now in the office that includes about 10,000 pieces of property.
Q. Which one is that? A. It is an assessment for an improvement
to an outlet to a sewer.
Q. What is it known as? A. As the West street outlet.
Q. Is the Brook avenue sewer assessment still in the office? A. I
was just about speaking to you in relation to that; we have just got
through with that Brook avenue sewer and had it confirmed after a
hot contest for several years; that embodied some 9,000 pieces of
property; all these had to be compared with the tax maps, and I did
all that labor myself.
Q. You did that personally? A. Yes.
Q. In detail? A. In detail.
2462
[SENATE,
}
Q. Piece by piece? A. Yes.
Q. Assisted by the secretary? A. No.
Q. Entirely alone? A: Entirely alone.
Q. You could have saved time if you had been assisted by the secre-
tary, couldn't you? A. No; because you can't very well have two
people handle one book.
Q. Can't two people check off a piece of work of that kind better
than one? A. Not very well.
Q. Did the other assessors assist you in that? A. Not in that par-
ticular duty; no, sir; they were discharging their duties devolving
upon them at the same time.
Q. Were they checking other 9,000 plot pieces? A. No; they were
apportioning the various assessments in the office.
Q. What do you mean by apportioning assessments—you have used
that phrase once before? A. I will describe the whole modus operandi
of the thing for you.
Q. That is what we want? A. In the first place the department
upon whom devolves the completion of the improvement that has been
passed by an ordinance of the common council and ordered by an
ordinance of the common council, proceeds to advertise and contract
out the work; after it is done they then make up an assessment-list
showing the various pieces of property that have been affected by the
improvement, benefited by it; to that is attached under the Consolida-
tion Act the certificate of the commissioner of public works or the
members of the department of parks, as the case may be, they having
charge of the twenty-third and twenty-fourth wards, the improvements
there; they are required to give a certificate to the board of assessors,
that certificate showing the whole cost of the work, the various parts
of it; for instance, we will take that for the building of the sewer;
the various items that have entered into the contract are shown on
this certificate, the cost of the rock excavation where rock had to be
excavated, the cost of the building of the sewer per foot is shown, and
all those items are given in this certificate that we received from the
department of public works or the department doing the work.
Q. The result of which certificate is to show the aggregate sum
which has to be assessed over the entire property? A. Exactly; and
with that certificate comes a detailed statement of the various pieces
of property that are benefited by that improvement.
Q. Who makes that detailed statement? A. That I was just going
to tell you; that detailed statement is made out under the purview
of the board of assessors by the surveyor or engineer in the
department.
No. 80.]
2463
Q. In the department which has certified the work? A. Yes, sir;
they are required under the law, you will observe, particularly relating
to sewers if you will turn to section 300, and to something relating
to the department of public works, you will find it; it is the law of
1865 relating to improvements; you will find there that under that
section of law the department of public works is charged solely with
the improvement of all the sewerage districts in the city of New York
and the building of the sewers in the various districts; they are
required after they have completed their work to supply the board of
assessors with this certificate of the cost and with a diagram showing
the various pieces of property affected and giving a detailed statement
of the whole.
Q. If you will excuse me a minute, that is section 326 of the Con-
solidation Act? A. Yes, sir; that is it.
[Mr. Ivins then read in evidence sections 326 to 329 inclusive of the
Consolidation Act.]
Q. That certificate comes to you showing the entire amount of work,
and it also comes to you showing the territory over which the assess-
ment is to be spread? A. Yes, sir; read the other part there and you
will see where it explains it.
Q. It is not necessary to go further for that just now? A. It is only
to show that they are officially required to supply the board of
assessors with it.
Q. He is officially required to render these certificates to you?
A. Yes.
Q. When you say apportionment of assessments you have before
you the certificate of cost and the description of the property?
A. Very good; if you will allow me to continue I will give you the
whole story and then you can question me just as much as you please.
Q. All right go on. A. After this is received, this detailed state-
ment required by law to be supplied by the department doing the
work they are then required also in accordance with the Consolidation
Act which is part of chapter 550 of the Laws of 1880-the comp-
troller is then required to supply the board of assessors with a cer-
tificate of the interest on the money that has been advanced from time
to time to the contractors from the beginning of the work, from the
first payment that they have made up to the conclusion of the whole
thing, and to extend the time of the making up of that interest to a
period of sixty days in advance of the date of this certificate; that is
supplied to the board of assessors also before they can proceed to
make out this assessment-list; the manner in which we receive that
certificate is by transmitting the assessment-list after it has been
2464
[SENATE,
received from the department doing the work to the comptroller's
office; the comptroller's office then proceeds as soon possibly as it
can, although sometimes considerable delay takes place before we
receive it back, but he proceeds then to give us the certificate con-
taining the amount of interest that he has to receive for the money
that he has advanced to the contractors from the beginning of the
work up to a period of sixty days beyond the time when he signs that
certificate for us; that we receive, and that amount we add to the
amount of the certificate that we have received from the department
doing the work, and then the whole of those added together is appor-
tioned according to the benefit that the board of assessors may con-
sider each piece of property along the line of the improvement has
received; and as a matter, of course, if any attention will be given to
this matter, you will find that this is not a work that can be per-
functorily done; it is not a work either that a single individual can
attend to, because after the comparison then is made, after the assess-
ment-list has reached this point, then it has got to be compared with
the tax commissioners' maps and books in order to see that the board
has received from the surveyor or engineer who has supplied us with
these maps and assessment-list — in order to see that they have given
them to us correctly, because as I stated to you before, a single error
which occurs very often might invalidate the assessment against a
particular piece of property, because we will find that the surveyors
will make a mistake and instead of giving us what is known as the
ward number they will give us the assessment map number, which is
an entirely different thing, and they are distinguished by the colors,
as a matter, of course, of ink that is used; that has got to be com-
pared then by the board of assessors faithfully with the records that
are in the office of the tax commissioners; after that has been done
and the corrections made if any are necessary, then the work of
apportionment begins of distributing the amount of the total cost of
this work among the parcels of property that have been benefited
by the improvement; no doubt with your experience in examining the
tax-maps you may have noticed that the size of lots of ground in the
city of New York varies very materially. Some of them will be
rectangular in shape, some of them will be triangular in shape, and
in fact there is not a form known to geometry but what you will find
in the assessment-list and on the tax-maps here describing pieces of
property; therefore, it is necessary that not only one individual but
two or three individuals will say to themselves "how shall this and
that piece of property be assessed, having these particular forms;
what is the amount that that shall be assessed per foot front?"
No. 80.]
2465
Q. Do you think it requires a triangular board to assess a triangular
piece of property? A. It is a quadrangular board if, you please, and
I think that a quadrangular board under the law is better than a
triangular one, because we were a board of three at one time, and the
Legislature in its wisdom saw fit to make it four; the manner in which
the property is generally assessed for these improvements is accord-
ing to its foot frontage, and you will observe that it is very easy if
you meet with a lot or a rectangular piece of ground, a simple paral-
lelogram twenty-five by 100, to say that that shall be assessed twenty-
five foot front; but if you come to a piece that is of an entirely differ-
ent form, that will only have a frontage on the street say of three feet
and will run back and spread out prabably and be 150 feet in the rear,
it is not so easy.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Is it the mathematical calculation that is difficult or the question
of judgment? A. They are both difficult; it is a question of judgment
then.
Mr. IVINS.
Is not that done on a basis of calculation?
The WITNESS. — Undoubtedly, when we have established the benefit
that that particular piece of property has derived`per foot, then it is
put down as so much front foot that it has been benefited.
Q. The mathematical calculation is second; you first determine how
much it has been benefited and then you distribute that over the area?
A. Yes, sir; for instance, of that piece of property there with that
narrow frontage, supposing we say that that instead of being assessed
three feet, because of having a wide rear must be benefited more than
its narrow frontage, and I may consider that that is benefited five feet
front, my colleague may say "no, I think that ought to be seven feet
front," and the other may say "I think the benefit derived from that
improvement is much more than that; he might put up an elegant
large house on the rear of his property and he has got an opening
there; he has got an opening to put a sewer in; he has got an outlet
to his property and he has derived just as much benefit from that
improvement as the man who has twenty-five feet front, and I think
he ought to be assessed fifteen feet."
Q. It is a question then of good judgment? A. It is a question
of good judgment, and the law recognizes that the board of assess-
ors is a judicial body, and they must act as such, and that is where
the judgment of more than one person must come into play; now,
after that has been done, and the number of feet front that each par-
ticular piece of property has received, according to the judgment of
[Senate, No. 80.]
309
2466
[SENATE,
the whole of the board is determined, we make the apportionment and
then an assignment of that particular assessment-list is made to one
of the members of the board, because they all can not work on one
piece, and more particularly where there are fifty or sixty pieces in
the office, and where they are all officially engaged in doing the same
thing after this particular period in the history of the assessment has
been reached.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Why wouldn't it be a good plan to have a common law jury pass
upon these assessments? A. We have; that is where it came from;
in 1787 the board of assessors was a common law jury of five, selected
by the sheriff and reported to the mayor's court.
Q. A common law jury consists of not less than twelve? A. That
was the origin of the board of assessors down to 1843, when they
became a part of the street commissioners' office, and were known as
the bureau of assessors; then they were three after that from 1843
down to 1857; then they were in that condition as a bureau in the
street commissioners' office; then in 1857, and I strike the point then
that I believe has been struck here yesterday; in 1857 the Legislature
took away the board of assessors from the bureau of assessments and
put it into the tax office; it designated that, in the tax office, there
should be three deputy tax commissioners for the purpose of dis-
charging the duty that devolved upon the bureau of assessments and
street commissioners' office, and it added the three tax commissioners
by the by, also, making a board of six that in that tax office at that
time were to attend to the duties devolved upon the original board of
assessors; that was found to be incapable of working properly; the
assessments were delayed; they were not attended to; they were
rolling up; the city was losing interest all the time, and the con-
sequence was that in 1859 the Legislature abolished them, repealed
the act of 1857 and established the present board of assessors, and
they have been in existence ever since; then the apportionment is
made of the assessment in the manner in which I told you, each mem-
ber of the board assuming his share of the duty and making up his
assessment-list; and here I may say that the secretary, as a matter of
course, is performing the same duty when he is not attending to the
board and writing up the minutes of the board; that is the duty that
he attends to at other times.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Does each assessor go over and check off the work of each
other assessor? A. They are generally referred to the chairman
No. 80.]
2467
for that purpose, and there is no assessment that has been appor-
tioned until it has been assigned to the member of the board
in the manner in which I told you after the number of foot front-
age has been established; then the member of the board per-
forms this clerical duty of making the apportionment; there is a
certain number of feet, and it is so many dollars and cents per foot,
and he makes his calculations and carries out the figures on that
particular piece of property.
Q. Who checks the secretary's figures? A. Which figures?
Q. The calculation? A. The figures that he makes in the apportion-
ments that he makes?
Q. Yes. A. They generally will be referred to the chairman of the
board for that purpose.
Q. Do you actually go back and check off his figuring? A. I do to
a very great extent.
Q. Suppose Mr. Haverty or Mr. Cahill, either of them were to be
working on the apportionment of an assessment and had completed
their work, would Mr. Wendt take up Mr. Haverty's work and go over
it or would Mr. Cahill take up Mr. Haverty's work and go over it or
would Mr. Haverty take up Mr. Wendt's work and go over it? A.
No, sir; it wouldn't go down to that particular form; either the sec-
retary would check off the work or I would check it off to see that it
is correct.
Q. And if neither you nor the secretary found any fault with it or
complained of it then it would be formally passed by the board
without any further discussion? A. No, sir; not yet if you please;
after this has been done then under the law we are required to adver-
tise it for thirty days in the City Record; that is the form of the adver-
tisement [producing paper]; here are some thirty-five or forty lists or
more advertised.
Mr IVINS.— The witness refers to lists advertised in the City Record.
on September 17, 1890, at page 3,111.
The WITNESS— After this apportionment has been made it is then
directed to be advertised in the City Record and is advertised for ten
days in the City Record at least; the law requires it to be advertised
ten days; sometimes if we have spare room we will put it in for
twenty or thirty days; but we must hold it after the apportion-
ment is made for thirty days, for the examination of all the citizens
who may be interested in the improvements.
Q. And after they have examined it what happens? A. They are
required, if they so desire, to make objections to the assessment, and
they are required to send it in to the chairman of the board their
2468
'
[SENATE,
objections in writing; after the lapse of thirty days then the assess-
ments that have been advertised are taken up at the subsequent
meeting of the board at the expiration of the thirty days,and if there
are any which there are no objections to they as a matter, of course,
are passed by the board and transmitted to the comptroller or to the
board of revision and correction of assessments for confirmation;
those that have objections to them the objectors appear if they so
desire and orally specify what their particular objections are and
they have a hearing and after they have had their hearing the
board considers whether there objections are valid or not; if they
consider them to be valid they immediately revise their assessment,
readvertise it and hold it again for thirty days longer.
Q. Then they sometimes revise the revision? A. Sometimes there
be
may a necessity to revise the revision, but very seldom is that the
case; without a new objector appears there is seldom if ever more
than one revision on the same objection; but after it has been adver-
tised the second time a new objector may appear, and as a matter, of
course, he must have his hearing and his day in court as well as any-
body else; and if his objections be deemed to be valid by the board,
as a matter of course they would be in duty bound to correct their
assessment from the light that they would receive from the objection
that he would make.
Q. And in the meantime the city is losing interest? A. In the
meantime the city would be losing interest after the sixty days that
the comptroller dated his certificate, after that date the city would be.
losing interest.
Q. Let us go right back to that certificate on that point; when
that certificate is filed showing the cost of the work and supplemented
by the certificate showing the interest to date, that is the final amount
that is to be levied on this property, is it not? A. That is the final
amount.
Q. And that amount is never increased? A. It can not be.
Q. What was the amount in round figures covered by the Brook
avenue sewer assessment? A. About seven hundred thousand and
odd dollars.
Q. How long did that lie in your office? A. From the last time it was
received in the office, I think, it must have lain in the office after that
two years.
Q. Two years on the last occasion? A. Yes.
Q. Now, prior to that on the first occasion how long had it been
there? A. There is quite a history attached to the Brook avenue
sewer.
No. 80.]
2469
*
Q. Do you remember the date of the certificate of cost of the Brook
avenue sewer? A. To the best of my recollection I think it must be
1883; the Brook avenue sewer assessment-list was first received by the
board of assessors at a time when the Legislature had ordered and
required the department of parks to make new maps for the twenty-
third and twenty-fourth wards; they had proceeded in the discharge
of that duty to a considerable extent; the consequence of their so
doing was that when the Brook avenue sewer assessment-list was in
the office of the board of assessors they had sent with that assessment-
list maps that did not correspond with the maps that were in the tax
commissioner's office.
Q. Whose fault was that? A. The department of parks.
Q. Now, let us get that date if possible; is this correct at page 152
of the last report of the tax commissioners in the report of 1890
"received from the department of public parks No. 2330, Brook avenue
from tide water to a point on One Hundred and Sixty-fifth street
sewer, received June 17, 1886 " — is that the second time or the first
time? A. Which is this?
Q. This is the Brook avenue sewer; is that date June 17, 1886, the
first or second time? A. I think that is the last time.
Q. Hadn't it been in the office four or five years prior to that date?
A. I was about to explain to you that in consequence of the descrip-
tion of the pieces of property being the old village numbers - the
twenty-third and twenty-fourth wards are made up of half a dozen
old villages, and there were no other maps extant excepting the maps
that were filed at White Plains, and which the tax commissioners had
copies of here that they were using, and the department of parks, the
engineers of the department of parks were compelled to use those old
village numbers to describe the pieces of property; when it came
down to the office of the board of assessors, the tax commissioners had
always proceeded, to a certain extent, in giving new members to the
property in the twenty-third ward; consequently when we attempted
to compare the maps of the Brook avenue sewer with the maps in the
tax commissioner's office, they didn't compare at all, because they
were entirely different numbers; therefore we couldn't receive an
assessment list in that condition; we transmitted it back to the
department of parks, stating that they would have to make this
correction; the department of parks received it, and when they felt
inclined, they informed the board of assessors that they had no money
for the purpose of correcting those maps, and they held it for a long
time.
1,
[SENATE,
2170
Q. A year? A. I presume that they did; I am now giving you a
part of the history of the office previous to my incumbency; previous
to my time.
Q. You went in 1885? A. Yes, sir; and finally they sent the Brook
avenue sewer assessment-list—it was in two volumes- they sent it
down to the office, and they sent it down partially corrected, and only
partially corrected, so much so that finally, in order to get it out of the
office, I had to discharge this duty that I am just informing you about,
having had to attend to it personally, and go over and insert on the
maps that had been provided by the department of parks, the ward
and block numbers of the pieces of property that were included in
the assessment list.
Q. Now, first and last, this Brook avenue sewer assessment has been
following around from pillar to post, from department to department,
for about ten years, hasn't it? A. Seven years, I think.
Q. For seven years? A. I think that the certificate was signed by
the department of parks in 1883.
Mr. IVINS. Well, I call the attention of the committee to this fact,
the total amount of the assessment was $441,000. The witness says
that that has been now delayed for seven years.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Is it just completed? A. It was confirmed, I think, about three
months ago; we received it in 1886.
Mr. IvINS.— At a five per cent interest rate alone, that shows a loss
to the city because of the failure to have got that assessment levied,
of $154,000 in one item.
Senator FASSETT.-One-seventh of the cost of the sewer?
Mr. IVINS.— Oh, no; that is much more than one-quarter of the cost
of the sewer. The loss in interest alone, is much more than one-
quarter of the cost of the sewer.
The WITNESS.—That was caused principally by the objections that
were made to the work by the property owners and certain lawyers
on their behalf. We transmitted that assessment-list to the board of
revision I think at least three times.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Can you suggest any means whereby the recurrence of that sort
of thing can be prevented and the city not lit out of its money, be-
cause, as a matter of fact, the city has spent the money and it seeks to
recover the money so spent from the property owners benefited? A.
The city has spent the money, but you understand that the principal
No. 80.]
2471
cause of the whole of this delay was simply in consequence of the
disarranged condition of the tax commissioners' books?
Q. In the first instance? A. Yes.
Q. But not since 1886? A. Not since 1886.
Q. Consequently, we have got four years since 1886? A. Excuse
me—yes, since 1886.
Q. Why? A. They were continuing the making of those maps, and
the consequence is that as they continued to make the maps and filed
their maps in their office, just so were there changes being made in
the assessment-list, because this improvement extended from the
Harlem river to a place known as Gun Hill Road, nearly to the
northern boundary line of the twenty-fourth ward, and it took in the
whole of the center of the new territory of the twenty-third and
twenty-fourth wards; therefore constant changes had to be made as
they were examined from time to time in the tax office, and we found
that these changes had to be made and these new maps filed, and
that alterations and changes had to be made in the assessment-lists
and had to be made on the diagram accompanying the assessment-
list; why it was a work of enormous magnitude; you ought to have it
here before you, the volume of maps alone is thicker than this book
here and the assessment-list is two volumes.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Those had to be made expressly for this one business? A.
Yes; and then again the difficulty was that they were made on so
small a scale, the territory being so extensive, the territory over which
this improvement extended, the engineer drawing the maps for the
assessment-list drew them on an exceedingly small scale so that there
was hardly a change to make any entries on it.
Q. Do you know how many more years it has taken to get this
assessment levied than it took to lay out the work and execute the
sewer? A. No, sir; I am not aware of that.
Q. Hasn't it taken quite as long, if not longer, to get the assessment
levied, than it took to construct the sewer? A. Well, I have no doubt
that is the case; but a great deal of the trouble is the fault of the
park department.
Q. I am not imputing the fault to your department; the history of
it began long prior to your incumbency? A. I understand.
Q. Don't get the notion, Mr. Gilon, that I am making any attack
upon you in the premises? A. Oh, I know that; but I am only trying
to give you the history of the thing and show you where the fault lies.
Q. Now, what is the present condition of it? A It is confirmed.
2472
[SENATE,
Senator FASSETT.— Three months ago, he said?
+
The WITNESS.
Yes, sir; it was confirmed three months ago, about.
Senator FASSETT.- By what court?
Q. It was hurried up a little after this committee called attention
to it in March, wasn't it? A. No; there was no hurrying up to it at
all; for example, it was required to go through a certain formula; we
sent it to the board of revision three times, with a mass of objections.
that was more than a foot square, and all those objectors appeared
before the board of revision from time to time, and in many instances
the board of revision-the principal objection that the objectors
made to it before the board of revision, was that the maps of the
thing did not correspond; we would take and make our apportion-
ment; we would revise our maps, and revise our list and hold it for
thirty days; after the thirty days we would transmit it to the board
of revision; then these people would appear before the board of
revision, and their principal objection would be that the maps accom-
panying the list were not correct.
Q. Who constituted that board of revision? A. The comptroller,
the recorder and the corporation counsel.
Q. That is the board of which Mr. James Martin, now president of
the police board, was for a long time secretary? A. No, sir; that was
another board that is out of existence now; that was the assessment
commission; the assessment commission was established by the
Legislature in 1881, for the purpose of taking all the old assessment-
lists that were laying in the office of the comptroller, and upon which
moneys could not be collected, in consequence of defects therein; and
they appealed to the Legislature, and the Legislature passed the act
in 1880, giving authority to this assessment commission, which was
composed then of the mayor, the comptroller, the president of the
board of alderman, and two citizens.
Q. Which two citizens were Mr. Lord, and some one else? A. Yes,
sir; they were appointed, and they were expected to get through with
their labors in one year; the law under which they were created gave
them one year to perform this duty, and they were six years in
existence; they had to go every year to the Legislature to get their
time extended.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Because there was so much work to do, or because they were so
slow in doing it? A. Well, I don't know; they had considerable to
do; they had nothing to do but to hear these objectors; when you
come to add to the fact that the board of assessors have to make the
No. 80.1
2473
assessments and to compare them with these maps, why you can
readily see what a great deal more work we have to perform.
By Mr. IVINS:
1
Q. Are you willing to have your work as done by the board of
assessors now compared and measured up by the work of that now
defunct commission, taking the latter as a standard? A. Why, my
dear Mr. Ivins, there isn't a comparison to the amount of work done
by myself and it.
Q. I grant you that? A. I have only given you a very short sketch
of what the board of assessors have done; you must not imagine
that their work is confined solely to raising the assessment-lists from
the department lists, and then making this apportionment, though
that of itself is considerable labor.
Q. Now, Colonel A. [Interrupting] Mr. Ivins, I beg your par-
don; if you want to get at the history of this, let me continue.
Q. But isn't it a fact that this old board dragged along six years
simply because it did its work with phenomenal slowness; had only
occasional meetings, and sought extension after extension after its
term of office had expired? A. That commission was not appointed
to act upon assessments then coming in, you understand; only the old
assessments that had been standing.
Q. Well, let us get rid of that, then; we don't want any more about
that.
Senator FASSETT.—That board is dead; we can not reform them any,
even if we would.
Q. Now, I want to ask you about some other assessments, specific-
ally? A. If you will turn to the Consolidation Act, section 890, you
will see where the duty devolves upon the board of assessors when
they require the regulating and grading of a street-wherever a
change of the grade takes place you will see that the duty then
devolves upon the board of assessors to make an award for damages
to any improved property or unimproved property
Q. [Interposing.] Do you think your fellow assessors realize what
hard worked men they are? A. Well, I presume they do; I am
endeavoring, Mr. Ivins, to relieve you of probably an idea that you
may entertain that the board of assessors do not discharge any duty;
I say to you, sir, here emphatically that there is not a class of offi-
cials in the city of New York that do more work and at less expense to
the city of New York than the board of assessors.
Q. It is not fair to presume anything about the contents of my
mind, I assure you.
[Senate, No. 80.]
310
2471
[SENATE,
>
Senator FASSETT.-I suppose the witness thinks it is always wise to
rebut any presumption.
#
The WITNESS.— Now, the present board took office on the 1st of July,
1885; we found 200 assessment-lists then in the hands of the board.
Q. Now, let us stop there a moment? A. One minute, if you please.
Q. Let us take some of those 200 assessment-lists? A. Let me go
on and tell you what I wish to convey to you, and then you can ques-
tion me just as much as you please; we found on hand then 200
assessment-lists; there were received in 1886, sixty-two; in 1887, 314;
in 1888, 244; in 1889, 224; in 1890, up to the present date, 248.
Senator FASSETT.—A mere number of lists isn't a good criterion, is it?
The WITNESS.- The amount of all those assessment-lists that have
been apportioned and acted upon by the board of assessors during
that time was $11,834,239.18; that has cost the city of New York for
the support of the board of assessors the sum of $14,800 a year-
say $15,000 in round numbers—making $90,000, if this was a com-
plete year, which it is not until the 1st of July, 1891; but we will say
for the sake of the argument that it would just cost four mills on the
dollar, the expense that the board of assessors has been in confirming
those assessment-lists; I wish to state also that if you take the pre-
vious six years, from 1879 to 1884, you will find that the amount of the
assessment then confirmed was, $5,311,000 —
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. [Interposing.] Does it take longer to determine a five million
dollar matter than it does a five hundred thousand dollar matter? A.
Yes, sir; because, you understand, here is the labor; here are a great
number of pieces of property.
- at
Q. Supposing the $5,000,000 matter only involved ten pieces of
property? A. Well, that can not occur in an assessment-list
least, it doesn't.
Mr. IVINS.— This paper that you have referred to, I will have marked
in evidence.
[The paper referred to by the witness is marked Exhibit 3, and
appears at the end of this day's proceedings.]
The WITNESS.—Now, after we have made this apportionment, and
acted upon it, we transmit it then to a board known as the board of
revision of correction and assessment, composed of the comptroller,
the recorder and the corporation counsel. They have authority under
the law to confirm the assessments, or send it back to the board of
assessors for revision.
No. 80.]
2475
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Is that the board that financially confirms it? A. Yes, sir; then
it becomes a lien upon property; they have the power to send it back
to us for revision when they hear the objectors that appear before
them.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You say that you have assessed $11,834,239.18 in six years,
appearing in this statement? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you say that that has cost $14,800 a year? A. Yes, sir; in
round numbers, $15,000.
Q. Some of these have been long jobs, haven't they? A. Yes, sir;
we found some in the office that had been in the office a long time;
there was one or two, or perhaps more, that probably were in the
office ten years.
Q. That $11,834,239.18 stands virtually for advances made by the
city to the property owners, who are ultimately to pay the assess-
ments, and out of which advances the city lies until the assessment is
collected? A. Well, formerly
Q. Never mind that; please stick to the question.
Senator FASSETT.-Yes; just answer that question.
The WITNESS.—Some of those old assessment lists might have
accrued under the law where the contractor paid interest — under the
ordinance of the common council.
Q. But that was long before this six years? A. Yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT.-Well, barring those.
The WITNESS.-Barring those; yes, sir.
Q. Can you tell us what it has cost the city by way of loss of inter-
est on this $11,844,239.18 because in the delays of the performance of
the work; have you figured that; you have figured very carefully
what it has cost for salaries, but have you figured what it has cost by
way of delay; we found one item of cost of $154,000, by way of delay,
on one sewer alone? A. With the exception of those old assessments
there was no delay and very little loss to the city in the way of
interest.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Then, your answer to Mr. Ivins' question is that you have never esti-
mated what the city was out? A. Yes, sir; but it is the prime object of
the board of assessors to make their assessments as levied get into
the hands of the board of revision for confirmation as soon as possible,
and if the board of revision will act upon it immediately, then, as a
matter of course, there is no interest lies out.
2476
[SENATE,
Q. Let us take some cases; the assessment for One Hundred and
Forty-third and One Hundred and Fifty-fifth street, between Eighth
and Ninth avenues, for filling in sunken lots, was received by your
board on the 24th of June, 1884; it was still in the hands of your
board on the 1st of August, 1889? A. That was another one of those
cases.
Q. That is five years; what has been done with that; tell us first
what has been done with it, and then tell us why it hung from 1884
until some date between 1889 and the present? A. That assessment-
list was acted upon in its order just as rapidly as the board could act
upon it; objections were filed in relation to the matter; we trans-
mitted it to the board of revision, and the board of revision, I think,
on the strength of the objections made before that board, they
returned it to the board of assessors, and, I believe, as many as three
times; it was one of the most difficult things which we had, was to
get that assessment-list finally through the board of revision and.
collection of assessments.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. You have not got it through yet, have you? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Has it been confirmed? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was it confirmed? A. I think it must be within a year.
Q. Within a year? A. I think so.
Q. But it was pending for over five years, a total amount of assess-
ment of $73,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the loss to the city was over $18,000 on a five per cent rate;
that is, the city lost over one-quarter by loss in interest of the actual
cost of that work through the delays incident to the collection of the
assessments? A. Yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT.
responsibility here.
There seems to be a round of Round Robin of
Mr. IVINS.- We have got to find out how to get this work done a
little more promptly and quickly.
Q. Courtlandt avenue, from Third avenue to East One Hundred and
Fifty-sixth street, grading, etc.; that came into your office on the 9th
of March, 1885, and it was still in your office on the 1st of August,
1889; that involved only $6,703; why did a small item of that kind
lay there five years? A. Does that statement also show you the
number of times it was transmitted to the board of revision?
Q. The statement shows-your quarterly report, that your board
presented to the comptroller for his interest certificate, March 13,
1885; that it was returned by the comptroller three days later; that
No. 80.]
2477
the comptroller's certificate was dated the seventeenth, this being
returned by the comptroller to you on the eighteenth but it was not
advertised until December 31, 1888, in other words, there was a period
of over three years between the time that you got the comptroller's
certificate and the time it was advertised; that then it was readvertised
on April 11, 1889, showing evidently that it only had been to the
board once; and it was for the gross sum of $6,703; but that was
pending for over five years; now, why was it; that is not a vast
volume of work; it is not in two books? A. No; it is not.
Senator FASSETT. Were the maps troublesome there?
The WITNESS. The principal cause of that delay was in consequence
of an award for damages that was required in consequence of the
change of the grade of the street; the property owners claim that they
were damaged to a certain extent; the board of assessors upon exami-
nation of the street examination of the working profiles that were
by the engineers before they proceeded with the work- didn't lead
the board of assessors to think precisely that the damages amounted
to the amount that the property owners themselves claimed; we have
a very indefatigable set of workers in the interests of property owners
in this city connected with assessments here known as assessment
lawyers; they grasp at all these subjects with avidity.
Q. Was there litigation in that matter? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who defended the case? A. The corporation counsel; Le is the
one that gives us all advice under the circumstances, and under his
advice.
Q. [Interposing.] Do assessment lawyers bring actions to set aside.
assessments before the assessment is laid or levied? A. No, sir; but
they, bring forward their obje ctions and present them to the board
and in many instances they apply to the courts and obtain writs of
certiorari and mandamus.
Q. Did they in this case? A. I do not remember.
Q. Where they did obtain writs of certiorari you in making your
report are careful to put that in? We may possibly have done it.
Q. If I find in certain cases that you have put in that writs of certiorari
have been obtained and in others cases you have not put them in,
the presumption is that there have been no such writs? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then, how did the lawyers come into this thing, if there were no
writs of certiorari; there could have been no action to set aside the
assessment; therefore where did the lawyers come in? A. Well, there
are several lawers that make it their sole business to watch all assess-
ment-lists that are advertised by the board of assessors, and, whether
they can make any money out of it or not, they appeal to the property
2478
[SENATE,
•
owners that they are being wronged by this assessment being levied
upon them.
Q. Suppose the lawyer does not get any process of court, suppose
he doesn't get his writ of certiorari how can he delay you in your
work? A. When we transmit it and overrule the objections that he
will offer on behalf of the property owners he then again appears, and,
by the exercise of his argument before the board of revision, he will
possibly have the assessment-list transmitted back again to the board
of assessors for further consideration.
<
Q. In that particular case, do you think the fault was on the board
of revision? A. I believe that that assessment-list was also transmitted
to the board of revision several times.
Q. Have you any records in your department which will show how
long the board of revision held that case? A. The records are
deposited with the assessment-list in the comptroller's office, and all
documents are there, and you will find a mass of them, with the
applications and computations for awards for damages from all those
parties along the line of the improvement; and you will again observe
them elaborated; that would require some little time, to examine into
a great number of claims for awards for damages, where with every
particular piece of property they make applications for an award; that
has to be examined critically by the board, and their judgment exer-
cised as to the interest of the improvement to bring a house up to
the new grade as established, etc.; some we will find sunk down six
or eight or ten feet, and in some instances twenty feet; and in some
cases we will find them perched away up on a hill.
Q. Yes; I am beginning to realize that it is a very serious and diffi-
cult tax? A. I hope you will; it is about time that you, as well as
some other citizens, realize that fact.
Q. Let us take the case of the regulating and grading from Clement
street, from Boston road to the Bronx river? A. That is another
instance of the same character.
Q. And, although that is only a small one of $10,000, it has been
knocking around for over three years? A. That was transmitted to
the board of revision two or three times and sent back again.
Q. Why didn't you show that in your report? A. We confine our
tabulated statements to as few figures as possible, otherwise the tax
commissioner would have to print a large book.
Q. Would that do any harm? A. It would be an additional cost to
the city, and they couldn't afford, it perhaps.
Senator FASSETT.- Would that be more cost than the interest costs?
Q. Don't you think a little more complete and full publicity in these
matters would be a desirable thing for the city? A. It might be.
No. 80.]
2479
Q. How many people in the city of New York, outside of those
interested, ever heard or dreamed of such a thing as that the city was
losing $144,000 in interest account? A. That matter was brought to
the attention of the board of revision very many times.
Q. Now, take the A. [Interrupting.] They lose more than that;
there is something there that you didn't know anything at all about.
Q. If there is, tell me; that is what you are here for; tell me now?
A. If you want a little more about the Brook avenue sewer?
Q. I do; tell me some more about it? A. The great fight that the
assessment lawyers made in relation to the Brook avenue sewer was on
the interest account — the large interest account, as shown by the cer-
tificate obtained from the comptroller; they claimed that in conse-
quence of the delay in the matter that that interest should not accrue
against them to the extent that it appeared upon the certificate; they
advocated their claim so strongly before the board of revision that the
matter was referred to the corporation counsel for his opinion; the
corporation counsel took the matter into consideration for some time,
and there is where some of the delay in this matter can be accounted for.´
Q. Who was the corporation counsel at that time? A. Mr. Henry
R. Beekman.
Q. What years was that; wasn't that in the corporation counsel's
office in Mr. Whitney's term? A. No, sir.
Q. Wasn't it there in Mr. Lacombe's term? A. No, sir.
Q. It was there in Morgan J. O'Brien's term? A. No, sir; I merely
say that the matter was referred to the corporation counsel — this
question of interest — and he made his report to the board of revision,
and recommended a deduction of fifteen per cent of the total cost of
the work in consequence in the interest certificate being so large.
Q. Did he recommend that in spite of the fact that the city had lost
interest for over six years on $441,000? A. Yes, sir; and in spite of
the fact that the Consolidation Act says plainly and emphatically, that
the whole amount of that certificate shall be embodied in the assess-
ment and levied upon the property.
Q. What corporation counsel was that - Corporation Counsel Clark?
A. No, sir; Mr. Beekman.
Q. That was his recommendation? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When do you say that recommendation was made to reduce fifteen
per cent? A. It is on file; you will find the papers all there, in the
comptroller's office.
Q. Now, is there anything more about the Brook Avenue sewer?
A. No, sir; that is all, excepting that the delays were not the fault of
the board of assessers, but you will find-
- 2480
[SENATE,
!
Q. [Interposing.] I didn't say they were? A. Originally the fault
lay with the department of parks in the imperfect form in which they
sent the work to the board.
Q. If you were to fall between two stools, would it make much
difference to you which stool it was? A. No, sir; but in consequence
of the stools sliding apart and I falling down I might hurt myself.
Senator FASSETT. That is what is the matter with the city of New
York. Mr. Ivins, are you pretty nearly through with that list? If not,
we will take this up. in, the morning,
Mr. IVINS. I think we shall have to have our accountant make up
a careful statement of the loss of interest to the city on this general
account of eleven millions of dollars that has been levied during the
last six years. We have got to take them up in detail before we do it.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Mr. Gilon, you think that Mr. Coleman didn't understand the
amount of work done in your office, when he said that he thought one
man was sufficient to do it? A. He did not.
Q. You four men are there every working day in the year, between
9 and 4 o'clock, are you? A. Yes, sir; I never have taken a vacation
in five years; I have been in the office every day that I was well.
Q. Have all of the commissioners been there every day that you
were well? A. Nearly all of them very nearly every day, excepting
when they have taken their vacations.
-
Q. From 9 o'clock until 4 every day? A. Yes sir; the majority of
them.
Q. The majority of them have been there the majority of days, from
9 o'clock to 4 o'clock, engaged in business of the office? A. They
may not have been there during the whole of the hours from 9 till 4,
because a great deal of the time is taken up in visiting the lines of the
improvements affected by these assessments.
Q. You regard yourself as a pretty hard-worked official? A. I do, sir.
Adjourned until to-morrow, October 22, 1890, at half-past 10
o'clock.
EXHIBIT 1 — OCTOBER 21, 1890.
PERSONAL TAXES.
Personal taxes charged off to deficiencies in taxes; July 1, 1882;
taxes of year:
1852...
1853...
$51,500 37
87,067 82
No. 80.]
2481
1854...
1855..
$136,574 69
178,732. 89
1856...
1857...
1858...
1859..
1660..
1861...
294,725 41
297,880 43
151,351 49
142,707 86
145,447 82
148,681 56
$1,634,670 34
January 31, 1888:
1862..
$360,663 20
1863..
148,269 82
1864.
152,256 86
1865...
348,161 73
1866...
330,021 11
1867..
571,498 15
1868...
890,288 41
1869.
645,075 88
1870...
908,667 66
1871.
1,056,792 14
5,411,694 97
Total..
$7,046,365 31
PERSONAL TAXES UNCOLLECTED OCTOBER 1890.
For year 1872
$1,217,173 82
For year 1873
1,058,826 61
For year 1874
For year 1875 .
For year 1876
For year 1877 ..
For year 1878 ...
For year 1879
For year 1880
For year 1881 ..
For year 1882.
For year 1883
386,058 89
273,636 90
248,726 12
203,246 77
238,960 73
187,145 59
241,367 48
238,286 73
173,439 20
91,176 27
For year 1884
94,769 81
For year 1885 .
121,273 61
For year 1886 .
130,177 51
[Senate, No. 80.]
311
2482
[SENATE,
For year 1887
For year 1888 .
$159,233 01
164,137 88
279,103 16
For year 1889
Total...
$6,306,790 09
NEW YORK, October 21, 1890.
J. C. BARRETT,
General Bookkeeper.
EXHIBIT No. 2 — OCTOBER 21, 1890.
Assessments account street improvement funds.
Vacated year 1880..
$739,301 66
Vacated year 1881..
957,557 69
Vacated year 1882.
890,150 26
Vacated year 1883.
256,324 44
Vacated year 1884..
261,010 42
Vacated year 1885..
166,270 88°
Vacated year 1886..
544,451 09
Vacated year 1887..
261,687 20
Vacated year 1888...
28,941 65
Vacated year 1889..
16,084 47
Total vacates...
$4,121,779 76
Assessments confirmed.
1880....
1881
1882.
1883
1884..
1885.
1886
1887
1888..
1889.
$290,042 69
696,307 95
700,187 76
833,618 82
726,559 98
971,709 91
2,161,023 40
1,525,728 52
2,108,986 68
1,767,993 50
Total confirmed……..
$12,782,159 21
NEW YORK, October 21, 1890.
J. B. BARRETT,
General Bookkeeper.
No. 80.]
2483
}
EXHIBIT 3 OCTOBER 21, 1890.
OFFICE BOARD OF Assessors,
No. 27 CHAMBERS STREET,
NEW YORK, Octover 17, 1890.
YEAR.
Number
of assess-
ment lists.
Total amounts as
presented
for confirmation.
1879
67
$750,981 34
Edward Gilon, assessor
$3,000
1880
69
1881
114
1,575,699 25
544,075 04
P. M. Haverty, assessor
3,000
Chas. E. Wendt, assessor
3,000
1882
134
1,130,559 79
Edward Cahill, assessor
3,000
1883
110
666,062 06
Wm. H. Jasper, sec:
2,800
1884
133
633,675 26
1885
115
2,914,986 22
$14,800
1886
129
1,775,935 37
$531,052.74.
1887
191
1,437,030 28
1888
233
2,389,248 38
1889
289
1,750,464 38
1890 to October 15.
185
1,566,577 55 | LL, $834, 239.18.
M
į
2484
[SENATE,
Present Senator Fassett.
NEW YORK, October 22, 1890.
MICHAEL COLEMAN, recalled, testified as follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Mr. Coleman, when the register was on the stand he was asked
what was the occasion of the delay in making the preparation neces-
sary for the introduction of the new block system of registration on
the first of January next, and he said it was the duty of the tax
department to supply him with maps; that those maps had not been.
supplied, and, as I now recollect it, that the delay was incident to the
friction between his office and your office, because of your failure to
supply the maps; will you please state what has occurred? A. There
was no friction between the two departments, but it appears when
we advertised for the contract of that work we had estimated that
the contract price to furnish those maps would be about $8,000, and
we invited all the parties in New York to compete for the work, that
was in that business in New York, and we only got three bids;
one from Martin B. Brown, and one from the party who has made up
the maps-
what's his name - Robinson, and one from Sohmer
Manufacturing Lithograph Company, and we were obliged to take and
award it to Sohmer because he was the lowest; before he had signed
the contract I warned him that his bid was far below what we
thought it would cost to do the work as we wished it done, and to
give us the material as it was called for, and recommended to him,
rather than to go ahead, he had better take and forfeit the money he
put up than to lose a large amount afterwards, as we would insist
upon having the work done according to the contract; he has several
times previous to this last month back, offered us sheets which we
were obliged to reject, and the consequence is that the work has been
delayed, because he didn't suppose that we would demand the fine
work that was called for and necessary for that purpose; we felt
alarmed about the manner in which he was performing his work, and
thinking that the time was going by, and only having a few sheets
instead of the many that we thought we would have by the first of
October, we kept returning them, and as we got sheets then we felt
as if we were bound to notify the register that we had better work
together, and that is the letter that I sent to the register, or Mr. Bell.
[Presenting letter book to counsel.]
Senator FASSETT.-Mr. Bell sent to him.
The WITNESS.-Yes.
Mr. IVINS." September 10th, 1890. Frank T. Fitzgerald, register,
New York city. Dear Sir.-The department of taxes and assessments
No. 80.]
2485
has so far progressed in the block index maps, in pursuance of chap
ter 349, Laws of 1889, that the block outlines and numbers may be
traced from the original maps in our office. Such outlines and
number will be a necessity for you in the preparation of your index
books, and this is to notify you that you can have access to our maps
for that purpose. The lithographed maps will not be ready before
about November the first, which might not allow you time enough to
make up your books. We, therefore, offer you the opportunity to
copy from the originals at present in our office. Very respectfully,
commissioners of taxes and assessments, per Frank J. Bell, chief
deputy."
Q. Now, Mr. Coleman, in short, then we understand that inasmuch
as the complete lithographed maps will not be ready before November
first, and inasmuch as that delay, in case the register waited until
then, might occasion delay in the introduction of the system, you have
got maps of such character that the block outlines and numbers may
be traced? A. Well, up to the present time we have partly, a part of
the entire system; at the same time-
Q. You have part of it complete? A. Yes; part of it complete; well,
no; it is not bound or anything of that kind but the sheets are
complete.
Q. Complete maps? A. Yes; complete maps.
Q. And all that is necessary for the register to do under the cir-
cumstances is to go into your office and take off these numbers? A.
Those index numbers.
Q. And if the register does that A. He can go ahead.
Q. He can go ahead and the system will be ready for use on the
first of January? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, are you required to do that or is the register required to
do that, and if it be not done, whose fault is it? A. Under the law we
are obliged to take and file maps with the register, but on account of
the non-completion of the work there is a letter there I want you
to read so as to show that we are following the matter up with Sohmer.
Q. Just finish what you were going to say and I will read it. A.
We thought it would be more pleasant to work together and for that
reason we notified the register so that we could give him all the facili-
ties and assist him in getting up his work so as to be ready on the
first of January.
Mr. IVINS.-- The letter referred to by the witness as having been
addressed to the Sohmer Lithographing Company and, Printing
Company is dated October sixteenth. "Gentlemen.- The contract
awarded to you for the maps for the block index system, under con-
2486
[SENATE,
tract dated June twenty-first, will expire October twenty-first; you were
warned previous to signing the contract that your bids for doing the
work were below our estimate, and also informed that no work of any
inferior character would be accepted either as to the workmanship or
material to be used; as the law is mandatory upon us to have the work
done in time so as to file the same with the register to allow time to
complete his books before the first of January, I hereby notify you
that if the work is not finished at the expiration of the contract I will
inform the mayor of our situation and direct the work to be done by
outside parties, if possible, charging you for the difference between
the contract price and the cost of doing the work; you have tried
several times during the interval to force upon this department inferior
work and material, and each time when the work was rejected you
were informed that nothing except what was called for in the contract
would be accepted; as you are now engaged in competing for corpora-
tion work, it would be well for you to understand that this is a serious
matter to you as well as to ourselves; it would be well for you, if you
find it impossible to finish the work on or before the expiration of the
contract in your own establishment, to employ other parties capable
of doing the work, so as to relieve this department of the responsi-
bility of having the work delayed. Yours, Michael Coleman."
Mr. IVINS. That is all, Mr. Coleman.
-
EDWARD GILON, recalled, testified as follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Mr. Gilon, the assessment-lists for regulating, grading, curbing,
flagging and crosswalking Westchester avenue, from North Third
avenue to Prospect avenue, were received in your office on the 15th
of August, 1887; they were still in your office on August 1, 1889;
the total assessment was $52,022, and the number of pieces of prop-
erty assessed was 171; when did those papers go out of your office
and when were the assessments completed? A. They went out that
assessment-list went out of our office, It think, twice to the board of
revision, and has been returned to us and is still in the office; under
the direction of the board of revision, acting upon the advice of the
corporation counsel; their action was based upon objections that had
been raised to the assessment-list, some of the objectors claiming that
their property was assessed to a greater extent, according to their
frontage and area, than the property immediately opposite to them
on the road; the board could not grant them any relief in the matter
for the reason that the law provides for a certain way and manner in
which the board of assessors shall lévy their assessment upon pieces
No. 80.1
2487
of property; as I stated yesterday, they will compare them with the
tax maps, and they will use no other ward or block numbers, or any
other designation for the various plots of ground affected by an assess-
ment than that which they find upon those maps; on the one side of
the street the lots were subdivided into small tracts, generally
twenty-five by 100; on the opposite side of the street they were part
of an estate owned by one party, and were, therefore, in plots equal
to the size of the whole block; that is to say, they were in one plot
only, being divided by the streets that surrounded the plot; in examin-
ing the maps we found that the valuations - and this brings me to
refer to an act of 1840, in which we are confined in assessing property
to one-half the taxed valuation as we find it upon the tax books; the
valuation of the small plots that was on one side of the street, com-
pared with the valuation of the large plot on the other side of the
street, required us to only assess one-half the taxed valuation upon
the small plots, the rest, the difference between that and the equitable
amount levied upon each, was charged to the mayor, aldermen and
commonalty of the city of New York; the large plot being assessed
for the valuation, that gave the board an opportunity to put the full
amount of the cost per foot upon that; it was done so; those people
complained that they should have been treated in the same manner
as the people on the opposite side of the way, and carried their case
to the board of revision; the board of revision referred it back to
the board of assessors for the purpose of seeing what could be done
in relation to the matter, and referred the case to the corporation
counsel for his opinion; the corporation counsel held that matter in
abeyance for a long while; I presume for nearly eight or nine months;
probably more; and rendered his decision about three or four months
ago three months ago, probably in which he stated that
the assessment list should be referred back to the board of
assessors, in order to give these people an opportunity to have
their property subdivided by the tax commissioners, in order
that they might be arranged according to the property on the other
side of the way; it was so returned to the board of assessors; appli-
cations were made by these parties to the tax commissioners for the
purpose of having their property subdivided, and they have not yet
succeeded in doing so.
Q. The assessment lists for paving Madison avenue from One
Hundred and Twentieth to One Hundred and Twenty-first street,
aggregating $4,339, were received in your office on the second of
July; how long were they pending? A. That I think is still in the
office or else in the hands of the corporation counsel; it is one of the
{
2488.
[SENATE,
cases where a surface railroad runs through the street— is that a
paving case, Mr. Ivins?
Q. It is a paving case? A. The lawyers for the objectors to the
improvement claim
Senator FASSETT.— Can't we get at this without going into all the
details, Mr. Gilon ?
The WITNESS.—No, sir; you can ǹot.
Mr. IvINS.—— I do not want Mr. Gilon to go into the history of the
litigations in these cases.
The WITNESS.—No, sir; I merely wish to tell you the reason why it
is retained.
Mr. IvINS.—I don't want the reason why. I simply want to know
whether it is there or not, and if it is not your fault, you may say so,
but if we have got to go into a work of a révision of the entire work
of the board, it will take us a year.
The WITNESS.— It is held in consequence of a writ of mandamus, in
similar cases, having been issued by the court.
Q. Are you sure there is a writ of mandamus in that case? A. In
similar cases there are.
Q. Is there a mandamus in this case? A. I am not aware; I am not
certain whether there is or not, but in all similar cases there are; we
have four or five now pending in court.
Q. The assessment-lists for paving Madison avenue from One
Hundred and Third to One Hundred and Fifth street, aggregating
$5,219, were received in your office on the 2d of July, 1888? A.
Held for the same cause.
Q. They are still held. A. For the same cause.
Q. Regulating grading, curbing and flagging Manhattan avenue,
from One Hundred to One Hundred and Fifth street, $202,618, received
in your office August 16, 1888? A. Returned to the department of
public works sometime ago, by their request, in order to complete
the matter; it was sent to our board in an incomplete condition.
Q. They were sent in an incomplete condition? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have they been returned to your board yet by the department
of public works? A. No, sir.
Q. Then if the city is losing interest because of the delay on that,
at six per cent, it has certainly lost $18,000 interest on that account?
A. Haven't lost anything, Mr. Ivins, because the assessment-list not
being perfected the interest certificate is not attached to it.
Q. The interest certificate is not yet attached to that, in that case?
A. No, sir; the work extends from One Hundredth to One Hundred
and Tenth street when completed; this list, you will see a memorandum
No. 80.]
2489
there, was a list that was sent to us for only one-half of the work,
from One Hundredth to One Hundred and Fifth street; the found, by
advice of the corporation counsel, which they asked in the matter
when we drew their attention to it, that it was not a proper way to
send the list to the board of assessors; therefore they asked it to be
returned; we did so in order that they might perfect it.
Q. The lists for regulating and grading Westchester avenue from
Prospect avenue to Southern boulevard, aggregating $33,509, were
received by you on the 22d of October, 1888, or quite two years ago?
A. Held for the same cause of the other part of Westchester avenue,
under advice of the corporation counsel, to give them an opportunity
to subdivide their lots.
Q. Now, just tell us whether or not those several lists which were
received by you in the year 1889, have, as yet, got out of your hands,
for crosswalk, Fifty-ninth street, at east side of Avenue "A"? A.
I can't tell you from memory yet, Mr. Ivins; what time was it received?
Q. Here is one you may be able to tell; sewers, Seventy-second
street, between Hudson river and Eleventh avenue, branch in River-
side avenue, between Seventy-second and Seventy-sixth street, which
was received on the 18th of March, 1889, aggregating $34,203; what
has become of that? A. Gone out of the office.
Q. Gone out of the office? A. First of July we had nothing in the
office unacted upon.
Q. You had nothing unacted upon on the first of July this year?
A. We had then only about thirty assessment-lists in the hands of the
comptroller for obtaining his certificate; there was not a single list in
the office that was not acted upon or accounted for in the manner of
these I am telling you.
Q. Acted on or accounted for? A. In the way those were; yes.
Q. You seem to have the idea I am trying to fasten some responsi-
bility on you for having things in the office; what I want you to do is
to have you enlighten the committee as to how long these things have
been pending and where they are; that is all? A. Yes.
Q. Now, had that been completed; that Seventy-second street,
Hudson river and Eleventh avenue sewer? A. Yes, sir; confirmed.
Q. Confirmed as a finality? A. Yes, sir.
Q. One Hundred and Thirty-eighth street sewer, between St. Ann's
and Trinity avenues? A. What date is that, Mr. Ivins?
Q. That was received by you in April of 1889?
confirmed.
of 1889 ? A. That is
Q. There was an assessment for filling sunken lots in One Hundred
and Forty-third street and One Hundred and Fifty-fifth street, between
[Senate, No. 80.]
312
2490
[SENATE,
Eighth and Ninth avenues, which lists were received by you in June,
1884, which aggregate $734,676, which, so far as your report show, do
not appear to have been confirmed on the 31st of October, 1889; that
is a year ago; so that from your books it appears, as incident to the
fault of some one or other, that had been pending for five years? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. What has become of it now? A. That is confirmed.
Q. When was it confirmed? A. Within the past year.
Q. What was the reason of the great delay in that case? A. That
was one of the assessment-lists; the great delay, without going into
the particulars in regard to the matter, was in consequence of the
imperfect condition of the assessment-lists when the present board
assumed their duties there.
Q. The present board found that list there? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Found it in an imperfect condition? A. In an imperfect con-
dition and endeavored to have the corrections made by the board that
transmitted them to us, the department of public works; we found
that the surveyor had neglected to give us the details of the amount
of work that was done upon several parts of the thing; he gave it as
a complete whole.
Q. It was the fault of the department of public works? A. Yes, sir;
and it took us some time for the purpose of obtaining from the surveyor
the detailed statement that was required.
Q. How long did it take before you got that statement back and
found your sailing clear again? A. A year or more must have elapsed.
Q. Well, then, what occasioned the delay after that? A. The delay
that was occasioned after that, arose principally from the fact of the
low assessed valuation of that property, not permitting the board to
say, in their estimation, first, what they deemed a sufficient amount of
the assessment-list on the property at that time.
Q. You mean the assessments made by the board of tax commis-
sioners? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Assessments for the purpose of taxation? A. Yes, sir; that was
all sunken land; well, it was under water from three to five feet
during the whole of that period; the common council ordered it to
be raised from four to seven feet.
Q. Do you know whether the city owned that land or not? A. After
the assessment had been in the office for some time, we received a
communication from the corporation counsel, claiming that they
owned the land where the bed of the creek had formerly been.
Q. That is, the land which at one time was land under water? A
This was all land under water; yes, sir.
No. 80.]
2491
་
Q. You received the lists for regulating, grading, curbing Court-
landt avenue from Third avenue to East One Hundred and Fifty-sixth
street, on March 9, 1885; that, so far as your report shows, was still
unconfirmed on the 31st of October, 1889? A. That list is now con-
firmed, sir.
Q. That is now confirmed? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was it confirmed? A. I think it was during the past year.
Q. What was the occasion of the delay of five years in the confirma-
tion of that? A. On the advice of the corporation counsel it was
held in consequence of there being a doubt as to the legality of the
assessment, the avenue itself not having been legally opened before
the improvement had been made, and then also the difficulty of making
a proper award for the damages to the property in consequence of the
change of the grade that occurred there also.
Q. Lists for regulating, grading, curbing and flagging Tremont
street, formerly Westchester avenue, from Boston road to Bronx river,
were received by you on the 19th of February, 1887, and appear to
have been unconfirmed at this time a year ago; what was the reason
for the delay in that case, and what has become of the lists? A. The
list is confirmed; the principal delay in that case also was the diffi-
culty of settling the awards for damages to the property that was
injured by the change of grade.
Q. Is it an established thing that wherever questions of that kind
arise, it is going to take from two to five years to get lists confirmed?
A. It depends entirely upon the conditions of affairs that may sur-
round every case.
QIs it not a fact that in every case where that question has been
raised, either directly or indirectly, there has been a delay long in
excess of the usual statutory delay of sixty days? A. No, sir; you
will find that there has not been; you will find that the board, in
several cases if you follow the history of each case up, so far as
the action of the board of assessors is concerned, that they have
acted expeditiously in each and every instance.
Q. In how many cases within the past year have the lists been con-
firmed within the sixty days prescribed by statute? A. You will find
a great number of them there, sir.
Q. In one-half of the cases? A. More than that, sir, in the past
year; after we had got rid of a vast amount of material that had
accumulated on the hands of the board of assessors previous to our
assuming the duties.
Q. Why do you say a vast amount of material had accumulated, if
these matters were out and in other departments and before the board
2492
[SENATE,
:
of revision, or returned to the commissioner of public works? Did
the fact that the matter was pending in your office, but virtually out
of your hands because in the hands of these other boards, impose
any burden of labor on you or make an accumulation in your office?
A. I wish to call your attention, Mr. Ivins to one fact; that there
were 200 lists accumulated in the office when we assumed the duties
of the office.
Q. That was six years ago? A. Five and one-half years ago; and
you can see how soon the attention of the board was drawn to this
very subject in regard to interest; there is an answer from the corpo-
ration counsel to a communication from the board, to that very ques-
tion, which I would like to have you read [presenting paper to
counsel].
Mr. IVINS." Edward Gilon, Esq., Chairman, Board of Assessors.
This is dated August 13, 1886. "Law Department, office of the
Counsel to the Corporation. Sir.—I have duly received your letter
under date of June 28, 1886, referring to the provisions of section
868, subdivision 2, chapter 410, Laws of 1882, and requesting my
opinion whether it would be advisable for your board to retain future
assessment-lists in your office until such time as the board could act
upon them before presenting the lists to the comptroller for the com-
putation of interest. Under the provisions referred to in your letter,
the comptroller is directed to certify to the board of assessors the
amount of interest at the legal rate upon the several installments,
advances or payments made on account of public improvements, from
the time of such payment or advance by the city, and to a date sixty
days after the date of such certificate. The act further provides that
the amount of interest so certified shall be included in the cost and
assessed by the board of assessors upon the property benefited, for
all local improvements. You state, that since the passage of the
act, it has been the uniform practice of your board, upon the
reception of an assessment-list from the department having
charge of the execution of the work, immediately to present the same
to the comptroller for the interest certificate, and that when the
assessment-lists are returned by the comptroller, they are filed in
your office, and acted upon when reached in their regular order.
Owing to the large number of assessment-lists which have accumu-
lated in your office during the number of years past, immediate con-
sideration of subsequent lists is impossible, and in some instances.
more than a year elapses from the date of the comptroller's certificate
of interest to the date of confirmation by the board of revision and
correction of assessments. In order, I presume, to obviate the loss
of interest to the city by the delay, you suggest the withholding of
•
No. 80.]
2493
the assessment-lists in your office, when received from the depart-
ment having charge of the work of improvement in hand, until such
time as you are able to act upon them. I see no objection to this
plan. The statute does not fix any limit within which the interest
certificates must be furnished, and as your department is not, by law,
required to furnish the list to the comptroller, but has simply done
so as a matter of official routine, or perhaps as a matter of official
courtesy, I can not see that any just cause for complaint should arise
from the course which you propose. As the city would save the
interest on its advances by the method you suggest, I think it would
be expedient to adopt that method hereafter. Respectfully yours,
E. Henry Lacombe, counsel for the corporation."
Q. Was that method adopted? A. It was, sir, up to the time we
cleared the office of all material, and now there is nothing on hand
but what we receive from time to time from the department of public
works; then, in order that this matter might be expedited, they are
immediately sent to the comptroller for his certificate, and anything that
you will find there, can be accounted for otherwise; you can see how
early this matter was drawn to our attention, and how anxious we
are upon the subject.
Q. Will you prepare for the committee a statement of all assess-
ments which were in your office when you entered upon the office, of
all the lists which have come into your office since you entered upon
the office, and in each case give the date of the reception of the lists
in your office, and the date of the final confirmation of the list, show-
ing when the matters passed out of your hands? A. I will do so with
pleasure.
Q. Now, will you tell me what has become of the lists for paving
Eighty-sixth street, from Eighth to Riverside avenue, which came
into your office July 2, 1888, which aggregated $39,452, covered 180
pieces, and were still in your office October 31, 1889 ? A. That is a
railroad case also.
Q. Is the case of paving Eighth avenue from One Hundred and
Forty-fifth to One Hundred and Forty-ninth street, which came into
your office September 5, 1888, also a railroad case? A. Yes, sir; and
held under mandamus.
Q. Those are alike in character? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, what has become of those two cases? A. They are held
for the decision of the court, under the advice of the corporation
counsel.
Q. Does the corporation counsel advise you to hold these matters
orally or in writing? A. I think that we have it in writing as well as
orally.
2494
[SENATE,
.
Q. Can you get the correspondence of the corporation counsel on
these matters readily? A. Or otherwise, I can give you copies of the
mandamus and the proceedings which was, as a matter of course
Q. Wherever there is a mandamus, that ends it so far as you are
concerned, for the time being. A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can the correspondence of the corporation counsel or his direc-
tions to you on these matters be reached quickly and readily? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Could it be got right away, do you suppose; are the files so
kept that they can be got at once? A. I have no doubt Mr. Sterling
can be brought here, who has charge of all those matters in the cor-
poration counsel's office; you will find in my letter book also the
inquiry I made from the corporation counsel in relation to the matter,
and where he said — now, I don't remember whether he either orally
or by writing; he stated that the case was now in the General Term
and had gone over until the fall term.
Q. Who has charge of that work; Mr. Sterling? A. Mr. Sterling;
J. L. Sterling.
Q. He is one of the assistant corporation counsel? A. Yes, sir; and
has charge of all assessment matters.
Q. Who has charge of the matters of special boards for street
openings; do you know? A. I think at the present time it is a gen-
tleman named Dunn; John P. Dunn.
Q. Will you also prepare for the committee, in view of your state-
ment that your work was all closed up on the first of July, and that
nothing was pending in the office, a list of all matters which had
theretofore been in the office and which were pending, but pending
because of the intervention of the courts, or because of irregularities
which had required the sending back of the papers, or because of
appeals to the board of revision? A. Yes.
Q. That is, all matters which were still in your office on the first of
July, but, although nominally in your office, out of your control, and
on which you could not act? A. Yes; the first of July there was
really nothing in the office except those railroad cases, held under
mandamus of the court; everything else had been confirmed and out
of the office.
Q. Everything else had been confirmed and out of the office? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. But you mentioned a number of cases now that were still pend-
ing? A. Only those railroad cases.
Q. Oh, no. A. And that particular one of Westchester avenue;
that was held under the advice of the corporation counsel.
No. 80.]
2495
2
Q. That matter of filling sunken lots is still pending? A. No, sir;
that is confirmed.
Q. That is closed; regulating and grading Courtland avenue finally
closed? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Tremont strect regulation finally closed? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Westchester avenue? A. That is the one that is pending on the
advice of the corporation counsel, for subdivision of the lots.
Q. How about these Madison avenue and Eighty-sixth street cases;
four distinct cases? A. They are all railroad cases, now in court.
Q. Regulating and grading Westchester avenue? A. That is the
one you just mentioned.
Q. No; I mean Tremont street? A. That is confirmed, Tremont
street; but Westchester avenue is the one that is held.
Q. Tremont street? A. Tremont street.
Q. Westchester avenue is still pending? A. Yes, sir; on the advice
of the corporation counsel for the subdivision of the lots on one side
of the street.
Q. If you will make me, first, the full general statement that I
asked for and then, second, this particular statement, that will be
sufficient; can you prepare for the committee a statement showing the
amount of loss in interest to the city for delays in the confirmation of
assessment-lists, no matter for what cause the delays have occurred,
from the time that you went into the office to date? A. Yes, sir; I
guess I can.
Q. That will certainly amount to over a quarter of a million dollars,
would it not? A. I couldn't really answer that question at present
Q. At what rate is interest calculated in the comptroller's certifi-
cate, six per cent? A. Yes.
-
Q. Well, if interest were calculated at six per cent, more than half
of a quarter of million dollars- very nearly the interest of a quarter
of million of dollars would be covered in the Brook avenue sewer
case alone, would it not? A. Might possibly be.
Q. Well, if you will have that calculation of the loss of interest to
the city made? A. And the history of the case.
Mr. IVINS. And the history of the cases. Now that will do, Mr.
Gilon. The secretary of the board will take the stand.
WILLIAM H. JASPER, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Mr. Jasper, what is your business? A. I am secretary of the
board of assessors.
Q. How long have you been secretary of the board of assessors?
A. About sixteen years.
2496
[SENATE,
{
Q. Have you any book in your office which shows succinctly the
assessment-lists received in the office, when received, the amount of
the assessment and the number of parcels to be covered by the assess-
ment, so that we can take it here and see exactly what had been
received in the course of one year? A. Yes; very easily, all that
information.
Q. Well, what do you call that book? A. We keep two records;
one is a record of the assessment-lists as they come in, and that is
kept in alphabetical order; the other is kept in numerical order; the
lists are numbered numerically as they come in; all the information
you just asked for is in the books.
Q. Do you keep a list-I mean a separate list—showing the
assessments acted upon by your board and when acted upon, so that we
can see exactly what work had been done in any one year? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is a separate list, is it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What do you call that book? A. Abstract book.
Q. If I were to send there now, is there anyone who could give
those two books so that they could be brought over here? A. Yes;
sir; ask for the index books and the abstract book.
Senator FASSETT.— For any given year?
Mr. IVINS.- Take it for the years 1887 and 1890.
The WITNESS. They are written up to date.
Senator FASSETT.— Is it all one book or a bock each year?
The WITNESS. The last book commenced, I think, about 1887.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. I have in my hand your minute book, beginning with the meet-
ing held on the 3d of January, 1889, or say showing the minutes of
the board for the past twenty-two months; will you go through that
book and tell me how many meetings have been held for the past
twenty-two months? A. If you have time to wait.
Q. Oh, yes; just look right through them now; how many meetings?
A. One hundred and ten.
Q. In the twenty-two months? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What proportion of your meetings-
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Do your minutes show how long those meetings lasted? A.
Not in the minutes.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. How long do those meetings last, as a general rule, Mr. Jasper?
A. Sometimes three-quarters of an hour; from that to three or four
hours.
No. 80.]
2497
Q. Is not a three-hour meeting a very rare and exceptional thing
A. Very fair sample.
Q. Very fair sample? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, I will take the minutes of the last meeting of the board;
they read as follows: "Meeting of the board of assessors held this
16th day of October, 1890; present, the full board; namely, Messrs.
Edward Gilon, chairman, P. M. Haverty, Charles E. Wendt and
Edward Cale; on motion, the reading of the minutes were dispensed
with;" that didn't take long did it? A. Not very.
Q. [Continuing reading.] "Communication was received from the
board of revision, etc., notifying the assessors of a meeting to be held
October 16, at 1 P. M.; that didn't take much longer, did it? A. No.
Q. [Continuing reading.] "The following assessment-lists having
been duly advertised, and no objections received, were, on motion,
ordered transmitted to the board of revision and correction of
assessments of confirmation, namely, 3,297, sewer on Tenth avenue,
east side, between One Hundred and Thirtieth and One Hundred and
Thirty-first street; 3,299, sewer in One Hundred and Forty-fourth
street, between Seventh and Eighth avenues, etc.; 3,295, the assess-
ment-list for the sewer in One Hundred and Twenty-third street,
between Ninth and Tenth avenues, to which objections were filed by
T. S. Bassford, attorney, was, on motion, laid over and the secretary
directed to notify Mr. Bassford that a hearing would be given him on
Thursday the twenty-third inst., at 11 a. M.; on motion the board
adjourned; W. H. Jasper, secretary." How long did it take to do
that last piece of business; five minutes? A. How long did it take to
do what you have just read?
Q. Yes; that is ordering these two lists transmitted and laying one
list over?. A. They were discussed by the board for several minutes
prior to doing that, together with other matters.
Q. Now is not that a fair sample of the minutes? A. No, sir; it
is not; that is one of the shortest minutes on the record of the
proceedings.
Q. Now, I find that those minutes fill all of page 240 by leaving out
several lines to space it very prettily; now the minutes of the next
meeting prior to that appear on page 238 and the upper quarter of
page 239; they are not practically any longer than the minutes of the
meeting of October sixteenth, and on their face it does not appear that
anything more was done; how long did that meeting last? A. That
meeting lasted an hour or two; the minutes are very much condensed;
the board sitting as they do in a judicial capacity, I do not place in
the minutes anything but where there is official action taken.
[Senate, No. 80.]
313
:
2498
[SENATE,
Q. You say these minutes of October sixteenth are one of the
shortest on record? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now on October second, page 237, I find minutes which cover
exactly the same space, but do not record the doing of so much busi-
ness? A. Well, that is for the reason that the board of assessors
have pretty much worked up the assessment-lists that have been in
the office for a number of years, and just at the period you have men-
tioned they had not done quite as much business as heretofore.
Q. Now the meeting of September twenty-fifth, which appears at
page 236, also covers only one page, and in reality less of the page
than is covered by the minutes of October sixteenth, which you say is
an exception? A. That does not indicate the amount of business that
took place.
Q. Now let us see what took place at the meeting of September
twenty-fifth? A. Nor the time consumed by the board.
Q. The full board was present; on-motion the reading of the pre-
ceeding minutes was dispensed with; a communication dated Septem-
ber twenty-third was received from the comptroller returning assess-
ment-lists; on motion the secretary was directed to prepare all
assessment-lists now in the office for the oath of the assessors; Gran-
ville P. Hawes, counsel for the Simpson estate in the matter of the
regulation of Westchester avenue, filed a brief in this proceeding;
after consideration of the subject, the board on motion referred the
brief to the counsel for the corporation; that is all that was done at
that meeting? A. No, sir.
Q. That is all the minutes show that was done at that meeting? A.
The board discussed the matter of Westchester avenue and discussed
this brief.
Q. Was there an argument before them?
present and filed the brief.
Q. Was there an argument? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Or did he simply file his brief?
an argument at the same time.
A. Mr. Hawes was
A. He filed his brief and made
Q. How long did Mr. Hawes talk about that? A. An hour.
Senator FASSETT.- Formally or informally?
The WITNESS.-Formally and informally; both.
Q. Why didn't you say, instead of filing a brief, that Mr. Hawes was
heard? A. It is practically the same thing; he has been heard on the
subject, I suppose, twenty times by the board of assessors.
Q. And having been already heard twenty times do they give him
an hour every time he wants to be heard? A. We give them all the
consideration due them.
No. 80.]
2499
Senator FASSETT.-They sit around the office and talk it over, I
suppose?
The WITNESS.— They sit around the office and discuss the matter; it
involves many thousands of dollars, and requires proper consideration.
Q. I think, perhaps, the shortest minutes I find, in looking back, are
those of August 1, 1890; it appears that the board was present, and it
took half a page to record the business done by the board at that time;
the minutes of the previous meeting were read, and that covered less
than two pages, that reading; then it appears that "William H. Pierce,
attorney for Mr. Deal in the matter of regulating Westchester avenue,
was present; Mr. Deal was also present; petitioners claimed that the
award of $300 to be allowed for damages by the change of grade to
the house situated on block 1674, ward 16, was insufficient, and
that she had expended at least $500 for the raising, and otherwise
conforming to the grade; on motion, the matter was laid over for
further consideration;" how long was that under consideration that
day? A. I presume an hour; the board at these meetings discuss
everything that is before them; everything that is in the office; talk
the matter over; and I have not got time to put down on the minutes
just what they say.
Q. You have a stated meeting once every two weeks? A. No, sir;
once a week, and often twice a week.
Q. And those meetings consume from half an hour to two hours?
A. Yes, sir.
*
Q. What are the office hours? A. From 9 to 4.
Q. Is the board in continuous session from 9 to 4? A. No, sir.
Q. Are all the commissioners there from 9 to 4 every day? A.
No, sir.
Q. Do any of the commissioners have any regular time for being
there every day? A. Yes; I think most of them make it a business to
reach there at half-past 10 and leave at 3 or 4 o'clock; the business of
assessing requires them to be out of the office a great deal; I have not
made any record of that.
Q. If they get there at half-past 10 and sit until 4, they are in the
office? A. They are a great deal of the time.
Q. Now, what will they do there? A. They take up the assessment-
lists, discuss the merits of the work as it appears to them from the
certificates that are furnished them, and they come to a conclusion
among themselves as to the manner or principle to be adopted in
equitably distributing the cost of improvement, and having arrived at
that conclusion, they divide the work up and go through the
mathematical calculation.
2500
[SENATE,
&
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Do they make those mathematical calculations, or do you? A.
They make them, and I make them.
Q. Who makes the most of them? A. I never kept account.
Q. Do you know? A. I do not.
Q. You haven't any idea? A. No, sir; some years ago when the
office was not so busy as it is now, I did most of it, but of late years
it has got to that extent there are no clerks in the office.
Q. You are the entire clerical force, are you not? A. No; the board
themselves act as the clerks; they are compelled to.
Q. You do not call them the clerical force, do you? A. No, sir; I
am the entire clerical force.
Q. Who of the commissioners make mathematical calculations? A.
All of them.
Q. Are they difficult mathematical observations? A. Well, it is a
question of fractions and a question of good judgment.
Q. Could one man do all that work? A. No, sir.
Q. One man could not do all the clerical work? A. That would be
an impossibility; there is not enough force there now, notwithstand-
ing the opinions to the contrary; we had a clerk and assistant at
$2,000 a year, three years ago, and another one at $1,000, and now we
are without either one of those.
Q. And you have more work now than you had then; that is on
account of the annexed district, is it? A. That is on account of the
department of public works performing more work; I should say that
the work has doubled in the office, but still we have less help.
Q. Well these four commissioners, do they average more time in
the office than they average away from it during business hours? A.
I never made a calculation of that kind.
Q. What would be your honest judgment? A. I should say that
they were in the office a great deal more than they are out.
Mr. IVINS. That is exclusive of nights and Sundays? A. I keep a
record up to 4 o'clock.
HENRY A. PERRY, called as a witness, being duly sworn, testified as
follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Mr. Perry what is your business? A. I am a deputy tax com-
missioner, sir.
Q. When were you appointed deputy tax commissioner?
20, 1889.
A. May
No. 80.]
2501
Q. You had been deputy tax commissioner before, had you not?
A. Yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT.— When were you appointed?
The WITNESS.- May 20, 1889.
Q. During what periods had you been deputy tax commissioner
theretofore? A. I think from about 1876 to 1882, in a clerical
capacity from 1873 to 1876, I believe.
Q. Did you know Mr. Martine, your predecessor? A. Not until I
was made a deputy tax commissioner in 1889 — after I had been
made a deputy tax commissioner.
Q. Then you did not know him? A. No, sir.
Q. He is dead now? A. No; he is over there now doing very fine
work.
Q. He was paralyzed at that time? A. I heard so.
Q. When did Mr. Martine send in his resignation? A. As what?
Q. As deputy tax commissioner? A. I never heard that he had
sent it in; I know nothing about it.
Q. Is he still a deputy tax commissioner? A. No, sir.
Q. How did the vacancy occur which led to your being appointed?
A. I think I read in the paper of 1889-the budget of 1889 — that
there was a vacancy in the office of deputy tax commissioner and I
went to the office of the civil service board and made my application;
someone there whom I had never seen before, and whom I have not
seen since, gave me some papers and told me to make out my applica-
tion, and he said, "Do you know there is a vacancy there?" I said
"I know there is a vacancy by the tax department notifying the
board of apportionment that there is about to be a vacancy there;"
they told me then when to come; I did not know whether the exami-
nation was to be competitive or non-competitive, nor I didn't care; I
went down there and went through my examination and went away;
that was on April nineteenth.
Q. You were examined on April nineteenth? A. I think it was
April nineteenth when I was examined.
Q. When did the tax department certify to the civil service bureau
that there was a vacancy and that they wanted somebody to take the
place? A. I do not know.
Q. Was it not a month after you filed your application and were
examined? A. I do not know anything about it; I know I filed my
application and went through my examination and went off.
Q. How long after that was it that you received notice of your
appointment? A. More than a month.
Q. More than a month? A. Yes, sir.
2502
[SENATE,
Q. It has been shown in evidence here, within three or four
days after the board had certified that there was a vacancy, your name
was sent in-whereupon they appointed you? A. I have told you.
Q. Nevertheless, you were examined a month prior?
A. I was
examined on April nineteenth and never was appointed until May
twentieth.
Q. That was before Mr. Martine was taken sick, was it not? A.
That, I do not know.
Mr. IVINS.— Well, Mr. Perry, that is all, unless there is something
you wish to'state.
The WITNESS. Are you not going to examine me about my district
after all this hullabulo you have been making?
Q. If there is anything you have to say in regard to the matter, you
may say it? A. I have got 5,500 assessments that I made in the
district, and I stand on each one of them, and can show you the cause
of the alterations.
Q. Let us take them up; let us take up the first of your wards, the
seventh; now it appears that in the year 1881, the increase of assessed
valuations in that ward was $53,000; in 1882, the increase was
$226,000; in 1883, it was decreased by $41,000; in 1884, it was
iucreased $177,000; in 1885, it was increased $288,000 more; in 1886, it
was increased $330,000 more; in 1887, it was increased $334,000 more;
in 1888, it was increased $504,000 more; in 1889, it was increased
$422,000 more; and in 1890, you increased it $1,948,000; tell us why
you did it? A. Because it was too low, decidedly.
Q. Why was it too low? A. There is a note which I subscribe to,
which, in my judgment, the value at which that property should be
assessed was what it would bring under ordinary circumstances.
Senator FASSETT.- How long was it?
The WITNESS.-It was not assessed at what it would sell for under
ordinary circumstances.
Q. Who is responsible for that? A. I say when I went there in
May, 1889, I put on the assessments; in 1890, I found them too low, in
my judgment.
Q. You found them, in your judgment, how much too low? A. I
increased the assessments $1,948,619.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Did you put each piece of property up to the sum that that
property would sell for, in your judgment? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You did not adopt the eighty per cent or the sixty-ive per cent
basis? A. No, sir; there was nothing said about basis or market value;
there is no such construction put upon it by the Consolidation Act.
No. 80.]
2503
Q. You have assessed every piece of property at its full value? A.
I do not say so; I say, in my judgment, I have assessed it at the amount
that the property would sell for under ordinary circumstances; I do
not mean the extreme amount.
Q. You mean that there is no question it will sell for that? A. Yes,
sir; positively.
Q. There is no question that property would sell for half its value,
is there? A. Why should it?
Q. What is the margin of safety; do you fix any margin of safety ?
A. Yes, sir; I did as Mr. Coleman directed me, in one sense of the
word, that wherever there was any doubt, at all times to give it to the
taxpayer.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. I find by reference to the report of tax commissioners that
the total assessed valuations of real estate in the seventh ward for the
year 1890 was $20,175,000? A. That is correct, sir.
Q. Of which sum $1,948,000 was increase in one year by your act?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is an increase of ten per cent, is it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now then, your act shows that if you acted on your judgment,
your judgment was that the assessments were ten per cent too low
last year at least? A. I know nothing about last year assessed from
1889.
Q. You just said a minute ago that you raised the assessments
before they were too low? A. When I went in there in 1889.
Q. How much were they too low? A. One million nine hundred
and forty-eight thousand six hundred and nineteen dollars.
Q. That is ten per cent? A. Yes, sir; below.
Q. Then they were ten per cent too low? A. When I arrived in
the office; I do not know the situation in 1888; I was not there in
1888; experience told me that they were too low, by going around in
the district.
Q. Not knowing the situation in 1888, and having made a difference
of ten per cent in those assessments, how did you know what had
occurred to change the values of the property in your ward between
the
year 1889 and the year 1890? A. Well, sir, there is not a piece
of property in the seventh ward that I have not examined personally,
and been on the ground and formed an opinion by looking at the
property myself, being an expert and knowing the valuations of
property in that particular district.
Q. Were you an expert on valuations in that district? A. Yes, sir.
2504
[SENATE,
Q. Had you had that district before? A. I was in a clerical
capacity there once..
Q. How long ago were you in a clerical capacity touching matters.
in that district? A. I was there as far back as 1876.
Q. Prior to 1876? A. About from 1874 to 1876 I was there in a
clerical capacity.
Q. Did the clerical services that you rendered from 1874 to 1876
make you an expert on valuations in the seventh ward in 1890 ? A.
No; it helped me some.
Q. What other elements of your expertness were there? A. Do
you want me to tell you the reason I raised this $1,949,000; is that
what you want to get at?
Q. That is what I want to get at. A. Because, in my judgment, in
September, 1889, when I started out in the seventh ward, I found
that they were too low, and I could not swear as to the valuations
placed on my district book when I went out, and would not swear to
them.
Q. Have you taxed those properties at the values that they will sell
for? A. Yes, sir; there is not a piece that will not sell for what I
put on it.
Q. Is there a piece in your district that will sell for more than your
valuations? A. Yes, sir.
Q. A great many pieces that will sell for more? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How much more will they sell for? A. They will certainly
sell for that.
Q. Won't they sell for twenty per cent more than your valuation?
A. They might.
Q. They might sell for thirty or forty per cent more, might they
not? A. That would depend upon what might come up between the
purchaser and the seller.
Q. You have referred to the operations of your conscience as touch-
ing your oath? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you tell us where your conscience comes in in relation to
your oath, where you can swear to a twenty per cent basis, a thirty
per cent basis or a forty per cent basis? A. My oath does not cover
that.
Senator FASSETT.- Suppose you tell us what you think is covered by
the phrase "ordinary circumstances?"
The WITNESS. The construction I put upon that phrase is this, the
valuation placed on property with safety to the taxpayer and with
safety to the city, with a good leeway to the taxpayer.
Q. Ten per cent? A. Perhaps; my valuations could not be reversed
by any court.
No. 80.]
2505
Senator FASSETT.- What do you mean by saying that you regard the
ordinary circumstances under which property is sold, to be a valuation
which shall be a safeguard to the city and at the same time give the
taxpayer a leeway. Please tell me, if you can, what constitutes
ordinary circumstances for the sale of property?
The WITNESS.— Ordinary circumstances for the sale of property is
this, that the valuation that I place on each and every parcel of land
or property in that district, will sell for that under the most ordinary
circumstances.
Mr. IVINS. What do you mean by the most ordinary circumstances?
The WITNESS.—Ordinary circumstances. I withdraw the word "most.”
By Senator Fassett:
Q. What are the ordinary circumstances of sale? A. The ordinary
circumstances of sale is what it will sell for at any time, with a fair
leeway for the taxpayer; he won't get any the worse of it, allowing for
fluctuations.
Q. Can not you answer that question, what are the ordinary circum-
stances for the sale of property in the city of New York? A. What
are the ordinary circumstances for the sale of property?
Q. Yes. A. The ordinary circumstances for the sale of property?
Q. Yes. A. Well, what one would give to another.
Q. That is not the ordinary circumstances of a sale, that is the
ordinary purchase price of a sale? A. Yes.
Q. What do you understand that phrase to mean, ordinary circum-
stances, do you understand it to mean the method of sale or the price
for the property? A. In my judgment, the sum which the said prop-
erty will sell for under ordinary circumstances.
Q. Well, now, what are ordinary circumstances of a sale? A. What
it would sell for.
Q. What it would sell for? A. Yes; under ordinary circumstances;
ordinary circumstances, that means no depression, no boom, the ordi-
nary way of selling it.
Q. What is the ordinary way; is it by auction, or is it by private
sale? A. You take them combined; you have got to gather in both.
Q. What is the most ordinary way of selling property, by private
contract, or by auction or by foreclosure of mortgages? A. Well, the
ordinary way there are so many ordinary ways; a man may go and
boom it in the market, and another man have an object to sell and buy
property.
Q. Those are the forces that move to the sale of property; now what
are the ordinary methods by which the sale of property is regulated?
[Senate, No. 80.]
314
·
2506
[SENATE,
A. The ordinary method is where the piece of property is known to
be for sale and the different bids taken into consideration by different
buyers..
Q. Are more pieces of property sold by auction than are sold by
private sale? A. I think not.
Q. Do most of the transactions in real estate in this city take place
at the Real Estate Exchange? A. I do not think they do; I think most
of them are at private sale.
Q. Then would you not say that the ordinary method of the transfer
of property in this city was at private sale? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that property that was sold in that way was sold under
ordinary circumstances? A. Yes.
Q. Then would not the average price which property brings at those
ordinary sales be a pretty fair basis for estimating the value of
property selling under ordinary circumstances? A. Fair; yes, sir; if
you can get at what they do pay; that is very hard to get at; now
there are transfers recorded which, in my judgment, are untrue.
Q. Fictitious values? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then others with nominal values? A. Very true; yes, sir.
Q. Can any reliance whatever be put on the valuations as given in
the deeds where property is transferred under ordinary circumstances?
A. Not at all times; no, sir.
Q. Well, do you mean that there are sometimes when no reliance
can be placed upon them? A. Yes, sir, very frequently; the amounts
are placed in the deed to misconstrue, to get purchasers in that par-
ticular portion of the city; you have got to rely on your own judgment
to place valuations on them.
Q. Supposing transactions of real estate here for two or three
months were averaged, would that be a proper basis for estimating
the value of property? A. In my particular district?
Q. Yes. A. I do not think it would.
Q. You do not think it would? A. I do not think it would; I think
there are more fictitious sales in that particular district than in any
other district in the city, sir, in my judgment.
Q. Well, would the amount of money which is loaned upon buildings
in your district be a fair basis of what the business community
regarded the value of the property to be? A. If that was known as
a fact, it would be a good guide.
Q. If you could get at it? A. Yes, sir; if I could get at the fact it
would be a great guide to me.
Q. Now, that there may be no misunderstanding between us, you
mean that in fixing these values you are positive that in every instance
No. 80.
2507
you fix a value which the property would bring under ordinary cir-
cumstances? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You do not mean to say that, under ordinary circumstances, each
piece of property might not bring considerably more than the value
you fix? A. No, sir.
Q. You would not be surprised if it did bring more than the values
they are fixed at? A. I would expect that it would bring some more.
Q. You would expect it would bring some more? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you in your mind any notion as to what the average excess
would be? A. Well, possibly anywhere from fifteen to thirty
per cent.
Q. Anywhere from fifteen to thirty per cent? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. IVINS.- Fifteen to thirty?
The WITNESS.— Yes, sir.
Q. Do you think that you, by the increase that you have made, have
placed your ward or your district relatively on a higher basis than the
other districts in the city? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you think that, since that raise it comes nearer to an equalized
basis of eighty per cent; do you think it comes nearer to bearing its
just burden than it did before? A. It does in my judgment.
Q. If you have made a margin of from fifteen to thirty per cent
after the raise of ten per cent, previous to that it must have been from
twenty-five to forty per cent? A. Well, I had nothing to do with
that; in 1888 and 1889 are two different years, Mr. Fassett; we go
out from year to year; I may alter it again next year; you can not tell
what the circumstances would be.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Would you consider that you were violating the oath that you
then subscribed to on those lists, if you assessed property at only fifty
per cent of what it would sell at under ordinary circumstances? A.
Would I consider it; yes, sir.
Q. Would you consider it a violation of your oath if you were to
assess property only at ten per cent under what it would sell for'
under ordinary circumstances? A. Well, no, sir; I do not know as I
should.
Q. Well, now, will you explain to us why, in one case fifty per cent
would be a violation of the oath, and in the other case ten per cent
would not be a violation of the oath? A. Well, I am not supposed to
put on what we call a hard valuation; a high valuation for the tax-
payer; I am going out and assess this property, and if any of the
heads of the department say to me Mr. Perry, in your judgment, are
2508
[SENATE,
१.
you perfectly satisfied, after making an increase of from fifteen to
twenty thousand dollars, that under ordinary circumstances it would
sell for $20,000, are you positive of that?" I should say yes, sir.
Q. This is your seventh ward field book; is it not [producing book]?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I take it at the page at which I have opened by chance, pages
ninety-four and ninety-five-take page ninety-five; I find that the
name of the owner is entered in pencil; I find that that is the rule
necessitated, I suppose, by the fact that the work is done in the field?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I find then the description of the property, showing the size of
the lot, showing the size of the house, showing the number of stories
high and the number of houses on the lot; the ward numbers are
entered in red ink; that is the only ink entry in the book, is it not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is the only unerasable entry in the book? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, I find for the year 1890, the figure $33,000 entered against
numbers 2,261 to 2,264, inclusive? A. Yes, sir.
Q. It is apparent on its face that there has been an erasure there?
A. Very likely there has.
Q. For the year 1891, I find that it is $33,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I find that there has been an erasure there; that the figures
$32,000 have been apparently attempted to be rubbed out, but not
rubbed out? A. Yes, sir.
Q. For ward numbers 2,257 to ward numbers 2,260, inclusive, I find
$28,000 entered as the valuation for 1888, 1889 and also for 1890; I
find that there was an erasure made, however, of a figure which is
now undecipherable; I find that for the year 1891, which is the present
year, $28,000 had also been entered, and $30,000 has been written
over that; that is the work you are now doing in the field? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. This figure, $30,000 for the year 1891, is the figure made for the
work that you are now doing in the field? A. That has not been
determined on for 1891; I am out in the field now.
Q. Did you write in the figure $28,000 here? A. No, sir.
Q. Who did? A. I may have.
Q. Did you write the figure $30,000 over the $28,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Tell us why you increased that particular lot from $28,000 to
$30,000? A. I consider those four pieces of ground now worth $2,000
more than they were worth in 1890.
Q. Than they were in 1890? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What has occurred to the property itself, or in the neighborhood
No. 80.]
2509
of the property, which has led you to take the initiative steps toward
increasing that to $30,000, as against $28,000 for the present year?
A. In my judgment it is worth now $30,000 for the year 1891.
Q. Now, tell us what the elements of your judgment are? A. Well,
that would sell for that under ordinary circumstances; positive of it.
Senator FASSEIT.- Would that have sold for that last year under
ordinary circumstances?
The WITNESS.-Well, I was doubtful last year.
Q. You were doubtful last year whether that would sell for $30,000?
A. Certainly.
Q. You were confident that it would sell for $28,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you feel equally confident that it would sell this year for
$30,000? A. I do.
Q. Now, won't that sell for $40,000? A. I don't know; I am posi-
tive that would sell for $30,000.
Q. You are positive they would sell for $5,000; are you not? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Now, what documents or papers have you to show what the last
real estate transactions in that neighborhood were? A. I do not go
by real estate transactions.
Q. You do not go by real estate transactions at all? A. Not to a
great extent; as I told you, they are not reliable.
Q. What do you go by; locations? A. By locations; surroundings.
Q. Now, I want to find out what location means? A. Location
means the character of the property and conditions of the property,
and what it would sell for.
Senator FASSETT. And the surrounding and adjoining property?
The WITNESS.-Yes, sir; all of which is taken into consideration.
Q. Transactions apart? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you explain to us how there can be such a thing as loca-
tions with value attached if you set aside all considerations of actual
transactions? A. I do not set aside all; I say I am not guided wholly
by transactions; to an extent it helps me also in forming my judgment.
Q. In going back to your book, I find here on lots ward numbers
2245 to 2252, inclusive— that is, at page 95 — that that was assessed
at $80,000 for the year 1889? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And for the present year, 1890, you assessed it for $100,000, and
for the year 1891, you appear to have written in $100,000, and under
that you have written the word "open?" A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, what does that word mean? A. The word "open" was
intended to have been placed in there last year to make a guide for
"this; that was open when I was out last year, and I made this on
2510
[SENATE,
the supplemental report after going out again - what we term a sup-
plemental report; we finish one ward at a time, and then we go around
again the last part of the season and bring in our final reports, which
I have here.
Q. What do you mean by the word
reconsideration.
CC
open?" A. Open for
Q. How long do you keep a thing of that kind open for reconsidera-
tion? A. That was open for reconsideration between September and
the last day of December.
Q. Why should one case be kept open for reconsideration and not
another? A. So as to familiarize myself more with it and understand
the reason that that was as low as $80,000.
Q. Why should you make any entry then, whatever, until you have
done with that piece just what you have done with the other piece
and satisfied yourself? A. Because I had come to a conclusion on
the other piece, and on this I had not come to a conclusion.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. You assessed this same piece at a hundred thousand dollars last
year, didn't you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. This seems to be adjoining to this other piece that you raised
$2,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is there any reason to suppose that this lot has deteriorated in
value while this other has increased in value? A. That one particular
piece?
Q. Yes. A. I think the raise I made from eighty to a hundred
thousand dollars covers also this piece; there I made no raise, what-
ever, as I considered it was a little out of line; the great thing for a
tax assessor is to avoid equalization so these lawyers can't come in
with objections; all their objections are based upon inequalities.
Q. You think you might possibly have raised this a little too much
last year? A. Not at all; no, sir; that is an entirely different thing.
Q. And you hold it open to consider not whether you will keep it
at a hundred thousand dollars, but whether you will raise it some
more? A. No, sir; that "open" was put in when I first went in the
district; I waited until December, when I went around again to make
my supplementary report, to see what further I could learn in regard
to it and to take a further look at it.
Q. This property here numbers 2261, etc.? A. That is an entirely
different thing.
Q. Those are little matters and do not amount to anything com-
pared with the others; are they in the same ward? A. Yes.
No. 80.]
2511
Q. Right along, contiguous? A. Yes, sir.´
Q. But they remained on the same valuation from 1888 to 1891?
A. Yes, sir; I considered that valuation was a good one; that was in
conformity with my idea of the law.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Just turn to the map there? A. This piece of property which I
raised is a sugar refinery.
Q. That is this? A. Yes, sir; that is 2245, 2246, 2247, 2248, 2249,
2250, 2251 and 2252.
Q. That has buildings on? A. Yes, sir; a large four-story building;
that is entirely covered with a building 135 feet by 140 feet.
Q. Let us see what it is? A. Twenty-two hundred and forty-five,
2246, 2247, 2248, 2249, 2250, 2251, 2252 and 2253, including this down
here also.
Q. Where does that come in that does not show here? A. Yes? it
includes ward numbers 2017 to 2024 on Water street, page 85.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. This is more than one-third of the block? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Then you have assessed the end of the block between South and
Water streets and facing on Montgomery street, being sixteen lots
having ward numbers 2017 to 2024 inclusive and ward numbers 2252
to 2245 inclusive at $100,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. For the sixteen lots? A. Yes, sir; for the sixteen lots with the
building covering all that ground.
Q. What is the character of the building? A. It is a four-story
building entirely covered, known as the Glen Cove Starch Company,
a very fine building; they have put in an application for a reduction
of it.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Even at that valuation they have not asked for a reduction? A.
They have never asked for a reduction at that valuation.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Is that entire ground covered by a building? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Or does the building cover only part of the ground? A. It is
185 by 140.
Q. It is a building 185 by 140? A. Yes, sir.
2512
[SENATE,
Q. And the building covers the entire sixteen lots? A. Yes, sir;
there is some little irregularity about some of those smaller build-
ings; but it is covered generally.
Q. Are these lots built on? A. Which ones?
Q. Lots numbers 2257 to 2260, are those ward numbers built on?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are there any parts of these lots that are not built on? A. No.
Q. It is all built up? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How are numbers 2257 to 2260 built on? A. A five-story build-
ing about seventy feet deep.
Q. Are 2261 to 2264 built on? A. Two thousand two hundred and
sixty-one to 2264 are built on; yes, sir.
Q. What is the character of the building on those four lots? A. A
fair building-no such building as the $100,000 building.
Q. No such building as the $100,000 one? A. No.
Q. Not so good a building? A. Nỏ.
Q. Is that corner, the Clinton street corner, generally speaking, as
good a corner as the Montgomery street corner? A. Yes.
Q. It is just as good a corner but a much poorer building? A.
Yes, sir; a much poorer building.
Q. And you have assessed these four lots with the poorer building—
Senator FASSETT.- Eight lots, isn't it?
Mr. IVINS.- No; four lots.
Q. You have assessed these four lots on an equally good corner at
$33,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you have assessed sixteen lots on the other end of the
block with a better building on at a hundred thousand dollars? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Four times thirty-three are $130,000, isn't there a discrepancy at
once in the basis of assessments between the assessment on the
Clinton street four lots and the sugar refinery property on the
Montgomery street lots? A. The 2261 to 2264 there is a corner;
you know when you include this hundred thousand dollars you
include a lot of inside lots here.
Q. What inside lots do you include? A. Anything after you leave
100 feet I consider an inside lot; here you have got a whole frontage
on Clinton street as well as a whole frontage on South street; you can
stake a lot either way and have a double frontage; there is not a
double frontage here.
Q. There is a double frontage one on South street and one on
Water street? A. Yes, sir.
Q. There are eight available lots? A. Yes, sir.
No. 80.]
2513
Q. And eight inside lots? A. Yes; and we will put these eight at
$63,000 to compare with that, and put these eight in at $34,000; that
is a hundred thousand dollars; do you see any inequality there?
Q. Won't those eight inside lots sell for more than $34,000? A. I
would not want to give more than that for them.
Q. Do you believe under your oath on this stand that you could, by
any possibility, buy these four lots for $34,000? A. I do not know as
I could.
Q. Do you believe that you could, by any possibility, buy that par-
cel on which the sugar refinery is, with sixteen lots, at a hundred
thousand? A. No, sir; I don't say that I could.
Q. Could you buy it at $200,000? A. Undoubtedly, I think; I
would not want to give $200,000 for it.
Q. What would you want to give if you could buy it? A. I am not
buying; I should not advise any one to give $200,000 for it; but that
is this corn starch business; I am not here to tell you what I will give
or what I will take; I am here to say that I have subscribed to my
oath and that is this, that I have placed a fair valuation on that prop-
erty at what it will sell for under ordinary circumstances.
By Senator Fassett:
Q. One end of this block here you have raised 25,000 on the old
valuation? A. That is taking the entire thing.
Q. Taking the entire sixteen lots? A. Yes, sir; that is an excep-
tional place; the situation is very nice; they have got Montgomery
street, Water street and South street.
Q. You have raised that twenty-five per cent on the old valuation?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then mid-way you have raised it about six and a half per cent
on the old valuation? A. I found that in my judgment a great deal
better than I did this.
Q. And the other end of the lot, the tobacco end, you have not
raised at all? A. No; you see after I raised this, this happened to be
in my judgment, what I thought was a fair assessment to keep under
the law.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Now, I want to ask four or five questions, and I want you just to
answer those questions; you have assessed the four lots on the Clin-
ton street end at $33,000? A. Yes, sir; you must state the ward
numbers.
Q. Ward numbers 2261 to 2264? A. That is correct; yes, sir.
Q. At $33,000? A. Yes, sir.
મો
[Senate, No. 80.]
315
2514
[SENATE,
*
Q. And although it has only one corner covered by a building,
instead of two corners? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And although the building is not so good a building as the
building on the Montgomery street end? A. No; it is not so good a
building.
Q. Now look at your book and tell me what the aggregate assess-
ment of the sixteen lots at the Clinton street end is? A. Put down
from 2261 to 2264?
Q. Twenty-two hundred and sixty-one to 2264 is $33,000? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Now from 2005 to 2008? A. Put that down at $28,000.
Q. Now from 2257 to 2260? A. Put that down at 2,000 each; they
are vacant lots.
Q. Are 2010 to 2012 vacant lots? A. No, sir; they are built on;
put that down at $25,000.
Q. How is 2009? A. That is included; it is 2009 to 2012 inclusive.
Q. That is built on? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is that? A. Twenty-five thousand dollars.
Q. The result of which is that these sixteen lots, four of which are
not built on, are assessed at $94,000, whereas the sixteen lots at the
other end covered by one single building, and that you say an
exceptionally fine building as compared with the buildings on the
other parcel, were assessed at 100,000? A. I did not say as compared
with the buildings on the other parcel.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. You said that they were not so good? A. I thought not.
Q. You have assessed that $94,000, whereas the Montgomery street.
end is assessed at $100,000 ? A. Yes, sir; you will observe that the .
Montgomery street end is the only one that has been raised; that was
raised from $80,000 to a hundred thousand dollars; the others stand as
they did before, with no raise.
Q. What is the character of the buildings on the inside lots, num-
bers 2009 to 2012 on Water street? A. It is a three-story building,
seventy-one and a half feet in width, and seventy-three feet in depth.
Q. And was assessed at $25,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. For those four? A. Yes, sir; that is correct.
Q. Now you state that if the eight lots on Montgomery, South and
Water streets were assessed at the same value that you have assessed
the four lots on the corner of Clinton and South, that that would
make $66,000, leaving 34,000 for the eight inside lots - didn't you? A.
Have you got the valuation of the sixteen now before you?
No. 80.]
2515
}
Q. Yes. A. How much do you make that?
Q. I am not talking about those sixteen.
comparisons.
A. You are making
Q. Of course, I am making comparisons; that is what I am here for;
I find that the lots 2261 to 2264 are assessed at $33,000? A. That is
right.
Q. If that same rule were to be applied to the lots 2245 to 2248,
and 2021 to 2024, that would be $66,000, wouldn't it? A. Yes.
Q. And leaving $34,000 for the eight inside lots? A. Yes.
Q. Then, if $34,000 were left for the eight inside lots; that is, for
lots 2249 to 2252, and 2017 to 2020, how is it that further up the street,
with a building of a different character, four lots, 2009 to 2012, are
assessed at $25,000 as against $34,000 for eight lots? A. This is
the better building on these eight lots here.
Q. This is a better building on the eight lots? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And still, although there is a better building on the eight lots,
you only assess the eight lots with the better building on at $34,000,
when you assess four lots with a poorer building on at $25,000? A.
Well, not so loud, Mr. Ivins; let us understand this again; that is not
so at all; you are jumbling up, and you are trying to make a case
against me that will be impossible when you come down to it.
>
Q. Now, just explain? A. You say that these eight lots here are
assessed for how much?
Q. These eight lots, on your own theory, are assessed at $34,000 ?
A. You see, I assess those the same as that; I do not claim that I
assess those at $66,000 as against $33,000, for that is an entirely
different thing, when there are two separate buildings on a piece of
property; there is an entire difference in valuation; this is one building.
Q. Is the value of the land at that end as great as at this end? A.
Yes; about.
Q. The only difference in the value is the difference in the value of
the structure? A. Very true; and you will remember that this is one
building, and not two separate buildings.
Q. This is one building? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And a better building than this building here? A. In my
judgment; yes, sir.
Q. Then these eight lots at this end are certainly worth as much as
the eight lots at that end, are they not? A. Very true.
Q. And these four lots on the Montgomery and South street corner,
with that particular building on, are certainly worth as much as these
four lots on the Clinton and South street corner? A. Yes, sir.
2516
[SENATE,
Q. If they are worth as much, those four lots would be worth at
least $33,000, because they were assessed at $33,000? A. Yes, sir;
and there is one building there.
Q. Are the lots 2021 and 2024, on the Montgomery and Water street
end, so far as the land is concerned, as valuable as the land on Clinton
street? A. I think Clinton street has a slight preference.
Q. But, as a matter of fact, would you say that, in view of the
character of the building on the Montgomery and Water street end
that the assessed valuation of those lots, numbers 2021 to 2024, was at
least as much as the assessed valuation of the lots corner of Clinton
and South street? A. I say that I consider that is a trifle better; the
ground on Clinton street.
Q. You think that is a trifle better there? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you think that $66,000 for the eight lots at the Montgomery
street end of the block would be a high assessment?
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Irrespective of the buildings and in view of the fact that the
building was a good one, do you think that $66,000 would be a high
assessment as compared with $33,000 for the south and Clinton street
end? A. I do not think it would be high.
Q. If it were not high, and were a proper assessment, that would
then leave $34,000 of the $100,000 assessment fall on the eight inside
lots, would it not? A. Yes.
Q. Now, we have lots 2009 to 2012? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which are the inside lots? A. Yes, sir.
How are they built on? A. They have a three-story building on.
Q. Does that building on those four lots correspond at all to the
building on the sugar refinery end? A. Yes; the rear end of this
building, you know, and this is a building by itself; this is a separate
building all by itself, and this is the rear end of this building here.
Q. Of course, this is all one big building at the Montgomery street
end? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you tell us now how you can justify assessing the eight lots—
A. I do not assess the eight lots; I assess the sixteen in full with the
building on; I assessed it at a hundred thousand dollars.
Q. Then, will you tell us why it is that, assuming eight of those
lots A. I don't assume eight of those lots.
Q. Well, I assume it? A. I don't; I assessed it in bulk; you put up
the sixteen lots against those four.
Q. You can answer my question yes or no, or you can say you won't
answer it; just as you please; assuming that the eight lots at the
No. 80.]
2517
Montgomery street end of that lot are worth $66,000, it would leave
only $34,000 for the inside, wouldn't it? A. I take the whole piece in
bulk at a hundred thousand dollars.
Q. Very well; then we will take the whole piece in bulk; do you
mean to tell me that those sixteen lots, with a single building on the
whole sixteen lots fronting on three streets, is only properly assess-
able at a hundred thousand dollars, when you have assessed a three-
story building on the Water street side of the block, 111 feet distant
from the Water and Clinton street corner, at $25,000? A. I do not
think I am too high on the $100,000 assessment; I raised that from
eighty thousand to a hundred thousand dollars.
Q. I don't think you are too high; I think you are too low? A. We
go very slow at that in the office; it is pretty hard to go out and find a
man assessed at $80,000, and then raise it at once to a hundred and
fifty thousand dollars.
Q. You found a valuation of 20,000,000, and you gave a jump of
2,000,000 in one year? A. Yes.
Q. That is really a larger jump on the total assessment in that ward
than the particular jump from $80,000 to a hundred thousand dollars
that you have spoken of here? A. Not at all; that is twenty-five per
cent.
Q. You are right, this is twenty-five per cent; in how many cases
have your jumps been twenty-five per cent to bring about the average
jump of ten per cent? A. Wherever I thought it was necessary; you
see I found this $25,000, and I found this other at $80,000, and it is
pretty hard to run up from $80,000 to a $150,000 the first year.
Q. What is the character of the buildings on lots 2013 to 2016
inclusive? A. They are two story buildings, two of them.
Q. What were they assessed at? A. Fourteen thousand dollars; I
found them $8,000.
Q. Fourteen thousand dollars for the four lots? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You found them $8,000 and raised them to $14,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Could you buy them for $14,000? A. I think not.
Q. Could you buy them for $20,000? A. I might.
Q. You might possibly? A. I don't know what they would sell for.
Q. You found them at $8,000 and you think they might sell at
$20,000, and you raised them to $14,000? A. I do not know what
they would sell for.
Senator FASSETT. You are bound to know what they would sell for
under ordinary circumstances.
Q. You think they would sell for $14,000? A. I am not bound to
assess them for what they would sell for; I give a good leeway.
2518
[SENATE,
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. You are assessing at what they would sell for and not at what
they would bring? A. I am assessing at what they will sell for; they
might bring a little more; of course, I am giving the taxpayer leeway,
Q. What is the largest increase that you have made there in that
ward? A. That is the largest, I guess eighty to a hundred thousand.
Q. What is the largest single piece of property, single ward num-
ber, or lot, that is taxed together as one lot? A. I think I have
another piece here that is about the largest piece in the seven-
teenth ward.
Q. You also have the tenth ward, haven't you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. The total valuation of the tenth ward for this year was
$20,791,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I find that that ward was increased $31,000 in 1881? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it was increased $142,000 in 1882? A. Yes, sir.
Q. It was decreased $306,000 in 1883 ? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. It was increased $163,000 in 1884? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Two hundred and sixty-nine thousand in 1885? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Four hundred and sixty-three thousand dollars in 1886? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Three hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars in 1887? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Three hundred and eighty-six thousand dollars in 1888? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Two hundred and twenty-nine thousand dollars in 1889? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. And you increased it $1,949,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Or ten per cent of the entire valuation for the purposes of
assessment for the present year is the sum by which the assessments
were increased by you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you tell us why you did that? A. There were a number of
new buildings, and I find that district, in my judgment, the same as I
found the seventh ward.
Q. Are there more new buildings in the tenth ward than there
were in the seventh? A. I should judge about the same; I should
judge of this eleven or twelve millions raised in the entire four wards
there were possibly between three and four millions in new buildings.
Q. That is an eight per cent raise?
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. How much have you raised for the coming year? A. For 1891?
Q. Yes; can you answer that? A. No.
No. 80.]
2519
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. I found the total valuations for the thirteenth ward are
$13,263,000, and I find that you have increased the assessment
$1,805,000, between twelve and thirteen per cent? A. Well, that is
on account of new buildings, new additions to houses and new stories
in houses, and that comes under the general increase that I started in
the seventh ward.
Q. In this ward have you taxed property at a hundred per cent of
its fair market value? A. What do you mean by market value?
Q. What it will bring under ordinary circumstances?
assessed it 100 per cent?
Q. Yes. A. No.
A. If I
Q. Have you assessed it at ninety per cent of its fair market value ?
A. I have assessed it for what it would sell for under ordinary
circumstances.
Q. What is the difference between what it would sell for under
ordinary circumstances and what it would bring under ordinary
circumstances? A. Well, it will bring that.
Q. Won't it bring more than that? A. I have given them a leeway;
yes, I think it would.
Q. Would it bring ten per cent more than that? A. In some cases
ten to twenty per cent; I said fifteen to thirty; I would not be sur-
prised if it would bring that much more than what it was assessed for.
Q. Then the fact would be this, that while you, under oath, would
not be blameworthy, even if you had assessed this property higher
than you did? A. Not in my judgment, if I did it according to my
judgment.
Q. Even if you had assessed this property higher than you have,
even twenty or thirty per cent in many cases, you would sill be acting
within the law? A. If my judgment was such; yes, sir.
Q. The only complaint in the matter would be this, that if other tax
assessors did not make their assessments on the same basis through
the city, then there would be an inequality between the taxpayers in
that district where you had complied with the law more nearly as com-
pared with the districts where the deputy tax commissioners hadn't
complied with the law so nearly? A. Each one has got to look out for
his own district; I pay attention only to my own.
Q. But if there is complaint on the part of the taxpayer you do
not think the complaint is your fault but is the fault of equalization?
A. I am talking about my district, if there is a complaint made or an
application put in for reduction on the basis of inequality in any
portion of the district.
2520
[SENATE,
1
Q. Is it not a fact that the increase proportionately to the prior
assessments has been greater in your four districts than it has been
in any other district in the city? A. No; I think the twelfth ward
has a larger increase than I have.
Q. No; I do not say a larger increase; I mean a larger increase
proportionately? A. I do not know but what I have the largest.
Q. Proportionately you are the largest in the city? A. Yes, sir; I
think I am.
Q. Then, it is apparent on its face that there is some difference of
practice, not only of practice but of theory as between yourself and
the other deputies? A. I can not state that; they are all there.
Q. But, do you know of anything that has been done by the board
for the purpose of equalizing your theory and practice with the theory
and practice of the other deputies? A. We were never brought in con-
tact with one another and no comparison made of different districts as I
know of.
Q. The entire assessed valuations for the seventeenth ward were
$41,022,000? A. That is for the year, 1890.
Q. For the present year? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You increased the valuations for this year over last year
$5,745,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which increase is about thirteen per cent of the entire present
valuation? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, why did you increase the valuations thirteen per cent
there? A. There are new buildings; some were new buildings, some
were improvements on old buildings, and then under the general
increase of the balance of the district; the reasons are given for each
and every piece right here.
Q. Is the seventeenth ward map here? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the most marked individual case of increase in the
seventeenth ward? A. No particular one; it is general right through.
Q. Are there any such cases as that one we have just discovered
where the sugar refinery property or starch factory is? A. A twenty-
five per cent raise?
Q. Yes. A. Yes, sir; but in smaller cases, not large cases.
Q. There is no twenty-five per cent advance in any large piece there?
A. No.
Q. Is there anything more you want to say about these increases?
A. I have nothing to say, if I have satisfied you.
Q. Is Mr. Martine still in the office of the tax commissioners? A.
Yes.
Q. What is he doing? A. He is in a clerical capacity.
No. 80.]
2521
Q. What sort of clerical work does he do is he a deputy's clerk?
A. Yes.
Q. In the field? A. He is what you call a sort of a floating clerk.
Q. What does the floating clerk do besides float? A. He attends
to any property owners that may come in and describe different
pieces of property in the different wards to them and show them the
maps and records.
Q. Is he the man who made all these assessments in your four
wards for the years 1888 and 1889? A. Yes.
Commissioner FEITNER. He was then a deputy.
Q. He was then a deputy? A. Yes sir.
At this point the committee took a recess until 2.30 o'clock p. M.
AFTER RECESS.
ELISHA J. CADWELL, having duly affirmed, testified as follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Will you explain to the committee the process of assessing and
taxing personal property from the first step which is taken to fix an
assessment through the entire process to the end? A. In the first
instance, the names that remain on the roll after they close on the
first day of April of each year, are carried forward into the rolls of
the following year, and in most instances at the same valuations.
Q. Does that include the names of those whose personal tax was
stricken off the previous year? A. No; those that remain on the roll,
those names are carried forward into the new rolls of the succeeding
year; then we get the reports from the surrogate's office in the matter
of estates and the county clerk's office in the matter of new firms, etc.
By Senator Fassätt:
Q. You mean new corporations? A. No; new firms and corporations.
Q. And joint-stock companies? A. And joint-stock companies.
Q. That is, you get the reports from the county clerk's office of all
the new concerns that are required by law to file a report of their
creation there? A. Yes, sir; and when they first enter upon business
here in the city of New York, they are all required to file their state-
ments there, and the firms and the individual members of the new
firms.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Then what other names are added? A. Then we go through
the directory and take the names from that.
Q. The business directory? A. The city directory.
[Senate, No. 80.]
316
}
2522
[SENATE,
Q. Trow's City Directory? A. Trow's City Directory.
Q. What names do you pick out from that? A. Well, we pick out
the best names, such as merchants, importers, and sometimes lawyers,
anything we think is liable to a tax.
Q. Then in that way you get back on the list a number of names
that was stricken off the list the previous year? A. No; we intermit
the names usually; unless we have special information, we intermit
any names one year; for instance, a man put on in 1889 wouldn't go
on again until 1891, unless we had some special information about it.
Q. But you get in each year a list which results in a necessity for
striking out about $2,000,000,000 each year, nevertheless? A. Oh, no.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. A thousand and a half millions? A. Not 2,000,000,000.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You struck off over 2,000,000,000 this year, didn't you? A, I
don't remember what the amount was that was stricken off - oh, that
includes corporations.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. The whole amount of personal taxes? A. Yes; the whole amount
of personal taxes.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. All told you struck off over $2,000,000,000? A. No; because
the whole assessment didn't amount to $2,000,000,000 about
$1,680,000,000, I think.
Q. That was what the assessment amounted to, but what did your
books show before you began striking off? A. That is what they
showed on the opening, I think; I will give you the figures presently.
Q. My recollection is it was something like $2,480,000,000. A. No,
sir; that is a mistake.
Q. What appeared on the books at the opening - I don't mean on
the books at the opening of the books — but what was the assessed
valuation for which you sought to hold the parties for the payment
of taxes on personal property? A. That is the gross valuation you
refer to ?
Q. Yes. A. One billion six hundred and thirty-eight millon dollars.
Q. Of which how much was stricken off? A. The amount held was
$229,000,000-$230,000,000 in round numbers.
Q. So that you struck off over $1,400,000,000? A. Yes, sir;
$1,409,000,000.
Q. Now, what is the object of going back and putting on the books
No. 80.]
2523
again year after year the names of persons who represent such a
volume of property as that for the simple pleasure of striking them
off subsequently? A. There is not so much put on to the individual
person; that is mostly corporations; if we find a corporation repre-
senting a capital of several millions we have to put them on the
books, and while they may be able to swear off one year they might
not the second year.
Q. What was the total increase of assessments upon personal prop-
erty for this present year that were actually held? A. It was about
$6,800,000 in round numbers of the increase.
Q. That is the increase? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That excludes corporations? A. That is exclusive of corporations.
Q. So that the entire increase of assessments for personal taxes for
the present year exclusive of corporations has been a little over
$6,000,000? A. About $6,800,000 in round numbers.
Q. What is the gross increase of assessments for personal taxes
including corporations? A. Twenty-four million nine hundred and
sixteen thousand dollars..
A. Yes, sir;
Q. Leaving about $18,000,000 increase for assessments for personal
property for the purpose of taxation on corporations?
nearly $20,000,000 on corporations.
Q. Now, how do you account for it that their is nearly $20,000,000
increase on corporations this year over last year? A. In the first
place the old companies that remained on the books, there was quite
an increase in the valuation of, from the statements of former years,
and then we added from 200 to 300 corporations to the roll, new cor-
porations that had not heretofore been assessed.
Q. That had not heretofore been incorporated? A. That had not
been incorporated-new corporations.
Q. Well, anything else? A. Nothing else as far as relates to cor-
porations; there was the addition of new names and the increase of
assessments; the old ones were taken from last year.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Have you a record of the corporations that paid taxes and assess-
ments as shown in the opening of the books, together with their
assessments as actually finally fixed? A. Oh, that same assessment-roll is
corrected; we have one column for assessed valuations and one for
corrected valuations.
Q. That statement is nowhere in the annual report of the tax com-
missioners, is it? A. No; except in this general way-not in each single
case, but in the aggregate.
Q. It is simply in the aggregate? A. Yes, sir.
2524
[SENATE,
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. After these names have been put on the list, what do you do?
A. Send notices to each company and each individual.
Q. And then these companies and individuals do what? A. If they
consider themselves aggrieved they call and make corrections before
the commissioners.
Q. Do they come to you before they go to the commissioners? A.
No, sir; I have nothing to do with them.
Q. They go to the commissioners in the first instance? A. Yes, sir; I
have no power to correct assessments.
Q. Do you never suggest reductions? A. I never have suggested
any reductions that I know of, no special ones that I recollect of; the
commissioners have usually called upon me for data in regard to the
taxable valuation of the property.
Q. No name, however, goes on that list unless you put it on? A. It
is put on under my direction; I put on very few individually.
Q. You don't do the physical work of writing them on? A. I do
very little of that.
Q. Who does the work of going through the directory and picking
out the names? A. I do part of it and the clerks in the office do
part of it.
Q. What clerks? A. There is a deputy in the department besides
myself.
Q. What is his name? A. Mr. Kellock, Mr. William Kellock; he
and myself do the principal part of that work.
Q. Do any other clerks assist in putting names on the list? A. Not
except under our direction.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. What directions do you give to your clerk who is engaged in
taking these names out of the directory? A. We put against each
name that is to go on two black checks, lead pencil checks, and he
takes the directory and copies them on to the rolls..
Q. How many names are there altogether in the directory? A. I
don't know.
}
Q. Have you any undeviating rule of selection? A. No, sir.
Q. It is a game of guess, isn't it? A. Almost entirely.
Q. There is nothing in the directory to indicate what a man or a
woman owns in personalty? A. No.
Q. You are guided by the description of the occupation? A. By the
description of the occupation and the location.
Q. By the part of town they live in? A. By the part of town they
live in.
No. 80.]
2525
Q. Have you any data of any kind by which you determine the
amount which you will place against each individual name other than
the names of corporations and firms? A. No; except I go by my own
judgment in the matter; that is all, unless I have some special infor-
mation which I sometimes get from newspapers.
Q. What information you have, is that such as you can pick up from
the daily press, from conversations, from your general knowledge of
the manner in which people in certain walks of life are supposed to
live? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ever estimate what the actual personal wealth in this city
of its inhabitants was? A. I never have estimated it.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Is there any means of making such an estimate?
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. That is the next question; is there any method by which you
could make such an estimate? A. I don't know of any; I don't think
it would be possible.
Q. You don't think it would be possible? A. No, sir; not to my
mind.
Q. Is there anything like an approximation of such an estimate con-
tained in either any State or federal census? A. I have not examined
that sufficiently to answer that question.
Q. You never looked to see? A. No, sir; I was going to say that in
the time of the internal revenue we resorted to that list a good deal.
Q. That is, when the internal revenue taxes were levied, you used
that as a basis? A. Yes, sir; we used that as a basis.
Q. How long have you been in the tax department? A. Since July,
1859.
Q. Have you been engaged all this time in this particular branch?
A. No, sir; I was a clerk in the office until 1869.
Q. How long have you been engaged in this particular business of
assessing personal property? A. Since December, 1869.
Q. Thirty years? A. No; that would be about twenty years.
Q. Twenty-one years? A. Yes, sir; I have been in the office thirty-
one years last July.
Q. When a name is once put off the list, does it stay off only one
year? A. Usually that is the rule; we intermit one year unless we
have some special reason for putting it on the next year.
Q. That is true of individuals as well as corporations? A. No, sir;
not of corporations excepting new corporations.
2526
[SENATE,
Q. That is, when a corporation's name is once off it stays off?
A. No, sir; it goes on the second year; a great many of these new
corporations that are formed put in, a nominal capital, and every
year that they appear, when we get them from the county clerk's
office, they are put on to the roll, but we find upon examination there
is no capital paid in, and no stock issued, although they are on the
roll for the amount of their nominal capital; in that case the corpo-
ration is intermitted for one year.
Q. Can you tell what amount of the $229,000,000 that remains on
the receiver's book is assessed, against what I will call private indi-
viduals, as distinguished from estates, from banks and from corpo-
rations? A. No; I couldn't tell that.
Q. You can't tell that? A. No.
Q. Your books will show that in detail, however? A. Yes; they
will show by my going over the assessment.
Q. Are you able to tell us what percentage of that is assessed
against private individuals? A. No, sir; I couldn't form any idea of
it, because I have never looked into that; I can tell the amounts that
are assessed to the corporations.
Q. Corporations and banks? A. Yes, sir; that detail is in here
[referring to annual report].
Q. Does this $229,000,000 include the personalty that is assessed
against banks? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is in the neighborhood of $65,000,000? A. Sixty-five mil-
lion dollars, or $68,000,000.
Q. It is $69,000,000, I see? A. That is the original assessment; this
is the amount remaining on the receiver's book, this amount here.
Q. Sixty-nine million dollars of the $230,000,000 is assessed to
banks? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Twenty-six million dollars to other corporations? A. That is
the increase.
Q. Only the increase? A. Only the increase; here is the list here.
Q. These are resident individuals? A. Yes, sir; and these others
are the non-residents.
Q. This total on page 23 of this report for 1890, shows that of
the $229,000,000, there is assessed against resident individuals
$113,000,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that almost half of the entire assessment is made by indi-
viduals? A. Yes, sir; individuals and estates.
Senator FASSETT.- Mr. Ivins, do you want to examine any further in
this direction?
Mr. IVINS.- No, sir; that is all I want.
No. 80.]
2527
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Are you familiar with the class of corporations known as
co-operative loan and building institutions? A. Well, not specially; I
know there are a good many of them in the city of New York, and we
put them on the rolls.
Q. Are they all put on the rolls? A. Well, not all of them; not all
in one year; we put them on as they appear in the book.
Q. Do you know how many of them remain on the roll? A. I don't
think that we have got one.
Q. How about the East Side Company? A. They are disputing the
assessment now against the commissioners.
Q. They claim that being substantially saving institutions, they are
entitled to exemption, do they? A. I brought over the report that
you might see, if you want to, as to what they claim.
sir.
Q. Did you levy this assessment against this company? A. Yes,
Q. What did you make the basis of your assessments? A. I think
I took it from an advertisement in the paper; $150,000.
Mr. IVINS.- What is the name of that company?
Senator FASSETT.-The East Side Co-operative and Building Loan
Association is the name.
The WITNESS.-I don't recall in my mind just where I got it; but
they frequently advertise in a paper such an amount on loans; they are
not capitalized companies, any of them, but they advertise in the
papers so much to put out on loans.
Q. Do you make any distinction in your office between these mutua
co-operative building and loan associations, with reference to the
statute under which they were organized? A. No, sir; we put them
all on the roll just the same.
Q. They are all put on the roll just the same? A. Yes, sir.
Q. If you were convinced that they were substantially institutions
of thrift for mutual savings, and not institutions conducted for the
purpose merely of making money, would you have any jurisdiction to
remit their taxes? A. No, sir; we would have none at all.
Q. That remains with the Legislature? A. That rests with the com-
missioners so far as I know.
Q. I mean would the commissioners have any jurisdiction to remit
that tax? A. I don't know whether they would remit that or not.
Q. Do you know of any law under which they could remit it? A.
No; I do not, except what they claim there; that is the only thing that
I know of.
3
2528
[SENATE,
+
*
}
Q. Is this the only institution of this kind against which you actu-
ally levied an assessment; A. No, sir; there are others; I brought
that over.
Q. You have not a list of the others? A. I have not a list of the
others; no, sir; the statements of all the others are about of that
character.
Q. If I understand you correctly, although it should appear to the
commissioners on application that one of these companies owned not
real estate, and was simply an association of individuals, each repre-
senting a number of shares, on which they paid a monthly installment,
the aggregate cf which deposits was loaned out to the highest bidder
within the limits of the society; in other words that it was simply a
mutual savings bank, you would have in your department at present
no discretion to remit a taxation against their accumulated savings?
A. I think not in the case of those corporations; in mutual life insur-
ance companies that is different; the law is specific as to those.
Q. You don't know how many of those companies are taxed; do you?
A. No.
Q. Nor an approximate number? A. I couldn't tell without going
over the rolls; there is quite a number of them on; there are
a good many more of them appear here than ever did before.
Q. Have you ever made any distinction between these so-called local
mutual societies and the so-called national societies? A. Not at all;
we place them all on the roll; you see, there has been a large one
formed this year with a nominal capital of $10,000,000; a new one.
Q. About ten per cent of the amount of personalty that actually
once gets on your books remains on the receiver's books, does it? A.
There is more than that.
Q. How much is it-twelve per cent? A. A good deal more than
that; do you mean of that that actually gets on the rolls?
Q. Yes. A. Oh, there is a good deal more than that; I don't know
just what the percentage is, but that is very low.
Q. It is about twelve and a half per cent, isn't it-what percentage
of $1,600,000,000 is $200,000,000? A. You are taking the corporations
into account.
Q. I am taking everything into account. A. Oh, yes; on that basis
that would be right.
Q. About twelve and a half per cent of all the personalty that you
get on your books at all remains on the books? A. Yes; corporations
and all that would be near it.
Q. That is, eighty-seven and a half per cent escapes? A. Yes.
t
No. 80.]
2529
Q. Have you any idea how much per cent of personalty never gets
on your books at all? A. No; I have not the remotest idea.
Q. Do you suppose you get one-tenth of all of it on your books ?
A. I don't believe we do; I know two or three instances; one instance
of an amount that was paid to a certain person, $300,000˚ and odd, for
land taken by the city for parks in the upper part of the city; it was
paid by the comptroller, and the party was paying upon $10,000, upon
an assessment of $10,000, and I increased it simply upon the amount
of that payment to $100,000, and he came in the office and swore it
down to $5,000; so we lost $5,000 on that.
Q. So far as your department is concerned, they are absolutely
powerless as against the oath of individuals? A. That is it; we can't
go behind it; we have to take it as we find it.
Senator FASSETT.- That is all.
Mr. IVINS.-I want to put in evidence a letter dated April 25, 1889,
from the tax department as follows: "Mr. Gunther K. Morgan, Secre-
tary and Executive Officer Civil Service Board, New York city. Sir.-I
am instructed by the commissioners of taxes and assessments to
request you to certify to them names of persons" and I call the com-
mittee's attention to the use of the plural
"on the list of those
eligible to appoint to the position of a deputy tax commissioners.
Respectfully, Floyd T. Smith, secretary.”
Senator FASSETT.- What is that date?
Mr. IVINS. That is April twenty-fifth. It appears, therefore, that
Mr. Perry had been examined on his own application without compe-
tition some time prior to the requisition.
Senator FASSETT. April nineteenth he was examined.
-
Mr. IvINS. April nineteenth-six days prior to the application
or requisition by the board of taxes and assessments for a name to
fill the vacancy.
MAURICE F. HOLAHAN, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Where do you live? A. One hundred and thirty-three East
Fiftieth street.
Q. What is your business? A. Commissioner of accounts.
Q. How long have you been commissioner of accounts?
January, 1889.
Q. By whom were you appointed? A. Mayor Grant.
Q. When were you appointed? A. January, 1889.
A. Since
Q. What time in January? A. I think about the thirteenth, some-
where along there.
[Senate, No. 80.]
317
2530
[SENATE,
:
Q. That was during the first fortnight of Mayor Grant's term? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Who is your fellow commissioner? A. Edward P. Barker.
Q. When was he appointed? A. I think the last day of January or
the first of February. ·
Q. Whom did you succeed? A. I succeeded Mr. Daly, James Daly.
Q. Whom did Mr. Barker succeed? A. Mr. Sherman.
Q. Have you a list of the employes in the office at the time when
you went into it? A. Not at the time when I went in; I have got
the list as they are to day [producing paper].
Q. Edward Owen? A. He was in the office when we came there.
Q. He was in the office? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And is still there? A. Yes, sir.
Q. D. F. Melville? A. He was in the office.
Q. J. B. Cavanagh? A. Mr. Cavanagh in 1889, sometime was sus、
pended for lack of appropriation; he was never appointed until after
I came in office; he brought me credentials to show that he had per-
formed his work well while he was there, and also a record that he
had passed two very successful civil service examinations for positions.
Q. And you then reappointed him? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is he a member of Tammany Hall? A. I didn't know it at that
time; he is though.
Q. You are a member of Tammany Hall? A. Yes, sir.
Q. John S. Bedell? A. He has been in the office for several years.
Q. R. Nevins? A. He has been in the office for several years.
Q. W. J. Bell? A. He was appointed about a year ago.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Let me ask right here, is this a civil service department? A. No.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You have the absolute power of appointment and removal? A.
Yes.
Q. And the mayor has the absolute power of appointment and
removal over you? A. Yes.
Q. Now, W. J. Bell? A. He was appointed about a year ago.
Q. By whom? A. By me.
Q. Is he a Tammany Hall man? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was his business prior to his appointment. A. He was a
lawyer.
Q. Where does he live? A. I think in Avenue D.
Q. F. P. White? A. F. P. White was appointed about six or seven
months ago.
No. 80.]
2531
Q. Who is he? A. He was known to Mr. Barker as an expert book-
keeper in some large wholesale house; that is all I know about him.
Q. Is he a Tammany Hall man? A. I think not; I don't think he is
interested in politics at all.
Q. P. H. Hayes? A. Mr. Hayes came to us recommended for work
he did with the other Senate investigating committee.
Q. Which other Senate investigating committee? A. The one in
which Mr. Best assisted.
Q. Do you mean the aqueduct investigation? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who recommended him? A. He came with credentials.
Q. From whom - from Mr. Best or from the committee? A. I think
he had a letter from Mr. Best.
Q. Mr. Best was not the committee, was he? A. No.
Q. Mr. Best was only one of the employes of the committee, wasn't
he? A. Yes, sir.
Q. As a matter of fact, Mr. Best was not the sole accountant for
the committee, was he? A. Well, he was one of them, and a very
prominent one; that is all I know.
Q. Did you appoint him because Mr. Best recommended him, or
because you saw behind Mr. Best's recommendation the recommenda-
tion of the committee? A. No, sir; I appointed him because I
thought that he was a competent man to do his work; that is all.
Q. Is he a Tammany Hall man? A. I couldn't tell you.
Q. Do you know what his business was before he was appointed?
A. He was a bookkeeper.
Q. Where? A. Well, he was employed by several large mercantile
firms and at the time satisfied us of that fact.
Q. Do you know why he ceased to be in their employ? A. I do
not, sir.
Q. Had he been discharged from them at the time he took this
place with you? A. If I am not mistaken my impression is that the
firm he was with were going out of business; I think so; there was
nothing against the man's character.
Q. C. Schoengood? A. Schoen good is a bookkeeper and is a mem-
ber of Tammany Hall.
Q. What district? A. The twentieth.
Q. Who appointed him? A. Well, I appointed him; that is, the
commissioners of accounts appointed him.
Q. But at whose suggestion or request yours? A. I think it was
mine.
Q. Who requested you to appoint him? A. Mr. Carroll, the leader
of the organization in that district; he recommended Mr. Schoengood
2532
[SENATE,
€
as a good man; we told him that we were in quest of men who could
do the work assigned them, and we would give him a trial and if he
proved to be a good man, we would retain him; if not, he could not
remain.
Q. When Mr. Carrol recommended Mr. Schoengood as a good man
did he know what work he was good for; that is, did he know what
work you were going to put him on? A. He said he was a book-
keeper and Mr. Schoengood also told me he was a bookkeeper himself.
Q. What was Mr. Schoengood's business before he went with you?
A. A bookkeeper as I understood him.
Q. Did you find out for whom he had been a bookkeeper? A. I
don't think I did.
Q. Didn't you think it was worth while? A. It didn't occur to me
just at that time.
Q. Did you make any reference to his former employers, or did you
think that Mr. Carrol's reference, as leader of the district, was suf-
ficient? A. I thought that it was good enough to try the experiment
with him.
Q. How many experiments of that kind have you tried? A. We
try it with all of them.
Q. You try that with all of them? A. Yes, sir; we don't employ
any man for more than a day at a time at first.
Q. Did you try an experiment with a man named Theodore Ham-
ilton? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who asked you to appoint him? A. He was an applicant him-
self to me.
Q. And you took the responsibility of appointing him? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, will you tell us why you appointed Theodore Hamilton?
A. Because I thought he was a good man.
Q. Why did you think he was a good man? A. Well, sir, he had
been employed in various departments of the city government as long
as I knew him.
Q. Did you know what he had done under his employers in the
various departments? A. I did not.
Q. Did you know that he had done nothing, except to run of errands
for commissioners and to generally make mischief, and make himself
busy in other people's affairs during the entire time? A. I didn't
know that; if I had he would not have been appointed.
Q. What was he appointed to do? A. The first work that we
assigned him to was to make an examination of the marshal's fees;
that is, the fees in the marshal's office.
Q. Did you inquire whether he had ever made an examination of
No. 80.]
2533
any books theretofore, or had any capacity to examining any books of
any kind? A. Only what he told me; he said that he had a perfect
knowledge of bookkeeping in the department of public works.
Q. How long have you known him? A. Well, personally, I don't
know him at all, except just to speak to him.
Q. Don't you know that he claims to have a perfect knowledge of
everything? A. I don't know.
Q. Now, I want to find out why Mr. Theodore Hamilton was appointed
to that place, and if you made any inquiries about his character, his
habits or his capacity? A. Well, I didn't know anything about
his character at all; I knew that he had been employed in the
various departments, and I didn't suppose that one administration
after another would keep him on the pay-roll and allow him to do
nothing; I never knew that he was a messenger between leaders, or
the messenger for the head of a department, or anything of the kind.
Q. I have not said he was; how do you know it now; what makes
you answer that in that way? A. I thought that was what you stated.
Q. No; I didn't state anything of the kind.
Senator FASSETT. He asked you if you knew it.
The WITNESS.-That is the inference.
Q. I think it is pretty apparent that you did know; he was in the
employ of your political adversaries, wasn't he? A. He was in the
department when Mr. Thompson was there.
Q. Didn't you know that he was virtually the personal messenger of
Hubert O. Thompson? A. I did not.
Q. Did you ever hear of his having done, at any time, a day's work,
or an hour's work, or a minute's work on the books of any department
in the city government? A. Well, I did not know whether he did
or not.
Q. Who recommended you to take him? A. He came himself to me.
Q. Is he so prepossessing in his appearance that you took him on
that? A. I don't consult that.
Q. What do you consult—why did you take Theodore Hamilton?
A. Because I thought he was a good man; that is all.
Q. Why did you think he was a good man? A. I knew nothing
about his character; he had been employed in a department, as I said
before, and I supposed he was a useful man.
1
Q. Hadn't Theodore Hamilton rendered you and your friends
political assistance in the antecedent campaign? A. Not that I know
of; he never rendered me any assistance.
Q. Didn't he render assistance to your party during the previous
2534
[SENATE,
campaign? A. I saw him around headquarters, but I don't know
what he did.
Q. You saw him around headquarters? A. Yes, sir..
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Did he ask the appointment on that ground? A. He never did
anything on my suggestion or for me.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Why did you discharge him? A. I discharged him because he
had accepted, or at least a man swore that another man had said that
Mr. Hamilton received twenty dollars for his influence in securing a
market stand in the new market.
Q. That cropped out quite unexpectedly in the market investigation,
didn't it? A. The mayor sent for me and told me about it.
Q. How long was that after you came into office and after Mr.
Hamilton had been appointed? A. I don't think it was more than
two weeks.
Q. Then you found out very suddenly what his character was
A. Yes.
?
Q. In view of the fact that you could find out so suddenly and so
easily, why didn't you make some inquiries in advance? A. I don't
know why I didn't; but when I found he was not the kind of a man
that we wanted in there, he went out; he was suspended at once.
Q. Why did you think he was the kind you did not want before you
found him out? A. Simply because I thought he was familiar with the
workings of the departments; that is all; they said he had a collegiate
education.
Q. Did he tell you what college he was educated at? A. No.
Q. Who told you he had a collegiate education? A. I couldn't tell
you just exactly now; I think he had; I don't know.
Q. What makes you think he had? A. Because I was told so by
parties who knew him personally.
Q. Do you remember who told you that? A. I do not.
Q. Did you appoint him because of the allegation that he was a
collegian? A. I appointed him because I thought he was a fit assist-
ant; that was all; and if I didn't think so he wouldn't have been
appointed with my vote.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Did this alleged irregularity of his occur while he was your
employe? A. No, sir
No. 80.1
2535
Q. But it was discovered while you were his employer? A. Yes,
sir; but it was a year before.
Q. It was a year before that? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You regarded him as a kind of professional employe of the
department? A. I considered him as an employe; I thought he must
have some familiarity, and I set him right to work; he was no
messenger for us, no matter what he had done for other heads of
office; we put him right at work and held him from 9 to 4.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. As commissioner of accounts you sometimes look over pay-rolls
don't you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is Mr. Hamilton now on the rolls of the city? A. Not that I
know of.
Q. In any department? A. Not that I know of.
Q. Who is W. H. Heaton? A. Mr. Heaton is a bookkeeper, a young
man who came on here from Washington.
Q. How long had he been here? A. He had been off and on for
years; he was born in New York city.
Q. When did he come here to make his residence? A. I think just
a little while before he was appointed.
Q. When was he appointed? A. About a year ago.
Q. Did he join Tammany Hall before his appointment or after? A.
No, sir; he didn't join Tammany Hall until about a month ago.
Q. Only a month ago? A. Yes.
Q. What district organization does he belong to? A. The twentieth.
Q. Who recommended him to you? A. Well, I knew him for years;
I knew him when he was a boy; I knew him when he was a child.
Q. E. A. Harvey? A. Mr. Harvey was in the office before I came
there.
Q. D. F. McCarthy? A. Mr. McCarthy is the messenger; the
messenger who had been there for a number of years was very sick
for three months before Mr. Sherman left, and, of course, we had to
make a change and took Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. IvINS.— I find by the list handed me by the witness that
Edward Owen receives $175 per month; D. —. Melville, $150; J. B.
Cavanagh, $125; John S. Bedell, $100; R. Nevins, $100; W. J. Bell,
$100; F. P. White, $100; E. H. Hayes, $100; C. Schoengood, $100;
W. H. Heaton, eighty-three dollars; E. A. Harvey, seventy-five dol-
lars; D. F. McCarthy, seventy-five dollars-making an aggregate of
$1,283 per month.
Q. You received what salary? A. Five thousand dollars.
3
[SENATE,
2536
F
Q. Five thousand dollars per annum? A. Yes.
Q. And your fellow commissioner receives $5,000 per annum? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. You and he are equal in dignity? A. Yes.
Q. It is not a board and there is no president of it? A. No.
Q. Are there any other persons paid out of the appropriations for
your bureau? A. Only when we employ them, when we have an open
investigation, stenographers, etc.
Q. Where do you get your supplies
Yes, sir.
through the City Record? A.
Q. The city pays the rent of your office? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the rent of so much of the Stewart building as you
occupy do you know? A. I think it is $3,500.
Q. That is for the three rooms, isn't it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you a contingent fund? A. No, sir.
Q. What is the total of appropriations for your bureau for the
present year? A. Including the salary of the commissioners?
Q. Yes. A. Twenty-seven thousand five hundred dollars.
Q. What appropriation have you asked for the next year? A.
Thirty-five thousand dollars.
Q. Why have you asked for $35,000? A. Because we wanted to
employ additional men so as to make an examination of more depart-
ments of the city government than we have been able to.
Q. Now, we will begin with this list again; what does Mr. Owen do?
A. Mr. Owen keeps an account of the receipts and expenditures in
the chamberlain's office from day to day and puts them in his book,
and then he maks a quarterly statement.
Q. Do you mean to say that he keeps an account or checks off the
entries in the chamberlain's books? A. In the chamberlain's books.
Q. He checks them off? A. Yes.
Q. He does not keep a duplicate set? A. He keeps duplicate books
so that he can make from his book a quarterly or an annual statement.
Q. That is to show summaries? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that, so far as Mr. Owen is concerned, in his examination of
the chamberlain's books he checks off the details of entries in the
chamberlain's books.? A. Yes, sir.
Q. But only makes memorandum of final balances? A. Yes, sir;
then he keeps a record of the registered interest payment, and he
also attends to some correspondence and acts in the absence of the
commissioners in detailing the men to work.
Q. Why does he keep a record of the registered bonds? A. In
order to keep a tally of the payments.
No. 80.]
2537
Q. Can't he do that without keeping a record of his own? A. He
has always done it under Mr. Sherman; I believe it was Mr. Sherman
that suggested it.
Q. Are not the books in the comptroller's office ample without his
keeping an additional record? A. Possibly so.
Q. How much of his time is taken up in keeping this record of
the registered bonds? A. He is busy all the time except when he
makes his annual examination of the police department.
Q. When does he make that? A. He makes that; I think he begins
about September.
Q. Do you know what sort of an examination he makes of the police
department? A. He examines all the vouchers and the pay-rolls of
the department.
Q. Do you mean to say that you know he does so, or that he is
instructed to do so? A. He is instructed to do so, and he has his
reports ready.
Q. What else does he do? A. That is about all he does; he seems
to be busy at all times.
Q. Now, has Mr. Owen ever, during your term, detected an error in
any of the books that he has examined? A. Well, on two or three
occasions the officers in the comptroller's office have come out to look
over his books to detect errors, or what they considered errors, in
their own books.
Q. That is, they have come to his books for the purpose of checking
off their own? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know whether there has ever been any detection of any
error in the city's books or the detection of any erroneous payment
of any kind as incident to the work done by Mr. Owen? A. No; I
hardly think so.
Q. Now, what reason is there for Mr. Owen checking off the
chamberlain's books? A. So that he can make an independent
statement.
Q. All the chamberlain's books correspond in general to the comp-
troller's books, don't they? A, Yes, sir.
Q. They are virtually a duplicate set of books? A. Yes.
Q. So far as both trust accounts are concerned and appropriation
accounts? A. Yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT.- Do you mean by virtually, formally, identically
or substantially identical?
Mr. IVINS. They are substantially identical. They differ mainly in
this, that the comptroller's books show the warrants drawn and the
chamberlain's books show the warrants paid; but when the accounts
[Senate, No. 80.]
318
2538
[SENATE,
for the year are closed up then the results, as shown on the face of
warrants, are identical in the two sets of books.
Senator FASSETT.— There is always a shifting difference on account
of the warrants that may be outstanding and not presented.
Mr. IVINS.-Yes.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Is that right? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. What reason is there for employing a man to do that work,
assuming for the present that the law didn't require it, in view of the
fact that the comptroller's books and the chamberlain's books are to
all intents and purposes identical, so far as concerns payments, out of
the city treasury? A. Well, the commissioners of accounts' idea is
that they should make a statement of their own, and if there is any
difference to investigate it.
Q. Do you certify to the statement made by Mr. Owen? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Do you make any examination of the manner in which he has
done his work? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is your examination? A. Well, we make a cursory
examination of it; we principally look to find out whether the
amounts in the various depositories are correct or not, and sometimes
go over some of the additions in different parts of it.
Q. What was your business before you became commissioner of
accounts? A. I was special agent of the treasury.
Q. Did that familiarize you with accounts? A. To some extent; yes.
Q. Does the special agent of the treasury have to examine accounts
from the point of view of the bookkeeper or accountant? A. We
have to examine the accounts of the custom houses to find out
whether the collector has returned to the United States Treasury the
money he has collected as duties.
Q. Nothing more to you? A. That is all, sir.
Q. Consequently a man could be special agent for the treasury
without having any expert knowledge as an accountant whatever,
couldn't he? A. Yes, sir; but I was also, in Washington, chief of
customs, where we had all the accounts of the various collectors to
examine.
Q. How long was that? A. That was from July, 1885, until
December, 1886.
Q. Prior to that, what office did you hold? A. Prior to that I was,
I think, clerk of the Senate.
No. 80.]
2539
Q. Prior to that you were in the Assembly, weren't you? A. I was
in the Assembly, and prior to that I was five years business manager
of a paper, and for two years was in the counting office.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Were you clerk of the Senate of 1882 and 1883? A. Yes, sir; I
was the assistant clerk.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Now, will you tell us, as a man who has had some experience of
accounts, what you mean by a cursory examination of an account?
A. I don't mean to examine it into details.
Q. How can you examine an account so that your examination is
reliable, unless you do it in detail? A. We can make certain tests
of it.
Q. Tell us how you have made tests of those accounts; has it been
by taking them and going to the chamberlain's books, and personally
checking them off? A. No, sir; I have not done that.
Q. He does not keep a set of double entry books, does he? A. No.
Q. Then if he does not keep a set of double entry books, how can
you make a test of the accuracy of his accounts, unless you go back
to the original accounts? A. Well, we make as careful an examina-
tion as we can, without going all over the details, such as he does.
Q. Your examination is careful enough to be cursory is that what
we are to understand? A. Yes.
Q. Do you, yourself, think that your cursory examination of his
accounts, amounts to anything-now, tell us frankly, does it? A.
Yes; I think so.
Q. What does it amount to? A. It amounts to this, if I detected an
error in any examination that I make, I wouldn't trust him.
Q. Now, will you tell us how you could detect an error in view of
the character of the examination as you have described it? How
would you know if an error had been committed in the work that is
done by Mr. Owen ? A. I think my brother commissioner could also
detect it.
Q. I am talking about you; we will take the brother later; now how
could you detect an error in Mr. Owen's work, how would you go
about detecting it? A. Of course, I couldn't detect a natural error,
except I went to the books just as you said in the chamberlain's office.
Q. Have you ever done that? A. No.
Q. Then you couldn't detect an error because you have never done
the thing necessary to its detection?
2540
[SENATE,
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Merely looking at the totals of accounts wouldn't reveal errors
in detail? A. Why no; the head bookkeeper is supposed to look after
that; he always does.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Then your examination of Mr. Owen's accounts is not only cur-
sory but entirely perfunctory, is that right? A. To a certain extent.
Q. Isn't it so entirely? A. I don't know but it is.
Q. You don't know but it is? A. No.
Q. Now, what does Mr. Melville do? A. Mr. Melville goes into the
various departments and examines the transactions of the departments.
Q. When does he go into the departments? A. From time to time;
he is in the street cleaning department at present.
Q. Who sends him? A. The commissioners.
Q. He is now in the street cleaning department? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What other department has Mr. Melville been in? A. He has
been in the park department; he has been in the dock department; he
has been in the police department and he has assisted in other
departments.
Q. How does his work in the police department differ from Mr.
Owen's work there? A. I think he was assisting Mr. Owen; that is
my impression; I know he went over the unclaimed property; that is
the property in the custody of the property clerk.
Q. He did that? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What else did he do? A. I don't know what else he did in it; I
don't know as he did anything else in the police department.
Q Is that reclaimed property a matter of vast magnitude and
serious importance in the administration of the city government? A.
It is well to know if the property clerk is administering the affairs of
that office properly or not.
Senator FASSETT.-That is the reclaimed property of the police
department?
Mr. IVINS.-Yes, sir.
The WITNESS. Property seized by the police and unclaimed.
Q. Do you know what books are kept showing what property is
claimed and what is unclaimed? A. I don't understand you.
Q. Do you know how the books of the police department, being the
books of the property clerk of the police department, showing what
property has been seized and what is claimed, reclaimed, or unre-
claimed, are kept? A. Why, they are just kept in a very simple man-
ner, the date of receipt and the disposition of each article.
No. 80.]
2541
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. And a description of the article? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Is it possible to find out, without going through those books,
whether or not the books are accurately kept? A. There is an entry
here of the goods when they come in.
Q. Did Mr. Melville check off the goods in the custody of the clerk?
A. I think he did.
Q. How long do you suppose that would take to do that, once, twice
or three times a year; how long would it take on each occasion? A.
Not over a couple of weeks; may be two or three weeks.
Q. Would it take three weeks to make one examination of the
property in the hands of the property clerk for the purpose of check-
ing off the accuracy of the entries in his books? A. It all depends
upon the amount of merchandise on hand.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Does he do this work alone? A. He did do it alone the
last time.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Have you any idea how much of that property there is on hand?
A. No, sir; we have a record of it in the office.
Q. Did I understand you to say that you had once been in mercantile
business? A. No, sir.
Q. So you have never had any experience in taking an account of
stock in a mercantile business? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you any idea how much account of stock one man can take
in three weeks by working diligently? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know whether Mr. Melville devoted three weeks to
going through that work, or not? A. Either two or three weeks;
I don't know which; he is a very faithful worker.
Q. You say he was in the dock department? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in the police department? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And now in the department of street cleaning? A. He was in
the park department for several months.
Q. How long was he in the park department? A. I should judge
four or five months.
Q. Who sent him there? A. The commissioners.
Q. Why was he sent there? A. For the purpose of making an
examination of the records of the department, and also to find out
2542
[SENATE,
whether the material that was purchased there was all properly
accounted for.
Q. When did he go there? A. I could not tell the exact date.
Q. Was it last spring? A. I think it was.
Q. Did he make a report? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you got his report? A. Well, he and the other assistants
who were with him, they made a report to the commissioners of
accounts and the commissioners of accounts presented the report to
the mayor.
Q. Did that report as presented to the mayor include his report in
the premises, or only embody the substance of it? A. Well, it
embodied a part of his report.
Q. His report, then, was treated by you simply as material to serve
in drawing your report? A. Yes, sir; well-
Q. [Interposing.] What has become of his report? A. Well, I
want to say this, that Commissioner Barker, who had charge of that
matter — he worked with Mr. Melville there, and together they wrote
the report — and he made the final report.
Q. How long was Mr. Melville in the dock department? A. I
should think about three months.
Q. You preferred charges against the dock commissioners, didn't
you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long had you been prosecuting the inquiry into the affairs
of the dock department before you preferred those charges? A. You
mean the open investigation?
Q. I mean your investigation before the open investigation before
the commissioners of accounts began? A. Well, the examination was
going on about three months before we had the public or open inves-
tigation; we began the open investigation October seventh, and then
we deferred it until after election.
Q. Who asked you to defer it until after election? A. Well, it was
our judgment that it should be deferred because we suspected that
somebody might attribute political motives to us.
Senator FASSETT. Yes; that would be too bad.
Q. Did you suspend the investigation of all departments until after
election? A. No, sir.
Q. Why, if that is right in one, single case, isn't it right for you
to suspend all other operations that you have on hand until
after elections are over? A. Well, this was a public investigation.
Q. Why, was there any member of that board running for office at
that election? A. No, sir.
Q. Was there any employe of the dock department running for
office? A. Not that I know of.
No. 80.1
2543
Q. They had a good deal of influence, however, haven't they? A.
I don't know that.
Q. You never heard that the dock department had much influence ?
A. No, sir; but I should imagine that they had influence, but it never
occurred to me in the postponement of the investigation.
Q. When did you take that up again—right after election? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. How soon after? A. I think the latter part of November, we
took it up again.
Q. Do you know whom the main body of the employes in the dock
department supported in that election? A. I do not.
Q. Do you know whom the commissioners of the dock department
supported in that election? A. I imagine they were divided.
Q. Mr. Post is an antagonist of Tammany Hall, isn't he? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. And Mr. Matthews is an antagonist of Tammany Hall? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Was Mr. Cram then a commissioner? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Cram was a friend of Tammany Hall? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So Tammany Hall had one friend in the board and two
antagonists? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long after election did your open investigation continue?
A. I think it continued until in December sometime.
Q. Then you preferred charges to the mayor? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Didn't you prefer charges to the mayor before you had com-
pleted your investigation in the department? A. No, sir; with the
presentation of our charges the investigation stopped.
Q. Had you made a complete, thorough and exhaustive examina-
tion of the department before you preferred those charges? A.
Well, the partial examination that we made, in conjunction with the
testimony taken before our commission, made us believe that charges
should be preferred against the department.
Q. Without any further examination? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that you stopped right there and preferred the charges? A.
Yes, sir; upon the admission of the commissioners themselves.
Q. Then the mayor took testimony and dismissed the charges,
didn't he? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long were those charges pending before the mayor? A. I
think five or six weeks; all the counsel seemed to have the grippe, one
after the other, and that delayed it.
Q. Were not those charges pending before the mayor for several
months? A. No; I think several weeks.
2544
[SENATE,
Q. Were not those charges still pending before the mayor when
this committee began its session in this city? A. I don't remember.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. You don't recollect? A. I do not.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. How long was Mr. Melville employed in your preliminary inves-
tigation of that department? A. I think about three or four months.
By Senator FASSETT:
{
Q. What called your attention to the department of docks? A. Mr.
Cram came to the office and stated that he wishes the commissioners
of accounts would begin an investigation of the dock department.
Q. Why? A. Well, he said that he did not believe everything was
all right.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Did he state why? A. He said he would like to have the depart-
ment examined thoroughly, because he was a new commissioner, and he
didn't want to be tarnished with any wrongdoing that was going on
there.
By Senator FASSETT :
Q. How long had he been a commissioner at this time; do you
recollect? A. I think about six months - well, when he made the
request he had only been in there a few weeks.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Did he give you any indications as to what was going to tarnish
him? A. He said he had made several suggestions to the board that
certain men should be dismissed, particularly dockmasters, that he
didn't think they were rendering a proper account to the city; and
also in the purchase of materials, etc., that he didn't think things
were carried on properly.
Q. Did you find that the dockmasters were not rendering proper
accounts? A. Yes, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Did Mr. Cram make a written accusation? A. No, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Did you find there was any fraud in the purchase of materials?
A. Well, we found they were paying higher prices than the market
prices, and that they were purchasing in the open market.
No. 80.]
2545
Q. The mayor appointed Mr. Cram-Mayor Grant? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the mayor dismissed these complaints? A. Yes, sir.
By Senator FASSETT :
Q. Did Mr. Melville make a written report to you of what he dis-
covered in his private investigation of the department? A. Well, he
had a mass of figures there; there was no written report, but he came
before the commissioners of account and went on explaining what he
had found in the various bureaus of the department.
Q. Have you the record of his explanation? A. No, sir; excepting
that we have his figures.
Q. Was there no stenographer present when he made these explana-
tions? A. No, sir.
Q. When you had your public investigation, was that done by
calling witnesses and examining them under oath? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you any record of that examination? A. Yes sir.
Q. That is obtainable is it? A. Yes, sir; I believe Mr. Ivins has all
the testimony taken there.
#
Q. Did you make written charges to the mayor? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ever amend the original charges? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you records of the original and amended charges? A.
Yes, sir; they are in existence
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Are they in the record that I have? A. I think so; Mr. Barker
can tell you.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. There is no difficulty in our both obtaining those, is there? A.
No; sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. When did Mr. Melville go into the street cleaning department?
A. I think about two months ago.
Q. Who sent him there? A. The commissioner of accounts.
Q. Why did you send him there? A. We wanted to find out
whether the department had been properly conducted.
Q. Why didn't you send somebody there before? A. Because we
didn't get around to that department.
Q. Have you ever approached the street cleaning department prior
to two month ago? A. Not prior to the time that we sent in Mr.
Melville.
Q. Then the street cleaning department has been running along for
sixteen months without any investigation on your part? A. Yes sir.
[Senate, No. 80.]
319
2546
[SENATE,
Q. What other departments have been going on for sixteen months
without any investigation on your part? A. There are some depart.
ments that we have not touched at all yet.
Q. What are they; have you gone into the fire department? A.
No; sir.
Q. Do you know whether any investigation has ever been made,
at any time, by any one, of the operations of the fire department?
A. I think not by any commissioner of accounts.
Q. Or by any investigating committee? A. No; sir
Q. The fire department has from its creation to this day escaped
investigation? A. I think so; there is no record of any investigation
in our office.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Have any complaints ever been made before you of any irreg-
ularities in the fire department, at any time, of any kind? A. No, sir.
Q. Either in administration, or in the purchase of supplies?
No, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
A.
Q. The police department has been investigated repeatedly? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. And the street cleaning department has been investigated a
number of times? A. I don't remember any investigation; we have
no record in our office that the commissioners of accounts made an
examination of that department.
Q. And the dock department has been investigated a number of
times? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the records of the commissioners of accounts shows that
the commissioners of accounts have investigated it a number of times?
A. Twice, I think.
Q. Twice prior to your time? A.
Senator FASSETT.- The markets
Yes, sir.
is that a separate bureau?
Mr. IVINS. That is a part of the finance department.
Q. Why is it, knowing that the fire department has never been
investigated, that you have never instituted an investigation of that
department? A. We would have gone into the fire department if we
had not taken up the dock department and the park department.
Q. Has the dock department and the park department virtually
consumed all of your time for the last twenty months? A. No, sir;
we have made an examination of the collection of moneys by the
department of public works, and we made our report yesterday, or
the day before, to the mayor.
No. 80.]
2547
Q. Have you made further or fuller examination of the department
of public works than that? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever examined the contracts for supplies to the depart-
ment of public works? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever audited the vouchers for the purchase of supplies
for the department of public works? A. No, sir; I don't think we
have.
Q. Have you ever checked back and reaudited the work of the
auditors? A. Yes, sir.
Senator FASSETT.— In the department of public works?
Mr. IVINs. In the department of finance now.
The WITNESS. Of course, you understand that all vouchers for the
payment of money pass through our office, and every voucher is
examined by Mr. Bedell and Mr. Melville in our office.
•
Q. Have you and your fellow commissioners, so far as you know,
ever examined any of the contracts for supplies to any of the depart-
ments of the city? A. No, sir.
Q. Why haven't you? A. Except in the park department and in
the dock department.
Q. Why did you go into the park department? A. Because it had
not been examined for a number of years; that was one of the
departments that the commissioners could have gone into.
Q. Do you remember the time there was a good deal of talk about
the supply of Raw Hook gravel for the park department? A. That
was before my time.
Q. When there was an investigation of the park department? A.
That was Mr. Shearman; I think a year before I came in, in regard to
that Fifth avenue pavement.
Q. In regard to repaving? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Commissioner Barker had been an employe of the park depart-
ment, hadn't he? A. I understood so.
Q. And he had either resigned or been removed, I don't know
which? A. I don't know, either.
Q. Have you ever made any investigation of the department of
charities and corrections? A. Only in regard to the crib bulkhead;
we got two or three communications in regard to it.
Q. That was made at a time when Mr. Brennan, then the commis-
sioner, was an applicant for reappointment? A. I believe so; and
possibly the people who were interested in not having him reappointed
sent us letters to investigate it.
Q. And you made an investigation of the crib bulkhead work at
the instigation of persons who were interested in not having Mr.
2548
[SENATE,
}
Brennan reappointed? A. Well, I don't know whether they were
interested in not having Mr. Brennan appointed, or whether they
were interested in behalf of the city.
Q. At any rate, he did not get reappointed? A. No, sir.
Q. And the results of your investigation was used to prevent
his reappointment? A. I can not say that.
Q. Weren't they referred to by the appointing power? A. I don't
know; I don't think the appointing power ever made any reference to
that.
Q. Either publicly or privately? A. I never saw anything in print
about it.
Q. After he was not reappointed, you stopped? A. No, sir.
Q. You did not prosecute that any further? A. No, sir; because
we had exhausted it.
Q. Did you go into other details? A. No, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Was there anything in your investigation of that part of the work
of the department of charities and corrections which led you to think
that a further investigation would prove desirable? A. We felt, and
do feel now, that there ought to be a thorough investigation of that
department and other departments.
Q. Why? A. I think all departments ought to be investigated.
Q. Simply on general principles? A. Yes, sir; I think so.
Q. Who makes that investigation, your subordinates or you, in
the first instance? A. They start the investigation; they report to us
every day, or every morning, what the progress of the investigation
is, and sometimes Mr. Barker or me will go into the department.
Q. It is really necessary, isn't it, that your subordinates should be
men of as much ability as you are in order to prosecute these investi-
gations properly, in the first instance? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Are they? A. Yes, sir; I think so.
Q. Do you think the subordinates who do this work are fully as
competent as expert bookkeepers as you are? A. Some of them are.
Q. Why, have you any who are not? A. I don't think you can get
an expert accountant for eighty-three dollars a month, or seventy-five.
dollars a month or even $100 a month.
Q. Don't you think you can get a fairly expert accountant for $100
a month? A. No, sir.
Q. Don't you know that $1,200 a year is quite an average salary for
first-class double entry bookkeepers in this city keeping a small and
an average set of books? A. No, sir.
ร
No. 80.]
2549
Q. Have you ever tried to get an accountant? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you ever tried, other than to recollect some of your per-
sonal friends, like the gentleman from Washington, or go to a leader
like Mr. Tarrall? A. Yes, sir; we are always on the lookout for them.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Did you ever advertise, "Expert accountant wanted — commis-
sioners of accounts?" A. No, sir; I think we would have had
4,000,000 applicants if we had advertised.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. As a matter of fact, haven't you always made vacancies in order
to fill them? A. No, sir; I don't know the politics of but three men
on that list; there has never been a question of politics in our office;
I don't know how the men vote; the three men who belong to Tam-
many Hall, I judge they vote the Democratic ticket and the Tammany
Hall ticket, but there has never been any question of politics in our
dealings with the men.
Q. Do you know what kind of an investigation Mr. Melville is
at present prosecuting in the department of street cleaning?
A. Principally in the record of the supplies.
Q. What instructions did he have? A. To find out the amount of
the contracts for the amount of supplies, the cost, etc.; and also to
get up a record of the contracts.
Q. Has he been instructed to try and discover the volume of work
done as compared with the volume of expenditure? A. Yes, sir; that
enters into it.
Q. How would you go about that if you were doing the work your-
self instead of having Mr. Melville do it? A. I would find out from
their books how much work had been accomplished from day to day
and the cost, and get at it per yard.
Q. Do you know whether their books show how much work has
been accomplished from day to day? A. I think they do.
Q. Why? A. Because they make reports from week to week and
from month to month.
Q. Have you ever seen their books? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever seen the books of the health department? A.
No, sir.
Q. Or of the department of charities and correction? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you ever seen any of the books of the department of
charities and correction except those that bore on the crib bulkhead
work? A. No, sir.
་
2550
[SENATE,
Q. Have you ever seen the books of the fire department? A. No,
sir.
Q. Have you ever personally seen the books of the police depart-
ment? A. No, sir; excepting the books that Mr. Owen had down
there; he brought some books down with him.
Q. Have you ever seen the books of the dock department? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. As incident to that particular investigation? A. Yes, sir; the
books were in our office, some of them.
Q. Have you ever seen the books of the civil justices? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever seen the books of the police justices? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever seen the books of the mayor's office? A. Com-
missioner Barker has.
Q. You-I want to know what you know; then we will take him
next? A. I haven't personally —; no, sir.
Q. Have you ever examined the books of the tax department? A.
No, sir.
Q. Have you ever seen the books of the tax department?
sir.
A. Yes
Q. What books of the tax department have you seen? A. I can
not specify in particular what books I have seen; we never have begun
an investigation of the tax department at all.
Q. Do you know what the system and method of bookkeeping o
the mayor's bureaus are? A. Simply single entry.
Q. How do you know? A. That is what my assistants tell me.
Q. When I say "system and method," I am making no reference
whatever to whether it is single or double entry; do you understand
the theory of the accounts of that office? A. Yes, sir; in regard to
theatrical license fees you mean.
Q. In regard to all license fees, every class together, and in regard
to the expenditures of the mayor's office? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know that the Consolidation Act says that the appro-
priation for the mayor's office shall be $20,000 per year and no more for
all purposes? A. I think it is $26,000.
Q. The appropriations are $26,000, are they not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Don't you know that the Consolidation Act says they shall be
$20,000 and no more? A. I didn't notice that-no, sir.
Q. Don't you think that as a cómmissioner of accounts it would
have been a proper thing for you to compare the appropriation with
the provision of law regarding the appropriation? A. Yes, sir.
Q. But you have never done it? A. No, sir.
No. 80.]
2551
Q. Then you don't know why or how that additional $6,000 hap-
pens to be in the mayor's office? A. No, sir.
Senator FASSETT.- Section 105, of the Consolidation Act, says:
"The aggregate expenses incurrred by him (the mayor) for such
expenses shall not exceed in any one year the sum of $20,000.”
Q. How do you account for the fact of that additional $6,000 in
there? A. I can not account for it.
Q. How long has it been there, do you know? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know whether it came about from the consolidation of
bureaus, or whether it was just chucked in? A. I judge it came from
the consolidation of bureaus.
Q. What makes you judge that; do you know whether any bureaus
ever have been consolidated there? A. The bureau of licenses and
the bureau of which Mr. Martin was at the head were consolidated
the bureau of permits and the bureau of licenses.
Q. Do you know that the bureau of permits was regarded for years as
an independent bureau and not included in the appropriation for the
executive department for the purpose of escaping this very provision
of law? A. No, sir; I do not.
Q. Do you know anything about the system and theory of keeping
the books in the tax department? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know anything about the system and theory of keeping
the books in the charities department? A. I don't quite understand
what you mean.
Q. You say you have never seen the books of the department of
charities and correction? A. No, sir.
Q. Then you certainly do not understand them, do you? A. No,
sir.
Q. You have never seen the books of the fire department? A. No,
sir.
Q. You don't understand them, do you? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you understand the books of the police department? A. I
haven't examined them
no, sir.
Q. Have you ever personally examined the books of the chamber-
lain's office? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you understand them? A. Well, I suppose I would if I had
made the examination personally, myself.
Q. Do you understand the operations of the sinking fund of this
city? A. To some extent
yes, sir.
Q. Do you understand the books of the dock department? A. Well
I could understand the books to the extent that I could find out
2552
[SENATE,
whether the moneys received by the employes of the department were
paid into the city treasury.
Q. Do you understand the books of the general bookkeeper of the
city? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever examined the books of the general bookkeeper of
the city? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever suggested to the general bookkeeper of the city
any change in the method of keeping the accounts? A. No, sir.
Q. Has the general bookkeeper of the city ever talked with you
about any change in the method of keeping the accounts? A. No,
sir.
Q. Do you know the difference between appropriation account and
trust accounts? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is it? A. Appropriation accounts are the moneys that are
appropriated by the board of estimate and apportionment; the trust
accounts are the moneys that are not appropriated.
Mr. IVINS. If the committee please, I have a very important engage-
ment at 4 o'clock, and, as that hour has now arrived, I would suggest
an adjournment until to-morrow.
Senator FASSETT.-The committee will adjourn until to-morrow
morning at 11 o'clock.
Adjourned until to-morrow, October 23, 1890, at 11 a. M.
Mr. IVINS. - Here is an exhibit that was omitted from the testimony
the other day and I would like to introduce it in to-day's session:
Application No
Examination No.....
Date of examination April 19, 1889.
No. 1. Form A.
February, 1889.
SCHEDULE F.
APPLICATION PAPER FOR THE NEW YORK CITY CIVIL SERVICE.
NEW YORK CITY CIVIL SERVICE BOARDS.
COOPER UNION.
}
1. This is the proper application form for every position except
that of patrolman, park policeman, and fireman in the fire department.
2. Every blank in the paragraphs numbered from one to twenty
inclusive must be properly filled, and every principal question
included therein must be clearly answered, in the handwriting of the
No. 80.]
2553
*
applicant; and, if the answers to such questions call for it, every sub-
ordinate question in the paragraphs lettered a, b, c, etc., must in like
manner be answered, or this application will be returned for correction.
3. Applications which disclose a lack of the qualifications as to age,
health, citizenship, etc., required by the rules will be rejected.
4. This application must be signed, sworn to, and sent to the secre-
tary of the New York city civil service boards.
5. Regulation 39 says: "Every false statement knowingly made
by any person in his application for examination, and every conni-
vance by him at any false statement made in any certificate which may
accompany his application, shall be regarded as good cause for the
removal or discharge of such person.
6. Applicants will be notified of the time and place of examination.
They must give notice of any change of post-office address, or unwill-
ingness or inability to attend the examination.
Application.
I make and swear to this application with the purpose of taking the
first examination open to me, and of entering without delay upon the
duties of any place in the city civil service for which I am an appli-
cant, and I promise to promptly inform the secretary of the civil
service boards of any change in such purpose.
*
Each question must be answered or the blank will be returned.
1. What is your full name? (If female, state whether Mrs. or Miss.)
Ans., Henry A. Terry.
2. What is your actual (legal) residence and post-office address at
this time? (Give in full, State and town or city, including street and
number.) Ans., it is Worth House, 7 West Twenty-sixth street,
in (in the town or city of) New York city (State of) New York.
3. How long have you been a resident of the last-named town or
city? Ans. I have been a resident therein during the period of thirty-
eight years.
4. Where, to the best of your information and belief, were you born?
(Give State or nation, as well as the city or town.) Ans. I was born
at New York city, in New York State, on the 3d day of May, 1850, and
I am therefore thirty-eight years of age.
5. Are you a citizen of the United States? Ans. (Yes or no.) Yes.
a. If not by birth a citizen, have you been naturalized, and when. Ans.
6. Where was your education chiefly received? Ans. It was chiefly
received (state at what place, and in what school, business college,
academy, or college, and length of course), at the public schools (W.
S. 14,) in the city of New York, (length of course, nine years).
320
[Senate, No. 80.]
2554
[SENATE,
7. What has been your business or occupation, and particularly,
what training and experience have you had to fit you for the position
you now seek? (State in detail.) I was for about nine years
employed in the department of taxes and assessments in this city,
between three and four years as clerk, and then advanced to the posi-
tion of deputy tax commissioner, which I held nearly five years.
8. What position in the city civil service do you seek? (Only one
position can be applied for on this blank.) Ans. I seek the position
of deputy tax commissioner.
9. Were you in the military or naval service of the United States
during the late war? Ans. (Yes or no.) No.
a. If yes, in what regiment or on what vessel, and between what
dates?
b. Were you honorably discharged?
c. If so discharged, attach a proof of it, either from the Adjutant-
General of the United States Army or the Secretary of the Navy, or
from the Memorial Committee, Grand Army of the Republic, room of
basement of city hall.
10. Were you ever in the service of the city of New York? Ans.
(Yes or no.) Yes.
a. If yes, state in what position, between what dates, in what depart-
ment, whether you have been dismissed from it, have failed to secure
a permanent appointment after probation, or have left it, and if so the
date, and, specifically, the cause of such dismissal, failure or leaving,
as clerk and deputy commissioner from 1875 to 1882, in the depart-
ment of taxes and assessments; cause of leaving, reduction in the
number of employes to reduce expenses in department.
11. Were you ever examined for a position in the service of the city
of New York? Ans. (Yes or no.) No.
a. If yes, state for what position.
12. By whom have you been employed, and at what place or places
and dates, during the last three years? (If you have been employed
by others, please state that fact.)
Ans. By
Ans. By
•
Ans. By
Ans. By
•
at
•
at
•
at
at
from.
from
from
from
18.. to 18..
18.. to 18..
18.. to 18..
18.. to 18..
13. Has any one of said persons, firms or corporations, or any public
officer, discharged or removed you during said three years? Ans.
(Yes or no).
a. If you say yes, state, if you please, by whom, and the date and
specifically the cause of such discharge or removal. I have had no
No. 80.]
2555
position during the past three years, but have been employed as
real estate expert.
14. Have you ever been arrested? Ans. (Yes or no.) No.
a. If yes, state or not, at your option, for what offense, and any
explanation you desire to make.
15. Have you ever been convicted of any crime, or imprisoned under
sentence for any crime? Ans. (Yes or no.) No.
a. If yes, state or not, at your option, what crime, and any
explanation you desire to make.
16. Do you use intoxicating beverages; and, if so, to what extent?
Ans. With extreme moderation.
17. Are you of good health? Ans. Yes.
18. Are you aware of anything that disqualifies you for a full
discharge of your official duty in the service which you seek to enter?
Ans. No.
19. Have you any defect of sight, hearing, speech or limb? (If
any, state the defect and its extent.) Ans. No.
20. Are you ready to stand a physical examination by a surgeon of
your own sex, if required? Ans. Yes.
Vouchers and their certificates.
Directions.-1. Four persons, and no more, must vouch for the
character of the applicant. They must be residents of this city, unless
the applicant resides elsewhere; when two of the vouchers, at least,
must be residents of New York city. All the vouchers should be well
acquainted with the applicants. They must have known the applicant
at least one year; and it is desirable that one of them should be a
reputable physician.
2. They should be persons of good character and standing in the
community where they reside, and must not be engaged in the liquor
trade in any form.
CC
Sec. 9. No
3. The Civil Service Act contains this language:
recommendation of any person who shall apply for office or place
under the provisions of this act, which may be given by any Senator
or Member of Assembly, or officer confirmed by the Senate or judge
of any court, except as to the character or residence of the applicant,
shall be received or considered by any person concerned in making
any examination or appointment under this act."
4. Each subsequent blank must be filled as accurately as practical.
N. B.- The applicant is cautioned that, inasmuch as the vouchers
on this paper will be called upon for such detailed (written)
information as to ability, industry, character, habits, etc., as
2556
[SENATE,
they can give, he should be careful to secure those who know
him well, especially in his occupation, and who will be willing
to furnish such information in greater detail when asked, as a failure
to so furnish it promptly will be deemed a refusal, and will be neces-
sarily a disadvantage to the applicant.
Certificate of voucher No. 1.—I state upon my honor as follows:
•
(1) That I am more than 21 years of age; (2) that I am now
a resident of New York city, in the State of New York; (3) that I am
not an immediate relative of the applicant; (4) that I have read the
whole of the foregoing application, and believe each of the statements
made therein to be true; (5) that I have personally known said appli-
cant well since 1880; (6) that said applicant has not, to my knowledge
or belief, any physical or mental weakness or infirmity, unless that
mentioned in this application, which is a disqualification for the ser-
vice sought; (7) that said applicant is to my personal knowledge a
person of good moral character and capacity, of good repute, of tem-
perate and industrious habits, and is in all respects fit for the service
the applicant seeks; (8) I would not refuse to employ the applicant in
private business for any lack of either of the qualifications aforesaid,
and I will on request give further information concerning the appli-
cant, and am willing this certificate should be made public when
necessary.
(Signature) E. S. Stokes. (Occupation) Hotel keeper.
(Post-office address, street and number) Hoffman House.
Certificate of voucher No. 2.—I state upon my honor as follows:
(1) That I am more than 21 years of age; (2) that I am now
a resident of (the city or town) New York, in the State of New
York; (3) that I am not an immediate relative of the applicant; (4) that
I have read the whole of the foregoing application, and believe each
of the statements made therein to be true; (5) that I have personally
known said applicant well since 1883; (6) I adopt and wish to be con-
sidered as repeating for myself the statements numbered 6, 7 and 8
of the foregoing certificate of voucher No. 1.
(Signature) R. W. Taylor. (Occupation) Physician.
(Post-office address, street and number) 40 West Twenty-first street,
New York city.
Certificate of voucher No. 3.—I state upon my honor as follows:
(1) That I am more than 21 years of age; (2) that I am now a
resident of (the city or town) New York city, in the State of New
York; (3) that I am not an immediate relative of the applicant; (4) that
I have read the whole of the foregoing application, and believe each
of the statements made therein to be true; (5) that I have personally
No. 80.]
2557
known said applicant well since 1873;. (6) I adopt and wish to be con-
sidered as repeating for myself the statements numbered 6, 7 and 8
of the foregoing certificate of voucher No. 1.
(Signature) John Hardy. (Occupation) Lawyer.
(Post-office address, street and number) No. 265 Broadway, New
York city.
Certificate of Voucher No. 4. —I state upon my
I state upon my honor as follows:
(1) That I am more than 21 years of age; (2) that I am now a
residence of (the city or town) New York city, in the State of New
York; (3) that I am not an immediate relative of the applicant; (4)
that I have read the whole of the foregoing application, and believe
each of the statements made therein to be true; (5) that I have per-
sonally known said applicant well since 1881; (6) I adopt and wish to
be considered as repeating for myself the statements numbered 6, 7
and 8 of the foregoing certificate of voucher No. 1.
(Signature) W. Bourke Cockran. (Occupation) lawyer.
(Post office address, street and number) 38 Park Row, New York city.
This oath must be taken before a justice, notary or other officer
competent to administer it.
STATE OF NEW YORK,}
COUNTY OF NEW
SS.:
And on this day said applicant, to me personally known, having
been duly sworn (or affirmed) before me, stated that said applicant
had read the printed as well as the written parts of the foregoing
application, and to the best of applicant's knowledge, information and
belief the several statements therein contained are true; and further
declared to me that said applicant had good reason to belief, and does
believe and represents, (1) that the occupation, residence, address and
other statements of each of the vouchers, as given in the foregoing
certificates, are severally correct; (2) that each of said vouchers is a
person of good character and reputation; (3) that the several signa-
tures hereto, purporting to be those of said vouchers and of the appli-
cant, are genuine; and (4) that deponent, who has signed this appli-
cation, is the person intended to be examined by virtue thereof.
(Signature of applicant as usually signed) H. A. Perry.
Sworn to and subscribed before me by said applicant this 16th day
of April, 1889.
(Signature of officer) T. Francis Gibbons,
(Official title) Com' of Deeds, N. Y. Co.
(If you have an official seal affix it.)
2558
[SENATE,
Form No. 1.
$
NEW YORK CIVIL SERVICE BOARD,
SECRETARY'S OFFICE, ROOM 30, COOPER UNION,
NEW YORK, April 14, 1889.
TO HENRY A. PERRY, 7 West Thirty-fifth Street, City:
SIR.- A complete examination of applicants for position of deputy
tax commissioner will be held at this office on Thursday, the 19th
day of April, 1889, beginning at 10 o'clock A. M. It is necessary that
you be present at the hour named; otherwise, it will not be practica-
ble to examine you.
This notification must be presented as your authority to appear.
Very respectfully yours.
G. K. ACKERMAN,
F. No.
Secretary and Executive Officer.
CITY OF NEW YORK,
CIVIL SERVICE SUPERVISORY AND EXAMINING BOARD.
}
SCHEDULE F.
No. 1.
April 19, 1889.
We certify that we have examined Henry A. Perry for the position of
deputy tax commissioner, and that the result of his examination is as
follows:

SUBJECTS.
Product of
Standing. Weight. standing
and weight.
1
Handwriting
100
X 1
100
2
Arithmetic.
70
X 1
70
•
3 New York city information
82
X 1
82
4 Tech
80
X 4
320
5
Experience.
100
X 2
200
·
6 Spelling
100
X 1
100
872
Average standing.
87.20
[Examiners.]
ARITHMETIC.
QUESTIONS FOR DEPUTY TAX COMMISSIONER
Number 1.
Date of examination, April 19, 1889.
1. Give the area in square feet of a lot 20 feet front, 100 feet deep
on the one side and 75 feet deep on the other side.
No. 80.] .
2559
2. Give the area in square feet of an irregular lot 16 feet 8 inches
front, decreasing to 14 feet in the rear, one side being square with the
front and 101 feet deep and the other side being 98 feet 6 inches
deep.
3. What is the area of New York city in acres?
4. What is the tax on a property assessed at $87,500 when the rate
is 2.19.
5. A person has to pay $100.20 taxes at 12 mills on the dollar, there
being no poll-tax. What is the assessed value of his property?
Number 1.
• Deputy tax commissioner, April 19, 1889.
1. 20×100 × 75 or 20 × 872 to get the square feet.
20
Answer, 1750 Number of square feet, 20.
2.
16.8
100
Width, 30.8 or 15×
993
98.6
Depth, 199.6 or 993
151
14
993
495
151
99
495
114
10
99
1496.4
111
33.4
Answer,
1529.2
or 399
4 × 46
3=18.304 or 1529
12
4. $87.500 at 219 on $1,000
or $87.500 multiply by 87
Answer, $1916.25.
2190
87
15330
17520
1095
1916.25
(20)
2560
[SENATE,
5. $100.20
Number.
12 mills on the $
Amt. value of property?
$12 to $100.20
12 mills on $100
1200 mills on 100
1200 mills on 1,000 or
$12 per $1,000
$8,350.
CITY INFORMATION.
Date, 19th April, 1889.
Position, deputy tax commissioner.
1. Where are the offices of the following departments of the city
government? Street cleaning, World building. Law, Staats Zeitung
building. Health, police department, dock, Fourth avenue and Six-
teenth street. Charities and correction, Third avenue and Eleventh
street.
2. What department has charge of the Tombs prison? Depart-
ment of charities and correction.
3. Where are the following buildings? Mills building, Broad
street and Exchange place. Mutual Life Insurance Company (new),
Nassau street. New York Life Insurance Company, Broadway near
Bowling Green. Potter building, Park Row and Beekman street.
4. Where is the United States signal service station in this city?
On top of Equitable building.
5. Where does Lafayette place begin and end? Fourth to Eighth
streets.
6. Give the position of the following hotels: Astor House?
Broadway between Barclay and Vesey streets. Sinclair? Eighth
street and Broadway. St. Cloud? Broadway and Forty-second
street. Westminster? Irving place and Fifteenth street. Cosmo-
politan? Chambers street and West Broadway.
7. In what building are the sessions of the United States courts
held in this city? Post-office building.
8. How many wards lie above Harlem river and which are they?
Twenty-third and twenty-fourth wards.
9. Name the waters which surround Manhattan Island?
Harlem river, North or Harlem river.
10. Where is the real estate exchange located?
East or
2
No. (1.)
QUESTIONS FOR DEPUTY TAX COMMISSIONER.
Date of examination, April 19, 1889.
1. Describe the duties of a deputy tax commissioner.
2. What are assessed values?
No. 80.]
2561
3. What is the first and most important feature to consider in
determining the value of a piece of property?
4. What are actual values?
5. Name the three most active elements which constitute the value
of a piece of property?
6. Would give the area of a rolling piece of land by stating the
square feet as superficial or as plans measure?
7. How many city lots are in an acre ?
8. What is the length of New York city in miles?
9. Bound the city of New York.
10. How many wards in the city?
11. In what ward do you live?
12. In what ward is the city hall?
13. In what ward is Central park?
14. In what ward is Randall's island?
15. Where is the most valuable piece of land in the city of New
York regardless of the improvement, and what is its value per
square feet?
16. How do the values of other desirable pieces compare with the
most valuable plot?
17. Name five such locations.
18. Which, as a rule, is the most valuable side of the street; north
or south side; east or west side?
19. How much more valuable are corner than inside lots; and why?
20. Name the five elements, after size and location, which most
affect the value of vacant property?
21. Name the five elements after size and location, which most affect
the value of improved property?
22. How is property affected by the character of the business trans-
acted upon it?
23. What is the value of a strictly first-class, well located, four-
story and basement brown stone residence, twenty-five feet by sixty-five
feet, inclusive of the site ?
24. Does an expensive building on a lot always increase its value ?
26. Are telegraph and electrical poles, wires of fixtures, real estate
or personal property?
27. Are streets assessable as real estate?
28. Are elevated railroads personal property or real estate?
29. Are elevated railroads assessable; if so, how would you arrivẹ
at the value of them?
30. Are underground railroads assessable?
[Senate, No. 80.]
321
2562
[SENATE,
31. Are cable railroads assessable; if so, how would you arrive at
the value of them?
32. How would you assess a piece of property having no frontage
on a street?
33. How do you estimate the.cubical contents of a building?
34. Would you assess land under water; and if so, how would you
arrive at the assessable value of it?
35. Would you assess a pier running out into the river beyond the
bulkhead line; if so, how would you arrive at the value of it?
36. Are bulkheads and slips assessable?
37. How would you assess leasehold property ?
38. For what purpose are ward numbers used?
39. Give the width of the following streets: Broadway, above
Thirty-fourth street, below Canal; Fifth avenue; Seventh avenue,
above One Hundred and Tenth street; Fourteenth street; Sixteenth
street; Seventy-second street.
40. Would you estimate the actual value of the real estate in New
York city at more or less than $2,000,000,000 of dollars?
DEPUTY TAX COMMISSIONER.
April 19, 1889.
1. The duties of a deputy tax commissioner are to assess all the real
estate, both improved and unimproved, wharves, piers, bulkheads,
water fronts, etc., in the district assigned him by the commissioners
of taxes and assessments.
2. The amount placed upon for taxation.
3. Vacant property, location.
building thereon.
Improved property, character of
4. What it would sell for under ordinary circumstances.
5. Location, surroundings and rental.
6, 7. Sixteen (16), including streets.
8. Say thirteen miles.
9. East and North rivers or Harlem and Hudson rivers, Battery,
twenty-third and twenty-fourth wards.
10. Twenty-four (24) wards.
11. Eighteenth (18th) ward.
12. Second (2d) ward.
13. Twelfth, nineteenth and twenty-second wards.
14. Twelfth ward.
15. Fifth Avenue Hotel site, say sixty dollars per square foot.
16. Southwest corner Twenty-third street and Fifth avenue,
twenty-five by 100, ground rent $25,000 per year, twenty-one years
No. 80.]
2563
lease to Western Union Telegraph Company, taxes assumed by Western
Union Telegraph Company.
17. Southwest corner Broadway and Twenty-fourth street; south-
east corner Broadway and Twenty-third street; northeast corner Fifth
avenue and Twenty-sixth street; southwest corner Fifth avenue and
Fifty-seventh street; northwest corner Fifth avenue and Fifty-seventh
street.
18. As a rule the west side or avenues, north side or streets.
19. Altogether according to location. Third avenue, say thirty-five
per cent; Fourth avenue, say thirty-five per cent; Fifth avenue, from
forty to 100 per cent; Sixth avenue, about forty-five per cent; Eighth
avenue, say forty per cent. Increase in rental commanding location
together with much easier access and conveniences.
20. Character of grade of lot, future outlook of neighborhood,
adjacent buildings, recent sales in vicinity and general character of
improvement going on in said proximity.
21. Character of building, condition of building, rental value, terms
of lease and general demand in the immediate vicinity.
22. In most instances location must be taken into consideration,
lease and the character of the business.
23. Say thirty thousand ($30,000) dollars.
24. Say twenty-two thousand ($22,000) dollars.
25. It certainly does, and generally adjacent property.
26. Real estate.
27. When not opened by law.
28. Real estate.
29. Yes; general value of property along line of route, cost of con-
struction, etc., etc.
30. Yes.
31. Yes; value of cable, rails and general outlay to be taken care-
fully into consideration.
32. That depends, entirely upon the location to the lot having a
frontage as to the amount of assessment.
33. By its width, depth and heighth.
34. The law says, land under water is assessable; to arrive at the
assessable value, you must be governed entirely by its surroundings,
future, etc.
35. That can only be determined, if assessable, by deed showing
how far water front extends, my valuation would then depend entirely
upon surroundings.
36. Yes.
2564
[SENATE,
37. I would take unto consideration, location, surroundings, terms
and length of lease, and its rentals, etc., etc.
38. To designate property and the only authority.
39. Broadway above Thirty-fourth street; Broadway, below Canal,
sixty feet; Fifth avenue, sixty feet; Fourteenth street, sixty feet;
Sixteenth street, forty feet; Seventy-second street, forty feet.
40. Very much more.
NEW YORK CITY CIVIL SERVICE BOARDS.
COOPER UNION, NEW YORK, April 18, 1889.
}
To E. S. STOKES, Hoffman House, New York City:
Sir.- Appending to the application of Henry A. Perry, for a position
in the municipal service as a deputy tax commissioner is your general
certificate of his good character and habits.
In addition to this, it is necessary before he can be appointed, that
satisfactory information regarding his character, habits and associates,
be received directly from his certifiers. I therefore respectfully request
you to answer the following questions in writing after each, to sign
your name, give your occupation and address at the foot, and return
the paper to me at your earliest convenience.
Very respectfully yours.
G. K. ACKERMAN,
Secretary.
F.
CERTIFIER'S STATEMENT.
NEW YORK, April 19, 1889.
How long have you known Henry A. Perry? Since the year 1880.
How long has he resided in New York city? I think all his life.
What is his character in regard to sobriety and trustworthiness?
I consider Mr. Henry A. Perry thoroughly reliable and trustworthy
and absolutely sober in his habits.
Other things being satisfactory, would you with your knowledge of
his capacity, condition of health, character, associates and habits,
employ him in your own private business, had you occasion for such
services as he desires to render the city? I would.
Are you willing to allow your answers to these questions to be
published? Yes.
Name, E. S. Stokes.
Occupation, Hoffman House.
Address, City.
No. 80.]
2565
NEW YORK CITY CIVIL SERVICE BOARDS
COOPER UNION, NEW YORK, April 18, 1889.
To R. W. TAYLOR, 40 West Twenty-first St., N. Y. C.
}
SIR.- Appended to the application of Henry A. Perry, for a position
in the municipal service as a deputy tax commissioner is your general
certificate of his good character and habits.
In addition to this, it is necessary before he can be appointed, that
satisfactory information regarding his character, habits and asso-
ciates, be received directly from his certifiers. I therefore respectfully
request you to answer the following questions in writing after each,
to sign your name, give your occupation and address at the foot, and
return the paper to me at your earliest convenience.
Very respectfully, yours.
G. K. ACKERMAN,
Secretary.
F.
April 19, 1889.
Since 1882.
CERTIFIER'S STATEMENT.
Life time.
How long have you known Henry A. Perry?
How long has he resided in New York city?
What is his character in regard to sobriety and trustworthiness?
I regard him as a sober and trustworthy man.
Other things being satisfactory, would you with your knowledge of
his capacity, condition of health, character, associates and habits,
employ him in your own private business, had you occasion for such
service as he desires to render the city? Yes.
Are you willing to allow your answers to these questions to be
published? Yes.
Name, R. W. Taylor.
Occupation, Physician.
Address, 40 West Twenty-first st., N. Y.
!
NEW YORK CITY CIVIL SERVICE BOARDS,
COOPER UNION, NEW YORK, April 18, 1889.
TO JOHN HARDY, 265 Broadway, New York City:
SIR.- Appended to the application of Henry A. Perry for a position
in the municipal service as a deputy tax commissioner is your general
certificate of his good character and habits.
In addition to this it is necessary, before he can be appointed, that
satisfactory information regarding his character, habits and associ-
ates, be received directly from his certifiers. I therefore respectfully
2566
[SENATE,
request you to answer the following questions in writing after each,
to sign you name, give your occupation and address at the foot, and
return the paper to me at your earliest convenience.
Very respectfully yours.
G. K. ACKERMAN,
Secretary.
F.
CERTIFIER'S STATEMENT.
How long have you known Henry A. Perry?
How long has he resided in New York city?
have known him.
18..
Over sixteen years.
During all the time I
What is his character in regard to sobriety and trustworthiness?
Good.
Other things being satisfactory, would you, with your knowledge
of his capacity, condition of health, character, associates and habits,
employ him in your own private business, had you occasion for such
services as he desires to render the city? Yes.
1
'Are you willing to allow your answers to these questions be
published? Yes.
Name, John Hardy.
Occupation, lawyer.
Address, No. 265 Broadway.
NEW YORK CITY CIVIL SERVICE BOARDS,
COOPER UNION, NEW YORK, April 18, 1889.
To W. BURKE COCKRAN, 38 Fark Row, New York City:
SIR. Appended to the application of Henry A. Perry, for a posi-
tion in the municipal service as a deputy tax commissioner, is your
general certificate of his good character and habits.
In addition to this, it is necessary, before he can be appointed, that
satisfactory information regarding his character, habits and associates,
be received directly from his certifiers. I, therefore, respectfully
request you to answer the following questions in writing after each,
to sign your name, give your occupation and address at the foot, and
return the paper to me at your earliest convenience.
Very respectfully yours.
G. K. ACKERMAN,
Secretary.
F.
1
No. 80.]
2567
CERTIFIER'S STATEMENT.
18..
How long have you known Henry A. Perry? About eight years.
How long has he resided in New York city? To the best of my
knowledge all his life.
What is his character in regard to sobriety and trustworthiness?
Good.
Other things being satisfactory, would you, with your knowledge of
capacity, condition of health, character, associates and habits, employ
him in your own private business had you occasion for such services
as he desires to render the city? Yes.
Are you willing to allow your answers to these questions to be
published? Yes.
Name, W. Burke Cockran.
Occupation, lawyer.
Address, 38 Park Row, city.
THURSDAY MORNING, October 23, 1890.
The committee met pursuant to adjournment.
Present Senators Fassett, McNaughton and Ahearn.
MAURICE F. HOLAHAN, being recalled, further testified as follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. I understood you to say yesterday that you had never examined
the general books of the city? A. No, sir; not personally.
Q. Have you ever gone into the office of the general bookkeeper at
all? A. Yes, sir; I have twice.
Q. How often? A. Twice.
Q. You have been in that office twice during the last twenty months?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did you do when you went there? A. I went down there
about some matter, I can't recall now, that I wanted an explanation about,
and he gave me an explanation about what I wanted; I was in the
habit of sending down when I did want any information, in the habit
of sending down the chief bookkeeper.
Q. Have you ever looked over the balance sheets of the city as made
by the general bookkeeper? A. No, sir; I have not.
Q. Do you know whether the general bookkeeper strikes a balance
sheet of the city accounts? A. Only from the examination made by
our chief clerk.
Q. Do you know from that whether he does or not? A. Yes, sir.
2568
[SENATE,
}
Q. You think he does? A. Yes, sir.
Q. But you don't know of your own knowledge? A. Not of my own
knowledge; no, sir.
Q. Would you be able to-day to take any one of the accounts as it
appears on the books of the general bookkeeper and explain it in
itself or explain its relations to the other accounts in his books? A.
I think I could.
Q. What makes you think so? A. I hardly know how to answer you.
Q. Do you think you could explain a set of books that you have
never seen? A. No, sir; I could not.
Q. You know that these books are very intricate necessarily, don't
you? A. They are.
Q. Then what makes you think you could explain the relations of
one account to the other accounts if you were to see them? A. I said
to you yesterday that I do not consider that I am an expert book-
keeper; that I don't understand double entry.
Q. Did you say yesterday that you did not understand double entry?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I did not understand you to say that? A. Yes, sir; but I can go
into any department of the city government and find out whether the
city get all the money due it or not, and whether there is any crooked-
ness in that department.
Q. Do you consider that to be the duty of the commissioners of
accounts? A. I think it is the principal duty.
Q. What are the duties of the commissioners of accounts? A. The
commissioners of accounts are supposed to make an examination of
all the receipts and expenditures for each quarter; they are supposed
to give an exact statement of all the bonds that have been issued and
cancelled and all the receipts and expenditures of the city government.
Q. Is that all of their duties? A. They are to make examinations
of departments from time to time, such as the mayor requests to be
done or suggests themselves to the commissioners of accounts.
Q. You said that you had an investigation into the dock depart-
ment? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you have made an investigation concerning the contracts
for crib work in the charities' department? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that you have made an investigation of the market bureau
in the comptroller's office? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you made any other investigations? A. We made an
examination of the receipts in the department of public works and the
payments to the city chamberlain. ·
Q. Is that a public investigation of the same character as the
investigation of the bureau of markets and the investigation of the
No. 80.]
2569
dock department? A. No, sir; since the close of the dock investi-
gation, we have confined our efforts principally to ascertaining
whether the money received by the various departments has reached
the city treasury; an open investigation necessitates the expenditure
of money for witnesses and stenographers and so on, and we did not
care to incur that expense.
Q. What become of the market investigation? A. The principal
witnesses in the market investigation left the city.
Q. What became of the investigation, as far as you were concerned?
A. We made a report to the mayor.
Q. What was the result of your report? A. If you will give me a
minute, I will explain, we examined all the collections made by the
collectors in the various markets, and we also made an examination of
the books in order to ascertain if the rents had been collected, and
we worked in conjunction with one of the bookkeepers in the comp-
troller's office, and at the close of our examination we sent our report
to the mayor; we could not go on with our public investigation.
Q. Who suggested to you the making of the market investigation?
A. There were a number of letters sent by some of the market men
who held stalls in the old market and failed to get them in the new
market and they thought an injustice had been done to them; they sent
them to the mayor and the mayor called our attention to it and told
us we had better investigate the matter.
Q. At what time of the year was that? A. That was in February, I
think, about the 1st of February, 1889.
Q. How long did that investigation continue ? A. About two
months and a half.
Q. What was the outcome of that investigation? A. I do not
know what the outcome was because we really did not finish it; we
suspended our examination; these people had left and we could not
get a number of witnesses; so far as our investigation of the other
revenues in the market bureau was concerned, the comptroller took
immediate steps to make prompt collections.
Q. These charges were aimed at the comptroller, were they not, in
the first instance? A. Only so far that we believed from the testi-
mony that the comptroller had decided in regard to the assignment
of these stands.
Q. Now, so far as it affected the comptroller, the investigation
resulted virtually in his being relieved from all charges, didn't it?
A. Well, the people who made the charges against him in the first
place did not sustain them, so far as the comptroller was personally
concerned; there seemed to be a division of authority- not exactly
[Senate, No. 80.]
322
2570
[SENATE,
of authority but of the work in the assignment of the stands; the
comptroller testified to the fact that he did not make the assignment
of the particular stands but left it to other people in his employ.
Q. What did that investigation cost the city? A. Well, so far as
our bureau is concerned ·
Q. What was the total cost of it to the city, so far as you know?
A. I think about six or seven thousand dollars.
Q. Whom did you retain as counsel? A. Delancey Nicoll.
Q. What did you pay Delancey Nicoll as counsel? A. I do not
know; that was a matter between him and the corporation counsel.
Q. Didn't you, as commissioner of accounts, know what you paid
your own counsel? A. I can't remember; I can give you the figures
though; I do not carry all those things.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. It is a matter of record, is it not? A. Yes, sir; it is a matter of
record.
By Mr. IVINS:
>
Q. Do you know whether any other counsel were paid for account
of the commissioners of accounts? A. I think not.
Q. What other expenditure did you have beside counsel fees, so far
as you yourselves were concerned. A. Well, we had to pay witnesses
and we had to pay for the service of witnesses.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. For subpœnaing witnesses? A. Yes, sir; for subpœnaing
witnesses.
By Mr. IvINS:
Q. How much do you suppose that cost in the aggregate? A. I do
not think it cost more than $100, or something like that.
Q. The comptroller's counsel was paid out of the city treasury?
A. Yes, sir; I think he was.
Q. That was Mr. Coudert, was it not? A. Yes, sir; I think so.
Q. What was Mr. Coudert paid? A. I think his bill was about
$3,000, but the board of estimate and apportionment awarded him, I
think, only $2,500.
Q. Only $2,500? A. Yes, sir; I may be wrong in those figures, but
it is very close to it.
Q. Have you no recollection whatever as to what Mr. Nicoll's fee
was? A. I think about $2,500.
No. 80.1
2571
Q. In any event that investigation cost the city about $5,000, plus
your services and the services of your clerks for this period?
A. Yes, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. And the subpoenaing of witnesses? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. And during which time you were unable to devote your atten-
tion to the other departments? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Taking the time of the commissioner of accounts for almost one-
quarter of the year? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what advantage was produced to the city by that investiga-
tion? A. I think that the people who were in arrears for market
rents paid up promptly.
Q. By the way, was the question of arrearages of market rents one
of the questions that was under investigation during that time? A.
Yes, sir; it was not one in the public investigation, but it followed
right after.
Q. Was it one in the public investigation which required that
expenditure of $5,000 for counsel fees? A. No, sir.
Q. Now, confining yourself to the public investigation? A. Well,
so far as the public investigation was concerned, it brought out
testimony and information for us which showed the necessity for
making an examination of the revenue bureau, which brought to light
the fact that there was a lot of arrearages for market rents and
houses owned by the city.
Q. Do you think you needed to learn that incidentally; wouldn't
an examination of the books of the bureau of markets have shown on
the face of the books that the rents were in arrears? A. Yes; but we
were new in it; we had not paid any attention to it until the close of
this investigation, and then we went into the revenue of the bureau.
Q. Did you begin an investigation of the market bureau without
first going to its books and seeing what the condition of the business
was as shown on the books? A. Mr. Shearman had charge of the
preliminary part of that; he was an old commissioner, and he took
charge of all the market business up to the time that the investiga-
tion opened.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. That is the public investigation? A. Yes, sir; up to the time
that the public investigation opened.
1
2572
[SENATE,
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Mr. Shearman was removed the day that the public investiga-
tion opened? A. Yes, sir; the day that the public investigation
opened.
actually sitting, the new
Q. And while Mr. Shearman was
appointee came in and took his chair? A. Yes, sir.
-
Q. So that a new commissioner was sent in there to sit as com-
missioner of accounts, and conduct that investigation, who had not
had an hour's experience in the office, wasn't there? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you and that new commissioner, Mr. Baker, continued that
investigation without any examination whatever of the books of the
bureau? A. During the investigation we did not examine the books.
Q. So that your investigation progressed without a knowledge as to
what the books would show on their face? A. Our investigation was
to show principally how the assignment of these stands was made;
whether any money was used to influence anybody in securing the
stands; that was our investigation.
Q. And you found that one of your own employes had taken
money? A. We found that he was charged with taking money.
Q. And you believe those charges sufficiently to remove him? A. He
took the stand and swore that he did not and Mr. Curley swore he
did, and there was a question of doubt between them.
Q. You discharged Mr. Hamilton nevertheless? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know that Mr. Hamilton is employed to-day on the sub-
ways? A. I do not.
Q. As an inspector? A. I do not know.
Q. Recommended by Mr. Gilroy, the commissioner of public works ?
A. That I don't know.
C
Q. Are the employes on the subways on the city pay-rolls? A.
No, sir; they are assigned by the commissioner of public works, but
paid by the subway people.
Q. Do you examine the pay-rolls of the subway? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know how the payments are made for account of work
on the subway? A. I believe the bill is rendered to the subway
people and they pay the money in for distribution among the inspect-
ors, as I understand it; it is not money that belongs to the city.
Q. Does the city have anything to do about the way of payment of
money out or the receipt of the money in as incident to the construc-
tion or operation of the subways? A. Not that I know of.
Q. Not that you know of? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever looked at the law to see what relation the sub-
ways bore to the city? A. No, sir; I do not think I did.
No. 80.]
2573
Q. You had a dock investigation? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That investigation was started by the suggestion of Mr. Cram
some three weeks after he had gone into office, you testified yester-
day? A. Yes, sir.
Q To the effect that he was afraid there was something wrong
there? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long did that investigation take? A. The public investi- -
gation?
Q. No; begin now with your private preliminary investigation and
the public investigation by you and then the investigation by the
mayor based upon your charges? A. The investigation by our assist-
ants in the office, so far as the books were concerned, was conducted
so far as the best of my recollection is, about three months, and then
the public investigation in regard to the leasing of two docks on the
East river by a man named McCarthy; we had received letters from
two people who claimed that there was an unjust discrimination in the
assignment of vessels in that district, and the vessels instead of being
divided among the other leased piers were all given to one pier; we
made an investigation to ascertain who had the lease and who bid it
in; we found that Mr. McCarthy had bid it in and that he did not
claim the ownership of the lease, but said he had bid it in for a friend
of his, but had no interest in it; McCarthy at that time was an
assistant to the dockmaster in that district and exercised the power of
assigning vessels.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. That is the power that used to be exercised by the harbor master ?
A. Yes, sir; then one of the gentlemen who inquired or made complaint
was a man named Smyth; we could not find Smyth; it was claimed that
he was the lessee of this pier that the discrimination was made against;
while we were looking into that matter the corporation counsel came
over and wanted to know if we knew a man named Smyth; he said
that sore damage had been done to the pier and the city was com-
pelled to make repairs and they did not know whom to hold respon-
sible because they could not find Smyth; we began our public inves-
tigation in regard to the leasing of all piers and in regard to the
various bureaus of the dock department.
"
Q. And the investigation lasted for how many months from the
time that you began it until the time the mayor dismissed the charges?
A. Two months.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You mean the public investigation? A. I mean the public
investigation.
2574
[SENATE,
Q. That is your public investigation? A. Yes, sir; with the cor-
poration counsel as our counsel.
Q. At the end of which two months you preferred your charges?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then the matter was pending before the mayor for how long?
A. Two months or seven weeks.
Q. Two months more? A. Yes, sir; six or seven weeks it was
pending before the mayor on account of so many adjournments that
were taken.
Q. Then the charges were dismissed? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Whom did you have as counsel in that case? A. Do you mean
the city?
Q. Yes; the commissioners of accounts? A. We had the corpora-
tion counsel.
Q. Did you at no time have any other counsel? A. No, sir.
Q. Whom did the commissioners of docks have as counsel? A.
They had no counsel.
Q. They had no counsel? A. No; they had no counsel; a lawyer
appeared in regard to the dredging matter.
Q. Didn't they have counsel before the mayor? A. Oh, certainly
they did before the mayor; they had Mr. Peckham, Mr. Root and Mr.
Irish.
Q. Have their counsel been paid out of the city treasury? A. I
think not yet.
Q. Have their counsel rendered bills to the city treasurer? A. I
don't know.
Q. Have you ever, as head of this department, ever made an esti-
mate of what this particular investigation cost the city? A. No, sir.
Q. What would you think would be a fair estimate as to what that
A. I
investigation either has cost or will ultimately cost the city?
have no idea what bills the lawyers will render.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. The city will have to pay those bills won't it? A. I judge so.
Q. The complaints having been dismissed against the department?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. If the charges against the dock commissioners had been sus-
tained the city would not have been liable, would it? A. I think not.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. In the examination before the mayor, did John H. Strahan
appear as one of the counsel? A. Yes, sir.
No. 80.]
2575
Q. For whom did he appear? A. For the city-and Judge Rollins
also.
Q. Judge Rollins and Mr. Strahan? A. Yes, sir.
Q. This Mr. Strahan is the same gentleman who received $30,000
out of the city treasury for a bill which he did not draw? A.
Well, Mr. John H. Strahan; I do not know whether he is the same
man that you refer to.
Q. That is the thing that I refer to as having been brought out
here in March last; he is not a cheap man either then? A. Well, I
do not know any lawyers mixed up in municipal matters that are very
cheap.
Q. That is your experience? A. Yes, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Were those charges made to the mayor against all three of the
dock commissioners? A. They were first; in the first place we were
in favor of preferring charges against three; I was not; I was never
in favor of including Mr. Cram.
Q. You actually did file charges with the mayor formally against
the three? A. Yes, sir; the charges were first drawn against the
three; Mr. Strahan thought we could not hold the charges against
Mr. Cram; he had been only a short time in office, and his view was
like my own, that whatever attempt was made to reform during time
he was in, was made by Mr. Cram; he had only been in office about
five months.
Q. Then you amended your charges so as to exclude Mr. Cram ?
A. Yes, sir; so as to exclude Mr. Cram.
Q. Wasn't that the only department of the city government which
Tammany Hall hadn't entered into control of, through its appointees
or representatives? A. I was under the impression from what I had
read in the papers, that Mr. Matthews was as good a Tammany Hall
man as Mr. Cram, and had actually joined the twenty-second district
organization.
Q. That was your impression through what you had read in the
newspapers? A. Yes, sir.
·
Q. Didn't you know that he was not? A. I do not know to-day
that he was not.
Q. Didn't you know that he always held office as a member of the
County Democracy? A. He was regarded as such.
Q. And received all of his appointments as such? A. Yes, sir; but
I had understood that he had supported Mr. Grant.
2576
[SENATE,
Q. It is a fact is it not that a majority of that department were
men who when they entered upon the offices were not the nominees
of the Tammany Hall organization? A. That was so.
Q. That was the only department of the city government at that
time of which that could be said, except possibly the park department?
A. Yes, sir; except the park department.
Q. You have been in the park department since? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you be surprised if that dock investigation were to be
shown to cost the city ultimately $25,000? A. I don't know.
Q. Do you think the lawyers in that case rendered services as valu-
able as those rendered in the market investigation? A. I do not think
I am competent to pass upon that question.
Q. What was the net result to the city of that investigation- what
was done?
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. What benefit accrued to the government of the city of New
York, because of the investigation of the dock department? A. I
think there has been a better administration of the dock department
since that time.
Q. What makes you think so; you haven't made any investigation
since then? A. No; but the general impression of everyone-
Q. Do you, as commissioner of accounts, go on the basis of the
general impression of everyone? A. In some cases.
Q. Now, you say you are satisfied that it resulted in an improve-
ment of the administration of that department? A. Yes.
Q. Have you examined the books of that department since that
time for the purpose of seeing? A. No.
Q. Have you checked off the books of the department in any way
for the purpose of seeing what has been done, compared with the con-
dition of the department then? A. No.
Q. Have you instructed any particular subordinate to do that?
A. No.
Q. Then no particular subordinate had ever brought that to your
knowledge? A. No.
Q. Then you are in entire ignorance of it, so far as the books, are
you not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then if you say it has resulted in benefit to the city, because it
has resulted in an improved administration of that department, you
say that on the basis of general rumor? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What do you mean by "rumor?" A. I mean the general impres
sion on the public mind.
:
No. 80.]
2577
Q. Do you, as a commissioner of accounts, believe in the reliability of
the general impression upon the public mind in regard to details of
administration of a department? A. Not all the time; but I think it
has a bearing upon it.
Q. Has the public a mind what do you mean by that?
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-Isn't it spinning it pretty fine, Mr. Ivins,
to ask this witness what we all know, a general rumor in regard to
the matter, that an administration is faulty or not; he seems to have
answered very frankly; he told you his source of information; what
value may be given to that is for the committee to determine and not
for him?
་
Mr. IvINS.—I think it is of the utmost importance, not only for this
committee, but for this entire community, to know what manner of
men the chief magistrate of this city appoints to hold the very
important office of commissioner of accounts; he is not appointed
after any civil service examination; he swears on the stand that he
does not understand double entry bookkeeping; he is talking now
about the administration of his office on rumor, and he tries to justify
that examination or investigation as beneficial to the city, because
there is a rumor to the effect that it is beneficial; now I want to see
if that rumor stands for anything.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-This committee has held a half a dozen
times that what the public intimate, or what the press said or inti-
mated, was of some little value; I suppose he has taken it in the
same way.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Do you recall any specific information, or any particular article.
in any particular newspaper, applauding the administration of the
dock department as being improved? A. I have had conversations
with business men.
Q. That is what I want to get at; which business men have you had
conversations with? A. With various ones; I can not recollect their
names.
Q. Were they business men doing business with that department?
A. Yes, sir; I am pretty well known since I was in the government
service to people on the river front; my business called me down there
to the various steamship companies.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. I think we can let it go at this; that the general impression is
that the administration has been improved and that he can not put his
[Senate, No. 80.]
323
2578
[SENATE,
fingers on any specific illustration of it; would that be your view?
A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Would you be surprised to find that it has deteriorated, if you
looked at their books? A. Yes, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. I suppose you are satisfied that they don't dump dirt in the
night-time that they have dredged out in the daytime? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know that they ever did? A. Only from the testimony
before our committee.
Q. That testimony went before the mayor? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You felt yourself justified in making these charges? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you believe that they were virtually sustained by the evi-
dence taken at the time they were made? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was there any new evidence introduced before the mayor? A.
It was all contradictory; people called before the mayor testified
differently from what they did before the commissioners of accounts.
Q. Their testimony in the two cases was different? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Does the record of the examination before you show that they
swore in one way and the record of the examination before the mayor
shows that they swore in another way? A. Yes, sir; if you will take
the testimony of the chief in Mr. Green's office, you will find that his
testimony before the commissioners of accounts was entirely different
from his testimony before the mayor.
Q. Was it radically different? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So radically different that the two phases were irreconcilable?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you call the attention of that to the grand jury? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you call the attention of that to the district attorney? A.
No, sir.
Q. Did you talk to the mayor about that? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you call his attention to it? A. No, sir; the mayor and cor-
poration counsel had examined the testimony in both investigations.
Q. Did you, as a matter of justification to yourself, when your
charges were dismissed by the mayor, call the attention of either the
mayor or the corporation counsel to the character of the conflicting
evidence of the same parties? A. No, sir; it showed for itself.
Q. Does a thing of that kind which shows for itself, but which is
not called to the attention of the prosecuting officer by a public
No. 80.]
2579
A
official, so placed as you are, ever get to his attention? A. Well,
sometimes.
Q. Why didn't you call the matter of that conflict of evidence to
the attention of the prosecuting officer of this county? A. Because
I was under the impression that the corporation counsel saw the con-
tradictoriness just as well as I did..
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Let me ask you was this evidence that was contradictory as given
before the mayor explained by these witnesses on the ground that they
had been mistaken? A. Yes, sir; in some cases, and in other cases
they said that they did not remember that they testified in that way;
that if they did they did not mean it that way; they said if they testi-
fied that way they could not remember that they had, but if they did,
then they made a mistake and wished to correct it.
Q. Have you this evidence printed that was taken before you? A.
Mr. Ivins has it, that is the only copy that we have.
Mr IVINS.- I have a copy of the evidence taken before the commis-
sioners of account.
Senator FASSETT.- Is the evidence so contradictory that it would
amount to perjury either in one case or the other, in your judgment?
A. In changing it they said that they did not remember testifying in
that way and if they did they made a mistake; I do not know whether
you could convict a man of perjury after a statement of that kind.
Senator FASSETT.—It would be very doubtful if they could or not.
Mr. IVINS.-I think so.
Senator FASSETT.
will testify.
Then it is very interesting as showing how people
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. At what intervals of time were these examinations made?
A. Between the mayor's and ours?
Q. Yes. A. Less than two months; if some of those witnesses had
testified before us as they testified before the mayor, I do not believe I
would have agreed to sign my name to the charges and asked for the
removal of those people.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Your third investigation of a particular character has been the
investigation of the park department has it not? A. Yes sir.
Q. That is also a department a majority of the commissioners in
which were not appointed as representatives of Tammany Hall, is it
2580
[SENATE,
not? A. I do not know what the political complexion of the park
department is and I do not know anyone who can tell me.
Q. You know that it is not a Tammany Hall department, don't you?
A. That I am not certain about.
Q. You are not even certain about that?' A. No.
Q. Is Mr. Robb a Tammany Hall man? A. No, sir; I don't believe
he is; I do not know whether he is or not.
Q. Who are the other commissioners? A. Mr. Borden.
Q. Is not Mr. Borden a Republican? A. I see in the newspapers
that he is.
Q. You know that he is not a member of Tammany Hall, don't you?
A. That I do not know.
Q. Have you ever seen him at a Tammany Hall meeting? A.
Never.
Q. Who is the president of the board? A. Mr. Gallup.
Q. He is a Tammany Hall man? A. I never saw him in Tammany
Hall in my life.
Q. You know that he was appointed by Mayor Grant, don't you?
A. Yes.
Q. You know that he is a member of Tammany Hall, don't you? A.
I do not; honestly.
Q. Who is the fourth commissioner? A. Mr. Hutchings.
Q. Don't you know that Mr. Hutchings was a County Democrat and
appointed as a County Democrat? A. I never heard so.
Q. What led to your making an investigation of the park depart-
ment? A. Well, Mr. Barker intended to go into the park department
when he was first appointed, but postponed it until such time as he
could get enough of the assistance of the office to go in and make the
investigation; and he went in there and made the investigation with
them; he took complete charge of that investigation in the park
department.
Q. Have you ever heard Mr. Barker speak in terms of hostility of
the park commissioners? A. Never in my life.
Q. When was that investigation begun? A. I think in the spring.
Q. By whom was it begun? A. It was begun by Mr. Barker, Mr.
Melville, Mr. White, Mr. Howe, and, I think, Mr. Hayes.
Q. And it was continued up to what time? A. It was continued up
to about two months ago.
Q. What did it result in? A. Well, it resulted in showing that there
was a very large shortage in the forage; it resulted in showing that
the park department menagerie had been used as a warehouse for the
sale of animals imported out here for park purposes; it resulted in
No. 80.]
2581
showing a shortage of old uniforms and new uniforms for the park
police, and other things that I don't quite recollect.
Q. How was that result shown - I mean in what manner did you
certify to that result?
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Did you make any report of the result of the investigation? A.
Yes; we made a report to the mayor.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Did you recommend in that report to the mayor a public
investigation of the department? A. No, sir.
Q. Was your report to the mayor equivalent to charges against the
department? A. Well, it must be interpreted as charges, because we
showed that there had been a lack of proper work in the department
and care.
Q. It was not a series of formulated charges and specifications?
A. No.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Were there any recommendations accompanying your report?
A. No; it was without recommendations.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Have you a copy of the report now? A. The report was sent by
the mayor to the park commissioners, and they have it now to answer
the commissioners of accounts in regard to all the charges preferred
against them.
By Senator MONAUHGTON:
Have you a copy of the report? A. We have a copy in the office;
the copy we sent to the mayor he sent to the park department.
Q. Is it printed? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you produce a copy of that report? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Is there some one here who can go over and get it now? A. I
do not see anyone.
Q. Can you describe it sufficiently and where it can be got so that
we can send for it? A. I will just write a little note.
Q. You say the mayor sent that report to the park commissioners to
be answered? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long ago was it that it was sent to the park department?
A. To my best judgment, about five or six weeks.
2582
[SENATE,
Q. Has it been answered? A. I understood that the park depart-
ment had sent a copy of the charges against each of the bureaus in
the department to the heads to make the answer; whether they have
made the answers of the commissioners — of the heads of these bureaus
I don't know; I understood that they had, but I am not positive of it.
Q. Why did you discontinue the investigation of the department of
charities and correction? A. We never began the investigation,
except of the crib matter.
Q. Why did you begin an investigation of the street cleaning depart-
ment? A. Because it was one of the departments that hadn't been
examined, I do not believe, at any time by the commissioners of
accounts, and our purpose is to make an examination of all the depart-
ments if we have the time and opportunity.
Q. What sort of an examination is now being made of the street.
cleaning department? A. Well, examination into the contracts and
an examination into the forage to find out whether all the merchan-
dise and property is properly accounted for.
Q. When you say an examination into the contracts, what do you
mean by that? A. Well, to ascertain whether the terms of the con-
tracts were properly carried out by the contractors.
Q. How can you ascertain that so far as concerns contracts of six
months or a year ago where the supplies have all been delivered? A.
Well, we can't, of course, except by the books of the department.
Q. The books of the department would not show what the character
of the supplies were, would they? A. No.
Q. If there were false weights or measurements, it would not show
that there was under weight or measure? A. We would have to take
the figures we found in the books.
Q. Now, tell me some one thing that the park department supplies
itself with forage? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, how would you go about to examine a contract for forage,
upon which the forage was actually being delivered? A. Well, I
would first ascertain — do you mean whether the forage first got to
the department or not?
Q. You said you were examining contracts; now, I say, take a con-
tract for forage where the forage is now in course of delivery, what
sort of an examination touching that business would you make? A.
Well, all the forage that was delivered, if it was certified as to weight
and quality by the inspector or head of the bureau, we would have to
accept that.
Q. Wouldn't you go behind that certificate? A. No; except we had
good reason to believe fraud was committed.
No. 80.]
2583
*
Q. If you felt that there were good reasons to feel that there was
fraud committed, would you then go behind the certificate? A. I
think we would; yes, sir.
Q. Well, how would you go about going behind the certificates?
A. Well, in regard to the quality of the merchandise delivered, we
could find out whether it was up to the specifications or not.
Q. If fraud had been committed, it would be committed before
every person who signed the certificate, wouldn't it? A. Yes.
Q. And the person who signed that certificate is a public officer?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the only way to investigate that public officer is to dispense
with the certificate altogether, isn't it? A. If you had any doubt
about it, of course.
Q. Whether you have any doubt or not, if you are going to check
off his work you would have to go behind the certificate? A. We
have got to consider that the officer who certifies to a thing is just as
honest as we are.
Q. Is that what the position of the commissioner of accounts is for
the purpose of conducting examinations and investigations? A. I do
not consider that we ought even to suspect that a man is guilty until
he is proven so.
Q. But is not this the point, that it is neither a suspicion of honesty
or dishonesty, of guilt or guiltlessness is it not simply that you are
put there for the purpose of investigating, if you investigate at all,
the original phases from the initiative of every transaction? A. Yes, sir.
Q. The assumption in the case in regard to forage that a man is
honest is just as good as the assumption that a man in footing up a
column of figures has footed it accurately? A. Yes.
Q. When you refoot a column of figures it is not because you
asperse the character of the man who footed it before, is it? A. No, sir.
Q. It is simply for the purpose of seeing whether he has done his
work properly? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why should you accept the certificate of any one to the effect
that proper weights and measures had been given, or that proper
qualities had been received? A. We would not accept the certificate.
if we could go behind it and prove whether that certificate was wrong
or not.
Q. Couldn't you go behind it with regard to qualities at once? A.
Certainly; at once.
Q. Do you go behind it in regard to qualities? A. We do if we can
get a part of the merchandise so as to make a comparison.
Q. Is that a rule of the office? A. It is where we can do it.
2584
[SENATE,
+
Q. Have you investigated the supplies to the charities and cor-
rection; let us take that for an example? A. We have never made
an examination of the charities and correction, except in regard to the
crib.
Q. Let us take the case in regard to the charities and correction;
they get large supplies of flour? A. Yes, sir.
Q. They get large supplies of other provisions? A. Yes, sir.
By Senator Fassett:
Q. Groceries and provisions of all kinds? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. And the exact quality which they are to receive is described in
the contract; is it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. If you were investigating that department, would you, or would
you not, in entire disregard of the certificate take the contract in one
hand and have an expert examine the goods in the other hand to see
whether or not the quality of the goods contracted for had been
received? A. Yes, sir; that is just what we would do.
Q. Then you would go behind the certificate to begin with? A.
Yes, sir; where it was possible to do it; but if a hundred barrels of
flour had been delivered a year ago and used up, of course, we could
not do it.
Q. In order to avoid any such things as that, I speak of forage in
the street cleaning department which was now actually being received;
are you making such an investigation? A. No, sir; I don't think
we are.
Q. Has anybody in your behalf been instructed to look at the goods
now being received and to compare them with the contract and see
whether they were the goods contracted for? A. No; but we will
before we finish.
Q. How long have you been at that work? A. About five or six
weeks.
Q. How many men have been on it? A. Three part of the time
and part of the time four.
Q. Now, tell us what you do personally as a commissioner of
accounts? A. When we send a man into a bureau or into a depart-
ment I examine the laws and the ordinances, everything that I con-
sider has a bearing upon any particular bureau or department.
Q. You are a lawyer, are you not? A. No, sir; I am not.
Q. I thought you was? A. If I was I would not be commissioner
of accounts.
No. 80.]
2585
Q. Well, not being a lawyer, you examine the laws, nevertheless ?
A. Yes, sir; then our assistants go into the departments, and every
day they report to us the progress that they make; if there is any-
thing of immediate importance why we go down; there was a case
there in the examination of the Court of Special Sessions where a
large deficit was found, and I went down with the examiners and
found out the amount of the deficit with them.
Q. Have you ever made any other personal examination of any
other department? A. No; except to assist.
Q. Well, assisted in what way? A. Well, when we were short-
handed and our men were divided up in a great many departments;
I have done it in the department of public works; I went into the
water register's bureau.
Q. How long were you in the water register's bureau; how many
days did you actually spend there? A. I could not tell; off and on.
Q. Well, were you there a dozen times? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you there two dozen times? A. No, sir; I don't think so.
Q. Then the volume of your work consists in your having looked
at the accounts of the Special Sessions, having been somewhat less
than two dozen times in the bureau of the water register, and having
ccnducted an open investigation of the markets and of the docks?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you take any part in the investigation of the contract for
crib work in the charities and corrections? A. Only looking over the
old contracts.
Q. Looking over the old contracts? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And how long did that take you? A. Oh, I could not tell how
long it took me; during the market investigation I looked over the
books of the collectors in the various markets for the various markets;
I don't know how much I did; there are a dozen things that I did
that I can not remember just now.
Q. Have you ever made a general study of reports of the several
departments for the purpose of familiarizing yourself with the
condition of those departments? A. Well, 1 have been reading
reports; yes; there is not a report of the comptroller that comes out
that I do not read; I have read the street cleaning department
reports, the fire department reports, and I have read nearly all of the
department reports; I like to read them.
Q. Did you ever read the report of the department of the bureau
of assessors? A. I read the report, I think of the
Q. It is included in the tax department reports? A I know it; I
read the report I think of an investigation of the assessors depart-
[Senate, No. 80.]
324
2586
[SENATE,
ment; I do not know when it was published; but I did not know
much about the city government when I went in; I have been
familiarizing myself with it by reading the reports of the departments
and by reading the laws and by doing everything else that I thought
would fit me to fill the office.
Q. It is a pretty big business, the buisness of New York city, is it
not? A. It is a very large business.
Q. And how long do you think it would take a man to thoroughly
familiarize himself with, not the details, but even the general aspects
of the city business? A. I think it would take a man a long time.
Q. It would take a couple of years at least, would it not? A. I
think so.
Q. That is just the term of the mayor? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the commissioners of account hold their office by an uneven
tenure? A. Yes, sir.
Q. It is very likely that the commissioners of accounts would bėgin
to know quite a good deal about the city's business when they go out?
A. Yes, sir; I think the commissioners of accounts ought to be
appointed like other commissioners.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Does not that question apply to the office of comptroller or to
the office of mayor as well? A. Yes, sir.
Q. It would take a man as long to learn the duties of mayor and
comptroller as it would to learn the duties of your office? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. They are both elective offices, the mayor and comptroller, are
they not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And if the people do not select experts to fill those positions it is
their own fault, is it not? A. Well, I suppose it is.
Q. But how is it in the case of a mayor who agrees to select experts
to do the work, and then does not; now, you say that you looked at
the report of an investigation of the assessor's office? A. I think so;
I have looked over the reports also of the assessors.
Q. We have been investigating that office, and we have not run up
against the fact that there is any report in existence of any investi-
gation of the assessor's office; I should like, if your memory is reli-
able in that regard, to know where you found that report? A. I
think I found it among some of the old records.
Senator FASSETT.- The ancient records?
The WITNESS.--Yes, sir; the ancient records.
Q. You have read their quarterly reports, have you? A. Yes, sir.
No. 80.]
2587
Q. In reading their quarterly reports, was your attention drawn to
the fact that the delays in the confirmation of assessments, whether
due to the fault of that board or due to the fault of the board of
revision, was due to the fault of the corporation counsel's office,
which nevertheless cost the city over a quarter of a million of dollars
in loss of interest? A. I never calculated it.
Q. Was your attention ever called to the fact, by reading those
reports, that there was such a loss of interest? A. No, sir; I don't
know that it was.
Q. And you never thought of making such an investigation? A.
No, sir.
Q. Do you not know that it is apparent on the face of those reports
and on the face of the statute that that loss of interest is occurring
or was occurring up to a very recent time? A. No, sir.
Q. There is a case where it was necessary to look outside of the
statutes, is it not.
Senator FASSETT.-That is, that condition of things would be
revealed by the face of the report, would it not? A. I should judge
so; yes.
Q. Now, have you made any investigation, directly or indirectly in
any manner whatever, of the corporation counsel's office? A. We
have not, sir.
Q. Has it never been suggested to you to make such an investi-
gation? A. Never.
Q. Do you know whether the commissioners of accounts ever have
made an investigation of the kind of that office? A. I believe an
investigation was made by Mr, Deming two or three years ago; he
was paid out of the commissioners of accounts' funds; I think so.
1
Q. Mr. Deming was retained by the commissioners of accounts as
counsel to examine that office? A. Yes, sir; that is it.
Q. The commissioners of accounts not being lawyers? A. I believe
that is the only examination that I know of.
Q. Has any examination been made since then, even to the extent
of checking off the expenditures in the office? A. I think not.
Q. Now, you say that you read the comptroller's reports; have you
read this report of the comptroller for the year ending December 31,
1889? A. Portions of it.
Q. The question I want to ask you now is not at all invidious in its
nature; I want to know if you understand that report, Mr. Hollahan?
A. I do, to a great extent.
Q. Have you in your office any documents, accounts or papers of any
kind which will disclose to this committee exactly what the general
2588
[SENATE,
fund is, and what it consists of? A. I do not know that we have any
documents in the office; I have a general idea of what the general
fund is.
Q. Can you tell us generally what the general fund consists of ?
A. Well, it consists of the unexpended balances of appropriations;
there are certain fees from the county clerk and the register-I do not
know that these various fees make up the general fund; I think the
general fund was between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000 last year; I
think so.
Q. What distinguishes the general fund from the sinking fund?
A. Well, the general fund is not pledged to anything particularly as
the sinking fund is; the sinking fund is either, pledged to redeem
the debt or to pay the interest upon the debt.
Q. By that, you mean that certain funds which come into the city.
treasury from certain sources of revenue— A. Yes, sir.
Q. [Continuing] not being pledged, constitutes the fund over
which the city officials have a complete and absolute power? A. Yes;
the general fund.
Q. And can you tell the committee how to go about an investigation
of that general fund, and its history and operation, so that it may
aid us in prosecuting this inquiry? A. Well, I could not tell the
history of the general fund; I was a long time finding out what the
general fund was myself.
Q. How long did it take you to find out what it was? A. I guess it
was a year before I could find out what it was; nobody seemed to.
know.
Q. Was there anybody in the comptroller's office who seemed to
know? A. Very few people seemed to know; I asked several and they
did not know it.
Q. Did you ever ask the general bookkeeper? A. I think he was one
of the gentlemen that we asked, and he seemed to be a little puzzled
about what the general fund was himself.
Q. Did you ever aşk the deputy comptroller? A. No, sir; I did not
ask the deputy comptroller.
Q. Do you not think that he could have told you? A. I do not
know that he could give me any more information than I had myself,
but I should judge after as long an experience there as he has had, if
any man could tell, he could.
Q. Now, have you ever made an investigation of the manner in
which revenues of the general fund are collected, with a view of see-
ing whether all that belongs to that fund has been collected? A. I
No. 80.]
2589
think Mr. Owen has made an examination, our bookkeeper; I think he
keeps track of the general fund; that is, as well as he can, and I think
he does it well; I do not know.
Q. How long did you say he had been in the office? A. Mr. Owen
has been in the commissioners of accounts 'office, I think, eight or nine
years; I think he has been there under several commissioners.
Q. Have you ever made any calculation whatever as to what the
average interest rate now paid to the city on its bond of indebtedness
is? A. Well, I think it is between three and four per cent, the
average.
Q. That is the average? A. I think so; the interest is two and a
half on some, three, four, five, six, but I think it will average some-
where about four per cent.
Q. Have you any suggestions to make to the committee in regard
to the reorganization, either of the sinking fund or the general fund,
or the simplification of the books of the city? A. No, sir; I haven't
any recommendations to make.
Q. Have you ever studied the books of the sinking fund or of the
general fund to see where either can be charged to the benefit of the
city? A. I have been studying as to the general fund and the sinking
fund, and all these funds, and I am still studying.
Q. Then you have no suggestions to make? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you not had sufficient force to enable you to make any
investigation whatever of the fire department works? A. We have
not had force enough in the commissioners of accounts' office to make
the examinations as extensive as we think they ought to be made; I
think every department in the city government ought to be examined
at least once a year, but the commissioners of accounts who preceded
us, and the commissioners of accounts who preceded them, have all
asked for larger appropriations.
Q. Would you be surprised to learn that with a force of accountants
not half so large as your force, working intermittently only and with
the aid of this committee, this committee will be able in much less
than what will aggregate four months of actual time to have made a
careful, accurate and thorough examination of every set of books in
the city? A. Would I be surprised?
Q. Yes. Yes, sir; I would.
Q. That would be a surprise? A. Yes, sir; I think it is very com-
plimentary if they do it.
Mr. IVINS.— That is all, Mr. Hollahan, unless the committee have
any further question to ask.
2590
[SENATE,
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Mr. Hollahan, the general powers of the commissioners of
accounts enable them to go into every department in the city gov-
ernment, do they not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. They have a right to investigate and to have produced before
them all the records and the books showing the business transactions
of each of the city departments and each of the bureaus of all the
city departments; is that right? A. Yes, sir; that is correct.
Q. Have they power, also, to summon and examine witnesses? A.
They have; yes, sir.
Q. On their motion? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And to examine them under oath? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have the power, also, and it is a part of your duties, is it
not, to recommend to the board of estimate and apportionment any
changes either in extension or restriction of any bureau or any
department that you are convinced would be a proper change from
your investigation? A. Yes, sir; when they are called upon by the
board of estimate and apportionment to do so.
Q. In other words, the commissioners of accounts are potentially a
perpetual investigation committee, are they not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You are essentially founded upon that trust? A. Yes, sir; to a
certain extent.
Q. It is your business officially to be suspicious of every depart-
ment, is it not? A. Yes.
Mr. IVINS. Let me put it in this way: It is your business to take
nothing for granted, is it not? That is about the same thing.
Q. A large part of the business of your department requires expert
knowledge as to bookkeeping, does it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You do not claim to be an expert bookkeeper? A. No, sir; I do
not.
Q. Do you not find yourself handicapped by your lack of familiarity
with expert bookkeeping? A. Well, if I had to go in and make
examinations myself personally, I would be; yes; if I had to make
an examination of any bureau or any of the departments, the fire
department, the police department, or any other department, in regaid
to ascertaining whether the money that was approprioted had been
properly spent, whether the fees collected had been turned over to
the city, I think I have information and knowledge enough at the
present time to find out if anything was wrong in the departments.
Q. Just in so far as you have to depend upon your subordinates for
expert bookkeeping skill, the efficiency of your work depends upon
their ability; is not that so? A. Yes, sir; and it always has been so.
No. 80.]
2591
Q. It always has been so? A. Yes; among the commissioners.
Q. How many commissioners are there in your board? A. There
are two, but they do not call themselves a board.
Q. They do not call themselves a board? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever made any recommendations since you have been
in office to the board of estimate and apportionment, which, if adopted,
would have resulted in economy in the city government? A. We
have not made any suggestions to the board of estimate and
apportionment.
Q. You have not made any suggestions with reference to any
department or bureau, which, if adopted, would cut down the annual
appropriations? A. We have not made any suggestions at all.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Are you required to do so under the law?
The WITNESS.—If we are called upon by the board of estimate and
apportionment.
Q. You are permitted to do so under the law? A. Yes, sir; we are
permitted to do so under the law.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.
You are permitted to do a great many
things; but is that one of your duties under the law under which
you act?
The WITNESS.— Yes, sir; it never has been made except as called
for; there is nothing on file in our office to show that any of our
predecessors ever made any report, such as you speak of, to the board
of estimate and apportionment.
Q. It is your duty, is it not, to make such recommendations if, in
the course of your investigations, you discover an occasion for it?
A. Yes, sir; certainly.
Q. And it is within your duty, is it not, to exercise your utmost
vigilance and diligence? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Hollahan, if the commissioners of accounts should
exercise the functions of their office in a perfect or ideal manner,
there never could grow up and continue in any city department any
serious abuse, could there? A. Not if they made an examination of.
every department, and made it thoroughly.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. In that connection, let me ask this question, did you ever hear
that in almost all of the European cities they have regular courts of
accounts? A. What is that, sir?
Q. Did you ever hear that in almost all of the European cities they
have regular courts of accounts? A. No, sir; I did not.
Q. That they have sworn official commissioners of accounts in most
of the cities of Europe? A. I never heard of it, sir.
2592
[SENATE,
Q. And that those commissioners of accounts or courts of accounts
exist for the purpose of supervising the general accounting system of
the city and give it uniformity and simplicity and that the result of
that is to lead to a ready publicity? A. No, sir; I never heard of it.
Q. Do you know that it was availing of the knowledge of the
existence of such facts that the commissioners of accounts' office
was first created in this city, and the necessity of just that sort of
thing was urged as the reason for creating the commissioners of
accounts in New York city? A. I am not familiar with the early
history.
Senator FASSETT. There was nothing to prevent your commission
going into the sheriff's office and discovering the abuses that existed
there as discovered by this committee, was there?
The WITNESS.- No, sir; not if we went in that office, but we had
not reached that office. Of course, we could not find out anything in
a department until we began an investigation.
Q. Was there anything to have prevented your going into the
register's office and finding out the general condition of things there
prevailing? A. There was nothing to prevent us if we were not
somewhere else.
Q. What determines, in your mind, the necessity for the investiga-
tion of one particular department over another particular department;
how do you come to make up your mind that you will now go into
this department instead of that? A. Well, we are generally guided
by the length of time elapsing between investigations.
Q. Well, had there ever been an investigation of the register's
office as to its accounts and the personnel of the office? A. Not that
I remember.
Q. Then, if you were governed by the length of time that had
elapsed since the investigation, you would have been led very straight
into the register's office, would you not? A. Well, it was a salaried
office until two years ago, and all the clerks were paid by the register.
Q. Did you ever go into the county clerk's office? A. No, sir;
that was in the same condition.
Q. The county clerk's office was in the same position? A. To some
extent.
Q. Was it not a fact that there was paid into the county clerk's
office for the use of the county clerk's office, upwards of $54,000 per
annum? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Had any examination of that department been made for a
quarter of century? A. We have no record in our office.
Q. Has any record yet been made? A. No, sir.
No. 80.]
2593
A
Senator FASSETT.- There is nothing to prevent you commissioners
from investigating the police department, is there?
The WITNESS. No, sir.
Q. And there never has been? A. No, sir.
Q. Well, if it is highly desirable to investigate that department, you
have abundant powers to do so, have you not? A. We have; yes, sir.
Q. Now, is it not a matter of fact that the office of the com-
missioners of accounts exists for two purposes, first, for systemizing
and simplifying the accounts so that publicity is obtained, and that
the discovery of error will be easy; and second, for the purpose of
pursuing just such investigations in aid of the mayor, as chief magis-
trate, as are now being pursued by this committee? A. To assist the
mayor; but the only thing that we could do, Mr. Ivins, is to recom-
mend to the comptroller where we see a change is necessary in keep-
ing the books of any department.
Q. That is all that would be necessary to do; have you ever done
that? A. We did in regard to the dock department?
Q. Have you ever done it in regard to any other department? A.
No, sir; that is the only place we saw the necessity of it.
Q. Now, what would you recommend to this committee as the proper
practice in regard to the accounts in the police department and the
payments out by the police department; do you know that the police
department dispenses its own funds? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know that it receives its appropriations in monthly
installments? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you know that it has its own treasurer, who is not the city
treasurer? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you know that its system is divergent in this matter from
the general system of the city? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know of any reason why that system should prevail?
A. I do not; the commissioners of accounts are the only people who
examined the vouchers of that department.
Q. And if the commissioners of accounts do not examine the
vouchers accurately, then the vouchers go unexamined? A. Yes, sir;
we examine them.
Senator FASSETT.
Do you mean that, that' there is no one who
examines the vouchers of the police department except you
commissioners?
The WITNESS. — That is all.
Senator FASSETT. That the accounts are not audited in the same
way as the accounts of the other city departments?
[Senate, No. 80. ]
325
2594
[SENATE,
The WITNESS.—They only send to the comptroller's department
duplicate vouchers; we examine the original vouchers when we make
our examination.
Q. Is not this the fact, that moneys appropriated to that depart-
ment, are paid over in lump sums, so much per month to that depart-
ment? A. Yes, sir.
Q. On a requisition from that department? A. Yes sir; one twelfth.
Q. And when the auditor has audited that requisition, so far as con-
cerns its facial regularity, that the auditor of accounts in the comp-
troller's office has then ended his work? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then the money goes to the police department? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the police commissioners, acting by their proper subordi-
nates pay out their proper money? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the vouchers for the payment of that money are never
examined by any other department of the city government except to
the extent that you examined them? A. The commissioners of
accounts get the original vouchers and examine them, which are kept
on file.
By Senator Fassett:
Q. The board of estimate and apportionment in the first place have
to assign the amount of money that the police department is going to
get and leaves it with the commissioners of accounts to make any
inquiries that they please? A. Yes, sir.
Q. But with that exception you are the only authorities who super-
vise that? A. We are the only authorities that examined the original
vouchers.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Now whose business is it to examine the original vouchers; who
of your subordinates? A. Mr. Owen.
Q. Mr. Owen is a pretty busy man, is he not?
pretty busy man; they are all busy.
A. Mr Owen is a
Q. How often does Mr. Owen go to the police department and
examine those vouchers? A. Once a year.
Q. Once a year? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long does it take him to examine those vouchers? A. Well,
off and on, two or three months, I think.
other
Q. Then, here is a department whose accounts, prior to the payment
of the amount paid out in an account, are never audited by any
department? A. Except the police department.
Q. That is, they audit their own accounts? A. Yes; they audit
their own accounts.
No. 80.]
2595
Q. We then have the anomaly presented of a department of the city
government which receives its own money, audits its own accounts,
'pays its own money, and on which payment or audit no check is placed`
until at the end of the year when your clerk goes up there and looks
over the vouchers? A. Yes, sir.
Q. The mayor has a right to call up those vouchers at any time, has
he not? A. They file the duplicate vouchers with the comptroller.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Do you think that is a good system? A. I do not.
Q. Have you ever discussed that system with your fellow commis-
sioner? A. We have talked over it.
Q. Have you ever made an official recommendation for its change?
A. No, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Now, take the question of auditing in the comptroller's office
itself; do you know, that in almost every city in this State, there is a
city treasurer? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know that there is a comptroller, or some one corres-
ponding to a comptroller? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you know that there is an auditor? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You were in the Legislature, were you not? A. Yes, sir; for
three or four years.
Q. And, as a member of the Legislature for three or four years, you
became generally familiar with the municipal system of the State; did
you not? A. Well, to some extent.
Q. Well, is it not a fact that the comptroller, auditor and city
treasurer are in all of the cities of this State, except in the city of New
York, distinct officers? A. I think they are; yes, sir.
Q. Now, is the auditor of this city distinct from the comptroller?
A. No, sir.
Q. The auditor is appointed by the comptroller? A. The auditor is
appointed by the comptroller and is in the comptroller's office.
Q. The auditor audits the account, and on which the comptroller
draws the warrant? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the auditor is a subordinate of the comptroller, appointed
by the comptroller and subject to removal for cause? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And only for cause? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, how many auditors are there in this city?
Senator FASSETT.- What do mean by that?
Mr. IvINS.—I mean in the comptroller's office.
The WITNESS.-I think there is one auditor and two assistants.
2596
[SENATE,
Q. There is one auditor and two assistants? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you, as an ex-legislator, any suggestion to make with
regard to the desirability of more certainly separating the auditing
department from the drawing department; that is, the department
which draws the warrants? A. I think it ought to be independent; I
think it would be a greater check.
Senator FASSETT.-Would it not be a greater check than is now
created by the city chamberlain's office?
Mr. IVINS. That is an entirely different thing.
Q. The mayor has no power of audit? A. No, sir.
Q. The mayor is called upon to sign warrants? A. Yes, sir; but if
he finds anything of a suspicious character, he does not sign it.
Q. How can he find out anything of a suspicious character? A. I
do not know how he can find it out; he has sent to our department in
reference to purchases, and we found it out for him.
Q. In the first place the account being audited, the warrant is
drawn; that warrant is signed by the mayor and the comptroller and
it is drawn on the city treasury? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And as drawn on the city treasury, the draft on the city treasury
is honored by a subsequent draft of the chamberlain on the bank of
deposit? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in certain cases by the county signature of the chamber-
lain's draft on the bank of deposit by the comptroller? A. Yes, sir.
Q. These warrants once drawn by the comptroller go to the mayor's
office? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And there received the signature of the mayor or his appointee?
A. The secretary.
Q. Now, do you know those warrants are entered up in the mayor's
office? A. I think a record of the amounts is kept, the names and
the amounts.
Q. A record of the names, dates and amounts? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that is all the record that is kept in the mayor's office?
As far as I know; I think so.
A.
Q. Now, there accompanies that warrant the audit? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is it not a fact that all that can be done by the mayor is to see
whether or not the sum drawn on the face of the warrant, the date,
the name of the payee and other details of that kind, conform to the
audit? A. Yes; that is all he can do.
Q. And if it conforms to the audit, he can go no further? A.
No, sir.
Q. Is there any reason, in your judgment, why the duty should be
imposed on the mayor of countersigning that warrant? A. I think
No. 80.]
2597
it is a great labor for the mayor to do it, and I do not think he has
the opportunity to judge whether the warrant is proper or not, except
that he accepts the audit.
Q. In your judgment, has not the Legislature taken exactly that
stand when it has relieved him and let his clerk perform that duty?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know of any specific good or advantage which accrues to
the city through compelling the clerk of the mayor to countersign a
warrant drawn by the comptroller on an audit regularly made? A.
No; except to save the mayor trouble or labor.
Q. Then why should the mayor do it? A. I don't know why he
should do it.
Q. Is there any reason why he should do it? A. No, sir.
Q. Is it not a matter of fact that this is one of the worn out checks
that it was supposed necessary to impose upon our different officers'
here after the discoveries of the frauds of 1870 and 1871; is not
that really all there is of it? A. I could not tell you.
Senator FASSETT.—You are not familiar with the history?
The WITNESS.— No, sir.
Q. How would you suggest that the auditor should be secured, by
appointment, by election, and once secured what limitation should
there be on his term of office? A. I think he should be appointed
by some authority outside of the comptroller and that his term of
office should last during good behavior.
*
Q. You think the office of auditor should be indefinite during good
behavior? A. I think so.
Q. Removable only for cause? A. Removable only for cause.
Q. After charges formally made and a trial had? A. Yes, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Why? A. Because I think that the auditor ought to be outside
of the department the head of which appoints him.
Q. Why should he be retained in office so long as you indicate;
what is the advantage? A. Well, I think that a man becomes more
familiar with his duties the longer that he is in office, and if he thinks
that his tenure will last as long as he behaves himself he is very
likely to behave himself.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Do you know what the auditor's duties are? A. Well, the
auditor's duties, as I understand them, are, when he gets a bill to
examine it carefully, examine the certificates of the inspectors and
}
2598
[SENATE,
others in the comptroller's office, and if he finds that everything is
correct, why then he passes the bill.
Q. Have you ever taken any steps, not taking it for granted that
the auditor does his work properly, to see whether he does it properly
or not? A. No; I do not think we have; I have not.
Q. You never have? A. No, sir.
Q: Now is not the auditor's position really both the front and the
back door to the treasury? A. Well, it is a very important position.
Q. Well, is it not really the one most important position in the city
government so far as effects the expenditure of public moneys? A.
Well, now we examine in our office every warrant and every voucher
that has been paid; they pass through our office, every one of them.
Senator FASSETT.-Just a physical transit? A. That is all.
Q. You have examined during this last year, between January, 1889
´and April 15, 1890, according to a statement handed to me by your
colleague, 37,180 vouchers, and 37,180 warrants? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, those 37,180 vouchers, and those 37,180 warrants are one
and the same thing; that is, the warrant comes with the voucher
attached? A. Yes - well, they come at different periods; that is,
sometimes the voucher will reach the office before the warrant, or
sometimes the warrant will reach the office before the voucher.
Q. You make no examination until both are together? A. No, sir.
Q. Then you take the warrant and see whether or not it conforms
with the voucher and its audit? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, that work has been done by the mayor? A. Yes, sir; it
has been done by the auditor.
Q. It has been done by the auditor, it has been in the mayor's office,
and the assumption is that has been done there, and it has been done
in the chamberlain's office, and this is the third comparison that is
made of the face of the audit and the face of the warrant? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is there any further investigation of. the audit? A. No; we do
not go behind the auditor.
Q. You simply stand on the audit? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the auditor has never been investigated? A. The auditor
has never been investigated, so far as I know of.
Q. And no specific audit has been investigated? A. Oh, yes; we
examined into some specific purchase of horses.
Q. Mr. Barker calls attention to the fact that the statute says you
should make that examination? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Of what use is it after it is done? A. Well, I say we went
behind the audit in the purchase of horses in the park department.
Q. Well, just describe how you did that; just tell us what was done
#
No. 80.]*
2599
་
;
to go behind that audit? A. My colleague will tell you, because he
took charge of that particular investigation himself; he went up and
examined the horses.
Q. Is he an expert in horses, your colleague? A. I think he is.
Mr. IVINS.-We better, perhaps, save that for Mr. Barker.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. But did not the examination of that audit begin before the
voucher and warrant got into your office? A. Why, certainly; it was
while it was at the mayor's office.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Then you did not make any such examination in the case after
the moneys had actually been paid? A. No; they had not been paid.
Q. Now, you know that the auditor audits continually bills for
supplies to the department of public works? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Man-hole tops? A. Yes.
Q. Pipes of all kinds and classes? A. Yes.
Q. Different kinds of machinery? A. Yes.
Q. You know that the contracts require that they should be pipe of
a certain quality? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That the man-hole covers should be of certain quality? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Has anybody in your office ever gone behind the audit of the
auditors with regard to any particular bill for supplies to the depart-
ment of public works to see whether or not the supplies received
comply to the specifications as advertised, or the contract as entered
into? A. No, sir.
Q. Now, do you know whether there is any provision in the comp-
troller's office for the performance of that sort of work in aid to the
auditor? A. I think they have an inspector assigned to that.
Q. Now, have you ever inspected the inspector? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever taken any steps to see whether or not the
inspector, in assisting the auditor to make the audit, does his work
properly? A. No, sir; I suppose we will when we make an
examination of the comptroller's office.
Q. Now, is it any check on the auditor that you should at some time
after the warrants have been drawn and actually paid, do over again,
because the law tells you you should do it, what it is assumed has
already been done three or four times; that is, compare the face of
the audit with the face of the warrant is that any check on any one
or anybody in reality? A. I don't know as it is a check to find out
whether fraud has been committed or not.
2600
* [SENATE,
Q. Does that examination which you have made
A. No; I think
the way that you point out, that before a bill is paid at all that we
should go behind and examine the inspector, and, if possible, to get
at some of the merchandise and find out whether it has been properly
passed by the inspector and properly certified to; no doubt that is the
proper way to do.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. That is the proper way? A. That is the proper way.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You have full power to do it, have you not? A. We have full
power.
Q. There is no reason why you should not do it if you had sufficient
force of men and so minded? A. If we had sufficient force of men,
we could do it.
Q. Have you ever called the attention of the mayor or the board of
estimate and apportionment to these facts that we have brought out
here; that is, that the police department must virtually go unaudited
so far as the rest of the city government is concerned, and that no
investigation has ever been made of the specific work done by the
auditor; and asked for means to enable you to do that class of work,
in either case? A. The comptroller of the city is one of the members
of the board of apportionment; he knows that.
Senator FASSETT.— You can answer that question, yes or no. You
never have?
The WITNESS.— No; I never have.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Well, do you perform the duties of your office more or less fully
and more or less thoroughly in view of the fact that you know that
other people know the defects in their own system? A. Well, no; I
try to do the very best I can, and do the best I can; whenever I see
an opportunity to protect the city, I do it, and help the city in any
way, I do it.
Q. Don't you think we could, with perfect safety, recommend either
the abolition of the mayor's counter-signature to the warrant, or,
assuming that the mayor is still to countersign, recommend relieving
you from the duty of making this comparison of 37,000 and odd
vouchers with 37,000 and odd warrants per annum? A. Well, I am
not prepared to give an opinion on that.
Q. Don't you think, as a commissioner of accounts, you ought to
help us on that by giving us your opinion? A. I will, later on, if you
wish it.
No. 80.]
2601
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. You had rather have some time to give a more careful and
deliberate opinion? A. Yes; there has been a number of things
brought up here that I would require to think over.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You say distinctly that you think that the police system of
receipts and payments ought to be conformed with those of the rest of
the city? A. I think so.
Q. Now, have you ever made any investigation of any of the divers
sources of small revenues to the city, for the purpose of seeing whether
those revenues were all coming in? A. No; except whatever depart-
ments or bureaus we have examined to find out if all the collections
have reached the treasury.
Q. Well, have you taken any steps to find out whether the collections
have been made? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What steps have you taken to find out whether any pawnbrokers
have been licensed who have not paid a pawnbroker's fee; that is,
whose pawnbroker's fee has not come into the city treasury? A.
There was an examination made of all the pawnbrokers' licenses, and
a thorough examination made of the office, I think, four months ago.
Q. Of what office; the license bureau of the mayor's office? A. The
license bureau of the mayor's office.
Q. Well, let's take a very small matter; do you suppose it is
possible for anyone to receive a dog license in the city and to pay his
money for that license, but for that money not to get into the city
treasury? A. Well, do I think it is possible; I don't think so; no.
Q. Do you suppose it is possible for any one to receive a vendor's
license and to pay the money, but for that money not to get into the
treasury? A. No, sir.
L
Q. Take the same case with regard to a license for a vehicle; is it
possible for a man there to pay for his license, but the money not find
its way into the treasury? A. I don't think so, from the number of
licenses, the blank licenses; I think a record is kept of them; a record
in full.
Q. Just describe how it is that this system is so perfect?
Senator FASSETT.— These are sources of income to the general fund,
are they not?
Mr. IVINS. These are sources of income, some to the sinking fund
and some to the general fund.
Q. Describe what the system prevailing in the mayor's office license
bureau is, which makes it impossible for anyone to receive a license,
[Senate, No. 80.]
326
2602
[SENATE,
1
and for the money paid for it not to get into the city treasury? A.
Well, they are issued to the marshal, a certain number of licenses;
the amount of money that he receives is placed upon a stub; the
amount on that stub is entered into the cash-book.
Q. Who issues those blank licenses and stubs to the marshal? A.
My impression is it is the comptroller.
Q.. Now, at any time, if that be done, you could call on the marshal
for the blank licenses then in his hands? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then he would be called upon to account for the difference
between the licenses then in his hands and those that he had received?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the only way in which he could account for them would be
by showing that a sum of money corresponding to the amount which
ought to have been collected on the issue of those licenses, had been
collected and paid into the city treasury; is not that so? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, has any such check ever been put on him? A. I think that
is the check on him to-day.
Q. Is it impossible for the marshal to get licenses, blank licenses,
other than those you speak of? A. I think it is.
Q. Now, what makes you think that the comptroller issues those
licenses? A. Well, as I understand it, they are all consecutively
numbered.
Q. They are not comptroller's licenses, are they? A. No.
Q. They do not run in the name of the comptroller, do they? A.
No; I don't think so.
Q. They run in the name of the mayor, don't they? A. Yes, sir.
Q. As matter of fact they run in this way: "Hugh J. Grant,
mayor," or "Abram S. Hewitt, mayor;" then follows the license, and
at the foot of the license is the signature of so-and-so, marshal? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. And the mayor does not sign them, does he? A. No; I think not.
Q. The mayor never sees them, does he, as matter of fact? A. Well,
that I could not tell.
Q. Well, now, does the comptroller ever see them? A. I couldn't
say that he does, personally.
Q. Who has charge in the comptroller's office of these blank licenses
so numbered continuously? A. I don't know, sir.
Q. Who made this investigation into that bureau of which you
speak? A. Mr. Hayes; possibly Mr. Kavanaugh, and I think that
Commissioner Barker supervised them; was with them.
Q. Then we can ask Commissioner Barker about that; now, I want
to carry you back to the police department for a minute; who is the
auditor of the police department? A. I can not recall his name.
No. 80.]
2603
•
Q. They have an auditor, have they? A. I don't know whether the
treasurer acts as auditor and treasurer; I can not recall.
Q. You do not know whether the treasurer acts as auditor as well
as treasurer? A. I could not give you a definite answer in regard to`
that.
Q. Well, now let us take the case of supplies furnished to the police
department- and they do receive a large amount of supplies, do they
not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you any idea what the supplies of the police department.
will aggregate in the course of a year? A. No, sir; I haven't the
figures.
Q. If the police department buys and pays for supplies during the
last half of January, their vouchers will not be examined until the
beginning of the following January, will they? A. Well, they will be
examined as soon as the commissioners of accounts go there; they
may go in August or September; they may not go until October.
Q. They may not go for four or five or six months? A. No.
Q. As matter of fact, as a rule they do not go for four or five or
six months? A. As a rule.
Q. Let us take a case then; let us suppose the commissioners of
accounts go there in August; then for the first time the vouchers are
gone over for the accounts, showing the payments for supplies in
August of the previous year? A. Yes.
Q. In other words, a whole year has elapsed? A. Yes.
Q. And the supplies are used up? A. No; not - August of the
year?
Q. Yes. A. Well, supposing they go the first of August and con-
tinue on until say the first of December, then the supplies for that
December would not be examined until the next August.
Q. Then the supplies for that December would not be examined
.until the next August? A. Next August.
Q. And the supplies for the previous August would have been still
in arrears for their examination? A. I think so; our chief bookkeeper
can give you a lot of information.
Q. I am going to have him here this afternoon. A. Because he
understands that thing better than I do; more thoroughly, because he
has been at it for, I think, since 1884.
Q. I will ask you only two or more questions touching that; those
supplies would be used up, however, would they not? A. Yes; for
six months
Q. Or the greater part of them? A. Yes..
Q. Their quarterly supplies or semi-annual supplies would be
gone? A. Yes, sir.
}
2604
[SENATE,
Q. The means of checking off the honesty of the transaction then,
would have actually disappeared? A. Well, it would be very difficult,
if not impossible.
Q. There would be no way, so far as you know, of detecting dis-
honesty in any of those transactions on the part of the commissioners
of accounts, would there, unless some one came forward and divulged
the fact? A. No; not except they did; I don't see that they could; of
course, so far as the quality of the feed for the horses, or anything of
that kind, of course, after it was exhausted we would have nothing;
we would have no way to find out by comparison; could not.
Q. Then, so far as those expenditures are concerned, the city is
entirely at the mercy of the honesty, integrity and expert ability and
knowledge of character and class of supplies of the one man in the
police department, whoever he may be, who finally passes on these
accounts before their payment? A. Yes; except that they have in
addition, people who just act as an inspector does in the comptroller's
office, but all under the control of the police department.
Q. Do you know anything about the methods of audit that apply in
that department? A. I do not.
Q. Who audits the accounts of the dock department? A. Well,
you mean the -
Q. All classes of payments that are made out of the proceeds of
bonds which are sold to be passed to the credit of the dock depart-
ment? A. The comptroller.
Q. The audit there is made in the same cases as in the others? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Is not that audit made by the board of sinking fund commis-
sioners? A. As to expenses and all that?
Senator FASSETT.- Or any part of the three millions which they are
authorized to raise and expend annually?
The WITNESS. I think not.
Q. Do you know whether that audit is made by the board of sink-
ing fund commissioners or by the auditors? A. Well, as I under-
stand it, it is audited by the comptroller's office; all the expenses.
Q. It is audited by the comptroller's office? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know whether the board of sinking fund commissioners
are required by law, or whether they are not required by law, to
audit the expenditures of the dock department? A. Well, they are
to allow them
Senator FASSETT.- Do you make a distinction between the admini-
strative expenses and the expenditures?
Mr. IVINS. I mean all expenditures whatever; expenditures out of
the proceeds of bonds sold for the credit of that department.
* No. 80.]
2605
“
you have raised a
Q. Do you know about that? A. Well, not
doubt in my mind now, but my impression was that they were by the
comptroller's audit.
Q. I ask, because, had you been certain I wanted to have your
opinion as to possibilities of changes in the law, one way or the other,
but you do not feel certain about it, so I won't press that ques-
tion; don't you think, however, that as a commissioner of accounts, you
ought to be certain about that? A. Well, I am very certain that all
the vouchers are audited by the
Q. By that you mean to say that they go through the comptroller's
department? A. Through the comptroller's office and examined into
by the auditor.
Q. Do you recollect of some difficulties that were once got into
here by a Mr. Sweeney and a Mr. Hall and others? A. I believe I
read something about it.
Q. Is it not a fact that those very difficulties grew out of the fact
that they were auditing officers? A. I don't remember the history of
the transactions.
Q. What is the name of your subordinate who examines these
police department vouchers and who you say can be of benefit to us? ·
A. Mr. Owen.
Q. What other things is Mr. Owen especially and particularly famil-
iar with? A. Well, with the statements of the comptroller and the
chamberlain; he makes up all those statements, quarterly and annual
statements.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
-
Q. Mr. Hollahan, who was mayor in 1881? A. Why, Mr. Grace.
Q. William R. Grace? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I see that year there were very important amendments
Mr. IVINS. No; no; no; let's don't have any mistake about that. Mr.
Edson was mayor in 1884,
The WITNESS.— Edson.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Well, whoever was mayor during that year there was a very
important amendment to the section of the Consolidated Code iu
regard to the duties — A. You mean the law of 1884?
Q. In regard to your duties? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who recommended that change in the law? A. I don't know, sir.
Mr. IVINS.-I can tell you if you desire to know. It was recom-
mended formerly and officially by Mayor Edson.
2606
[SENATE,
:
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Who were the commissioners of accounts at that time? A. Mr.
Sherman, I think, and that gentleman who died - Adams...
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Andrews, was it? A. No; Adams, I think; he is dead now.
Mr. IVINS.-I have forgotten his name.
The WITNESS.-I think it was Adams.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. You don't have to make a report now to the board of estimate
and apportionment, do you; you report to the mayor? A. To the
mayor; we make all our reports to the mayor.
Q. You testified that you made your report to the board of estimate
and apportionment? A. To the mayor, I made a mistake if I said to
the board of estimate and apportionment.
Q. Now, that market investigation had the effect the result was.
to call attention more sharply to the large arrearages of rent? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. And as a result those rents were — A. They were collected right
up and they are up to-day, as I understand it.
Q. Has any complaint been made to your bureau, department, as to
any frauds in any department you have not investigated? A. No, sir.
Q. Was there any complaint made to your department in regard to
frauds in the forage supplies, supplies of forage for the park depart-
ment? A. Yes, sir; I think there were one or two letters received in
regard to it.
Q. And those you investigated? A. Yes, sir; investigated that
at once.
Q. Has any complaint been made to your department of any frauds
in the bureau of correction, in connection with the board of charities
and corrections? A. Well, no statement except there has been some
statements in the newspapers about the administration of the lunatic
asylum; I believe that is the only -
Q. And only in the newspapers? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you intend to investigate that? A. We do; yes, sir; we
intend to investigate all the departments if we can reach them.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. With or without complaints? A. With or without complaints.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Your duties under chapter 516 of the Laws of 1884, are primarily
to examine the receipts and disbursements of the office of the comp-
troller and the chamberlain, are they not? A. Yes, sir.
No. 80.]
2607
Q. And, incidentally, if you have a complaint entered or have
reason to believe there is fraud or wrong, then to pursue the investi-
gation further? A. Yes, sir; in regard to the departments.
Q. But if you were to assume that every voucher presented to you
for examination was a fraudulent one, or that the property represented
by it was not delivered, why, it would take a very extensive corps of
assistants, would it not, to investigate that? A. It would, if we had
information in regard to every voucher that came up, why that would
be an impossibility.
Q. You assume that some of the departments are managed
economically and well and that the vouchers are all straight? A.
Well, we have got to assume that.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Does the law require you to assume that? A. No, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Is that the proper attitude for an auditor? [No answer.]
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. The mayor is held responsible by the electorate of this city, is
he not, for the administration of his own particular office, not only,
but for the administration of the several departments? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And if one of these departments were to be badly administered,
the mayor would be held responsible by the public? A. Well, some-
times unjustly.
Q. Well, I was going to say, he might be held responsible unjustly,
might he not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Still he would be held responsible? A. Well, not by people who
understood the situation of affairs.
Q. Well, now, does not the law which makes you commissioners of
accounts, gives you commissioners of accounts the power which you
hold, really put the mayor in a position where he can and should be
held responsible for any mal-administration whatever he or you, as his
commissioners of accounts, have failed to discover? A. That is, pro-
viding that we had the appropriation large enough, and the force
large enough; if we had both, and we failed to make an examination
of all the departments, he would have a right to hold us responsible.
Q. Now, do you not suppose that it is possible to make such changes
in the comptroller's office as to enable the joint staff of the comp-
troller's office and your office, working under some common command,
to do all of that work, all the time, and thoroughly? A. To make us
a bureau of the comptroller's office, do mean?
2608
[SENATE
•
Q. Oh, no; not necessarily that. A. Appointed as we are now?
Q. You say that you must have more staff? A. Yes.
Q. Is it not possible that, although you did not have a larger staff,
part of your staff, while under your charge, could be put to do certain
of the work that is now done by part of the staff in the comptroller's
office, and the ultimate gross cost to the city be no more than it is
to-day? A. Well, that is, providing that we could use, as a part of
our staff, some of the officers of the comptroller's office to-day; now
supposing you merge them to-day; in addition to our force, if we
needed an additional force, the comptroller would give us any men
that we thought it was necessary?
Q. He would? A. Well, I say, is that what you mean?
Q. Yes; supposing he would? A. Well, suppose he would-
Q. Suppose you were put in a position where you could make a
requisition on the comptroller for assistants out of his office, addi-
tional help out of his office, to work subject to your orders in the prose-
cution of some particular inquiry; don't you think that could be done?
A. It would be a very good plan, if it could be done.
Q. Now, is it not because of the responsibility of the mayor to the
public, and because of the fact that the mayor, being so responsible,
must have power, that this law has been passed, authorizing him to
appoint two commissioners of accounts, and giving you as great, as
complete, and as full power as is held even by a legislative committee,
for the purpose of prosecuting investigations ? A. They give us the
power; we have got all the power that we want, but we have not got all
the money.
Q. Now, whose fault is it that you have not got the money? A. The
board of estimates and apportionment.
Q. Have you ever made an application for moneys which they have
refused to give you? A. We have, sir.
Q. How much have you applied for this year?
Senator FASSETT.-For next year.
The WITNESS.-Ten thousand additional.
Q. Making $35,000? A. Thirty-five thousand dollars; yes, sir.
Q. Will $35,000 enable you to do this work? Å. I think it will.
Q. You think it will? A. I think so.
Q. Then if the work is not done, it is because you don't get the
$35,000? A. No; that ain't so at all; we can do more next year,
because we will be better acquainted with the office; I will be better
acquainted with my duties; I don't know about the other commis-
sioner; probably he is already acquainted.
Q. He is a growing man too, is he not? A. Sir?
No. 80.]
2609
Q. He is a growing man too, however? A. Well, he is more familiar
with the administration of affairs in the city than I am; I don't make
any pretentions, but I am satisfied that next year, if I am a commis-
sioner of accounts, I will be able to render better service to the city
than I have this year.
Q. If you get your $35,000, don't you think that the subordinates
of your office ought to be scheduled in the civil service lists, and sub.
jected to the most severe and critical examination as to their character
and ability, and that in that way you should be the beneficiaries of the
best expert ability that can be had for the money? A. I think that we
out to have the very best ability that we could get, but so far as
taking at random any man into that office, I don't think it would be
right to do it; I think we ought to be able to trust our men, and have
confidence in them.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. It is not a civil service office now? A. No, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. What do you mean by "taking at random;" is it taking a man
who comes to you as the successful competitor among fifty book-
keepers, for an appointment in your office, certified by the civil service
board, a man taken at random? A. No, sir; he may be intelligent
enough, but he may not be a reliable man at that.
Q. Well, that is a universal fault in human nature, is it not? A. I
know it is.
Q. And you are just as likely to be fooled A. We try to remove
that as much as possible.
Q. And you are just as likely to be fooled as the board of civil
service examiners are? A. Yes, indeed; but we try to get away from
it if we can.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. What steps do the board of civil service examiners take to.
determine a man's moral character? A. Don't take any.
Q. Don't they require a certificate that a man has good habits, a
formal requisition? A. No difficulty getting signatures to it.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Is there any reason why, in the matter of the application of the
civil service law, the head of a department should not be virtually
given a veto power, on the recommendation of the civil service board;
that is, to say "notwithstanding your recommendation of this man, I
[Senate, No. 80.1
327
2610
[SENATE,
t
don't believe him to be a man of good character, and my reasons are
so and so, and, as I am responsible for the administration of my office,
I am willing to take the man whom you recommend to me on scoré of
capacity, but I am as good a judge of character as you are, and I veto
your recommendation; " why would not that be a proper amendment to
our whole civil service law system? A. Be an excellent one.
Q. Giving the reason for doing it, however? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would not that be the means of actually attaining the responsi-
bility at the head of the department, in one instance? A. That is it.
Q. And at the same time giving him the benefit of a competitive
examination in the other instance? A. That is exactly right.
*
Q. Is not our whole civil service system in this city defective just
because of that fact? A. I think so, and the civil service of the
national government is defective — all the civil service is defective.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Mr. Holahan, you referred to the interest which the city is
alleged to have lost in the collection of assessments; that proceeds
from the system adopted now, does it not, of allowing a taxpayer,
a man who is assessed, the privilege of entering a complaint and
appeal to the board of revision and examination? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the delay is caused in that way? A. Well, I am not an
expert in regard to that, but, of course, the law gives him certain
privileges and, of course, he takes advantage of them.
Q. And if the case is peculiar it keeps before the board a long time?
A. Drags along, of course, like everything else.
Q. But the city, in relation to the contractor, is required to pay at
once, according to the contract? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is where the loss of interest comes in; Mr. Holahan, since
you were appointed you have devoted yourself assiduously, have you
not, to the duties of your office? A. I have.
Q. Endeavored to perform them faithfully and well and discover
any frauds and wrongs if there were any? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, a man may be an expert bookkeeper and still not very val-
uable in discovering or apprehending the methods of departments as
to doing their work? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In other words, it requires something more than — A. Well, I
will tell you; it helps a man, helps him very materially, too, that he
should have a thorough knowledge of the books, but a man might
have a thorough knowledge of the books and still not be able to find
out some things- detective work is necessary.
No. 80.]
2611
Q. Exactly, and that applies particularly to the departments, and
the mode of doing business? A. Yes, sir.
Q. If you were to have an additional corps of inspectors whose duty
it should be to ascertain if goods delivered, or supplies purchased, or
something of that kind, were actually delivered, and their fair value,
it would add very largely to the expenses of your office, would it not?
A. Certainly, in salaries and expenses.
.
Q. Then would you not necessarily, following out that line, have to
have another corps to see if they did their duty, this new board of
inspectors?
Senator FASSETT.
And so on, ad infinitum ?
The WITNESS.- Not as bad as that.
Q. Pretty nearly as bad, wouldn't it? A. Because, Senator, the
men that we would appoint as inspectors we would believe that they
were reliable men and wouldn't need to be watched by other men.
Q. Would the reason for that be any stronger than it would be in
the case of the first appointee, that he had done wrong? A. Well, we
don't have any man assigned particularly to that work, you know, for
to watch the delivery of merchandise to the departments.
Q. But if you were, that would be a part of your duty if you were
to follow it up, as suggested by Mr. Ivins, would it not? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. IVINS.-I haven't made the suggestion that that should be done
in absolute strictness with regard to every transaction, but only as
a test.
The WITNESS.- From time to time.
Mr. IVINS. Or occasionally along from time to time.
The WITNESS.—As I understood it; yes, sir.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. If the list of the additional corps of inspectors were to find that
in no department there was a wrong perpetrated or fraud perpetrated,
and yet your pay-roll was increased by thousands upon thousands of
dollars, then there would be fault found with you for having too
many, men in your employ, would there not? A. I suppose there
would be, by the board of estimate and apportionment or by someone,
if we increased our pay-roll.
Senator FASSETT.—Are you trying to excuse this department for its
inefficiency?
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- I am trying to show this: That if this
department were to employ a large corps of inspectors to examine
behind the vouchers and see that the property were delivered, and at
a fair price, and all that sort of thing, and they should find the
2612
[SENATE,
vouchers all exactly correct and not one penny was wrong in them,
then there would be fault found for employing so many men in his
department.
Senator FASSETT.— He said they could do it for $10,000.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-That does not refer to inspectors.
The WITNESS. For instance, the assistant could be the inspector,
too, except in some cases where we wanted expert testimony, as to the
quality of any article of merchandise, of course, one of our assistants
couldn't do that, and out of our contingent fund we would have to
get an expert who could give proper information.
Q. And it was with that view that you made application for a larger
amount this year? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And wherever a complaint has been made to your bureau or
department of a wrong, or a hint of a wrong, you have followed it up
by an investigation? A. We have followed it up, sir; wherever
we got a letter; we never paid any attention to anonymous
communications.
Q. Do you think the amendment of the law of 1884 was a wise
amendment? A. I do not; I think the commissioners of accounts
have too much power; I do not think they ought to have the power
to send for papers and examine into men's accounts, and all that,
outside private parties.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. They have power, have they not, as it stands, to compel either of
these Senators to produce their private check books? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And to explain actually what became of the money as shown to
have been drawn on the stub of each particular check? A. Yes; it is
too much power to give the commissioners of accounts.
Q. Merely in the hope that they may, by going through every item
of his expenditure, finally strike an item which will prove their theory
of the case? A. Yes, sir.
Q. They have that power; haven't they? A. They have that power;
they oughtn't to have it.
Q. Is not that the most extraordinary power that exists outside of
the power held by a legislative committee? A. They ought not to
have it; so I have always contended; they don't want it either.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Then there is no lack of power in your department? A. We
have got power enough; if we had as much money as we have
power, why we could do very wonderful things,
No. 80.]
2613
A
Q. Be the most powerful department in the city; one of them? A.
Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Don't you think you are the most powerful department in the
city, as it is? A. I think so; yes, sir.
Q. Don't you think the chief magistrate, be he whomsoever he may,
would regard you as the most powerful department in the city; are
you not his right hand, and his very strong right hand? A. He has
to rely a great deal on us.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Who appointed Mr. Melville? A. I think Mr. Sherman.
Q. Do you know at whose request he was appointed? A. Well, it
was before I came in.
Q. Do you know at whose request he was appointed? A. It is my
impression Raines; isn't it—there are two brothers.
Q. He has been in there since Sherman's time? A. Yes; since
Sherman's time.
Recess until 2.30 o'clock.
AFTER RECESS.
EDWARD P. BARKER, having duly affirmed, testified as follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You are one of the commissioners of accounts of this city? A.
Yes sir.
Q. How long have you been a commissioner of accounts? A. I was
appointed on the 31st day of January, 1889.
Q. You were appointed by whom? A. Hugh J. Grant.
Q. What business were you in immediately prior to your appoint-
ment as commissioner of accounts? A. For several years I have been
engaged in private affairs.
Q. You say private affairs? A. Yes; private business.
Q. Was that mercantile business? A. Yes sir.
Q. Prior to that time what was your occupation? A. I was secre-
tary of the park department.
Q. When did you cease to be secretary of the park department? A.
I don't remember just the date.
Q. About when? A. I think it is going on six years ago; I don't
remember just the date; it was five or six years ago.
Q. How long had you been secretary of the park department? A.
Oh, I had been secretary of the park department a number of years,
some eight or nine years I think.
→
2614
[SENATE,
:
Q. And as such at that time you were thoroughly familiar with the
park department work? A. I thought so.
Q. No complaint had ever been made about your manner of per-
forming your duties as such secretary had there? A. I haven't heard
of it.
Q. Did you resign from that office? A. I did.
Q. Who were commissioners of parks at the time of your resig-
nation? A. John D. Crimmins, Henry R. Beekman, Matthew D. C.
Borden and Jesse W. Powers.
Q. Mr. Borden is the only member of that board at present who was
a member at the time you were secretary? A. Yes sir; he had just
been recently appointed.
Q. Have you ever been an accountant? A. Before I went in the
park department years ago I was brought up in a banking house, the
banking house of Frost and Forrest.
Q. As an accountant there? A. I had had to do with accounts; I
always had to do with accounts more or less even in the park
department.
Q. Did you during the interval of your leaving the park depart-
ment and your becoming commissioner of accounts, any work as a
professional accountant? A. No, sir; I did not.
Q. Are you a professional accountant? A. No, sir; I am not.
Q. How did you come to be appointed commissioner of accounts
do you know? A. All I know about my appointment is that, that I
was sent for by the Mayor; I received a note from him and I think
it was some three or four days after I received the note before I
went there to his office, and he asked me how I was situated, and
whether I cared to take a position; I told him how I was situated and
that I didn't think I was prepared to take any position and he urged
me and he offered me this place; I told him if I was anxious to secure a
political appointment that would be the last one in the city govern-
ment that I would want; it was a very unpleasant one in my estima-
tion, and I declined; he urged me, and I went away, and after two or
three days I consulted with certain people, and they advised me to
accept it; I accepted the office with the understanding that I was to
be let out of it in a short time.
Q. Did you make any specific limitation of time within which you
were to be let out? A. No; within a short time; a few months.
Q. Were you ever an applicant for the position of commissioner of
parks? A. I never was, sir; nor for any other office.
Q. Did the mayor ask you if you if you were a professional account-
ant or not? A. No, sir; he did not.
No. 80.]
2615
Q. You didn't tell him that you were one? A. I did not.
Q. Did he ask you anything about your knowledge of accounts?
A. He did not; he had known me for many years.
Q. At the time that you took that office did you understand the
system of accounting that then prevailed in the city? A. Do you
mean throughout the whole city?
Q. Yes. A. It would be a pretty hard thing for a man to say that
he did that even now.
Q. You mean that it would be a pretty hard thing for you to say
that even now. A. Yes.
Q. It would be a fair presumption that the general bookkeeper
understands the system of accounts throughout the city? A. It
might be his own particular accounts, but not of all the departments
of the city government.
Q. Did you at that time understand the accounts of the city gov-
ernment as kept by the general bookkeeper? A. I did not.
Q. Do you now understand the accounts of the general bookkeeper?
A. Do you mean in the finance department?
Q. Yes. A. I have looked over his accounts with him, and I have
talked with him several times, and here only a few months ago the
comptroller was talking to me about it, and he wanted to have them
revised.
Q. What suggestions were made at that time either by the comp-
troller or by you with regard to the revision of the system of
accounts? A. There was none made at that time; but they were to be
looked at at a different date.
Q. What particular phases of the system of accounts did you dis-
cuss? A. None in particular.
Q. Just a general discussion as to the possibility or practicability
of a revision? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And without taking any particular account as an illustration for
its necessity? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you have more than one talk with the comptroller about
that? A. I don't remember; I may have had; I remember one
distinctly.
Q. How long did that consultation last? A. I couldn't say; I was
in his office on some other business, and he commenced the conversa-
tion of his own accord.
Q. Then it came up rather casually than by premeditation? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Have you at any time ever made any suggestions to the comp-
troller with regard to the simplification or revision of accounts in that
2616
[SENATE,
office? A. No, sir; for the reason why, if for no other reason, you, of
course, understand that by section 123 of the Consolidation Act the
comptroller is the only person who has a right to prescribe the man-
ner of keeping the accounts of the city; of course, we have no right
to make any such direction.
Q. You have a right to make suggestions, haven't you? A. To the
comptroller?
Q. Yes? A. We don't think that we have; any report that we make
we have to make to the mayor.
Q. You certainly have a right to prescribe the changes? A. Oh,
no, sir.
Q. That inheres in the comptroller alone? A. As I understand it.
Q. Don't you think that if the commissioners of accounts are to
really exercise their functions fully, and completely, and thoroughly
within the reasons which account for the existence of commissioners
of accounts at all, that they should have the right to prescribe the
general method of keeping accounts? A. In the absence of that, sec-
tion 123, I would say yes.
Q. I assume, in the absence of that, section 123? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Because there is a direct conflict, is there not, between the power
of the comptroller and the general theory of the office of commissioners
of accounts? A. So it appears.
Q. That is one of the apparent incongruities of our system? A. So
it appears.
Q. What was the first thing that you did after you became commis-
sioner of accounts? A. When I went in the office of the commissioners
of accounts there was an investigation in progress in relation to the
allotment of stands in West Washington Market.
Q. And you took up that investigation where it had been left by
your predecessor? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Sherman was your predecessor, was he not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know how long Mr. Sherman had been there? A. I do
not; a number of years; I knew Mr. Sherman very well.
Q. Mr. Sherman was a professional accountant, wasn't he? A. I
don't know.
Q. Have you ever examined or looked over any of that work that
was done by Mr. Sherman during his term of office? A. I don't know
that I can particularize anything; generally I have.
Q. Have you ever examined the accounts of the mayor's office? A.
Personally?
Q. Yes? A. No; I have been over there when the accounts were
examined.
}
No. 80.]
2617
=
Q. Have you ever personally made a study of the reports of receipts
of money from the mayor's office? A. I can't say that I have; I have
looked into them somewhat.
Q. The mayor's subordinates make weekly and quarterly reports,
do they not, to the comptroller? A. I believe they make weekly
reports, and they are consolidated into quarterly reports.
Q. Have you ever studied those weekly or quarterly reports ? A.
No, sir; I have not, but as I said before I have gone over there when
they made the examination.
Q. Have you ever studied the system of accounting which prevails
in the department of public works? A. I have looked into that;
yes, sir.
Q. The water register is at the head of a bureau in the department
of public works, is he not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And as such he receives moneys which will average two mil-
lions and a half per annum, more or less, for water rates, does he not?
A. Something in that neighborhood.
Q. Have you ever examined his system of keeping the accounts of
those moneys when received and when paid over? A. The office made
an examination of them some time since; Mr. Holahan had particular
charge of it.
Q. Have you ever made an examination of the other accounts of the
other bureaus in your office? A. Some of them; yes, sir; we have
just gotten through with them.
Q. Which ones have you just gotten through with ? All the
bureaus where there are revenues derived.
Q. Which bureaus are they? A. The bureau of sewers, the water
purveyor, the bureau of incumbrances those are the ones I call to
mind now.
Q. And you have personally looked into those matters so that you
understand the system of accounting prevailing there? A. I said that
Mr. Holahan had charge of that examination particularly; he devoted
his time to that.
Q. Have you ever personally examined the method in which the
police department keeps its accounts? A. The police department's
accounts are different from any other department as you are aware.
Q. I will take them up in detail a minute later; but now I want to
find out whether you have ever personally studied the system of
bookkeeping that prevails in that department? A. As we keep it in
our office; yes, sir.
Q. As you keep it in your office? A. Yes.
[Senate, No. 80.]
328
2618
[SENATE,
Q. But as they keep it in their office have you? A. I will explaln
if you desire.
Q. I will take that up in a minute and we will explain that in full?
A. As we keep it in our office it must agree with theirs, or theirs
must agree with ours.
Q. Have you ever examined the system of accounts which prevails
in the corporation counsel's office? A. No, sir; we have made no
examination of that.
Q. Have you ever examined the manner in which the board of
assessors does its work for the purpose of showing whether or not
moneys are lost because of the failure to confirm assessment lists;
whether the fault be that of the board of assessors, the board of
revision or the courts? A. We made no examination of that or
of anything connected with the tax office.
Senator FASSETT.—I think we could get at this a little quicker,
Mr. Ivins, if you would ask the witness to state just what
departments he has gone into for the purpose of studying the system
of accounts.
Mr. IVINS.-We can ask that.
Q. What departments have you the studied the system of
accounting-I mean now apart from special investigations of par-
ticular offices? A. When we go into a department to investigate,
then we study the system of accounting.
Q. You did that in the dock department? A. Yes.
Q. And in studying the system of accounting in the dock depart-
ment, did you study the corresponding system of accounts in the
comptroller's office? A. They are the same, other than the way that
the money is drawn; that is the only department; that department
and the police department are the two departments that differ from
others.
Senator FASSETT.- Does the witness understand your question?
Mr. IVINS.-I think he does.
Q. You say they are the same? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That the accounts as kept in the finance department which
correspond with the accounts of the dock department are identical-
do we understand you right in that regard? A. I don't say they are
identical; I say they must agree.
Q. They must agree in their results? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know from your own examination whether the accounts
of the dock department, as kept in the comptroller's office, are kept in
such a way as to afford the best possible proofs of the accuracy or
checks against the inaccuracy of the accounts of the dock department?
C
No. 80.]
2619
A. We have not made any extended examination of the finance depart-
ment; the only examination we made there was in the bureau of city
revenue, the collection of water rents, and such things.
Q. Have you ever made an examination of the books of the comp-
troller's office which show the operations of the sinking fund? A.
Well, that is part and parcel of the system of bookkeeping; and as far
as that is concerned, I am a novice, I think, on the sinking fund
matters.
Q. You think the sinking fund is a little too many for you? A.
Yes, sir; you and I agreed a little time ago on that.
Q. You told me a few months ago, didn't you, that you didn't think
you understood the sinking fund? A. I did.
Q. Do you now understand it?
very much better,
A. I don't think I understand it
Q. Do you think you know of anybody that does? A. I know that
you told me you didn't think hardly you did at that time.
By Senator Fassett:
Q. Do you mean to say that you don't know of anybody that does
understand the operations of the sinking fund? A. No; I don't
say that.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Have you made any special study of the operations of the
general fund? A. No; not specially; of course, I have looked over it
and examined what items there were that went to make up that fund.
Q. Have you made a study of the general fund with sufficient
thoroughness to enable you to say that you are satisfied that the
general fund gets all of the revenues to which it is entitled? A. I
couldn't state that definitely; no, sir.
Q. Now, the same thing with regard to the sinking fund? A. I
couldn't state that.
Q. You have made such an examination as to enable you to say
whether the revenues of all of those funds were all that they are
entitled to? A. No, sir; not positively.
Q. You have made an examination of the system of accounts that
prevails in the park department, have you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you personally conduct such an examination? A. I was in
there almost every day while the examination was being conducted.
Q. We then have your evidence to the effect that you have examined
the general system of accounting of the dock department and of the
park department? A. Yes, sir.
2620
[SENATE,
Q. Now, what other departments have you personally made a study ·
of, so far as concerns the general system of accounting of such
departments? A. I have not made a study of the system other than
as we have investigated them.
Q. And when you say as you have investigated, y ou mean these
general investigations conducted by your subordinates! A. Yes, sir.
Q. While those are in process, do you co-operate with-your subordin-
ates and go through with the work? A. I do.
Q. How do you do that take the work that is now being done in
the department of street cleaning, and give us an illustration? A.
Our office hours are from 9 o'clock in the morning till 4 o'clock in the
afternoon; I make it a rule to be in the office at 9 o'clock in the morn-
ing, and see that the employes are there, and I talk to them before
they go out to their work, and then I do not go into the office where
they are working during the day; I see them when they come in, in
the afternoon and I converse with them in relation to it; as far as the
street cleaning investigation is conducted, the office being in the
same building with ours, and they having very limited accommo-
dations, the books and vouchers were carried into our office and there
is where it was conducted.
Q. Do you sit down with your accountant and assist him in the con-
duct of that? A. Sometimes I do; yes, sir; sometimes I go into the
departments and work; I have done it.
Q. Now, we will revert to the police department; I will state the
facts as I understand them, in the form of a question, and then you can
say whether the facts are as I state them, yes or no; is it not the fact
that the police department sends a duplicate set of its audits or
vouchers to the comptroller's office; that the comptroller's office
then turns those papers over to you; that then you virtually open
a set of books for the police department, in which you enter up the
items from these vouchers, and that, then at the end of the year you
compare the accounts as they appear on your books with the accounts
as they appear in the police department books is that correct? A.
Virtually.
Q. It is virtually correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, if the accounts of the police department's books correspond
with the accounts of your books, they are regarded as correct? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Is any investigation made of the correctness of the audits before
the entries are made in your books from the duplicate set of vouchers
which have come to your office? A. We take these vouchers as we
get them from the finance department; we have no right to go behind
•
No. 80.]
2621
:
the audit as it comes from the finance department, whether they audit
or not; we must take the vouchers as we get them there, and we
examine the vouchers, and if they are correct in form, why we have to
pass them; whether the goods have been delivered or whether the
prices are correct or not, we have no control over.
Q. If they are correct in form you then enter them in your books?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then a careful comparison of your books with the police
department books would show any formal errors, woudn't it? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. And if they are no formal errors then the whole matter is treated
as correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that is all the examination and checking of the accounts or
books of the police department that you do, isn't it? A. That is all
that we do; yes, sir.
Q. Now, as a matter of fact, that does not amount to any check on
the police department at all does it, except so far as formal entries are
concerned? A. That is all.
Q. That is all? A. That is all that we have.
Q. Then, as a matter of fact, the police department conducts its
official business wholly without any external check? A. We have to
take the vouchers as we get them from the finance department.
Q. And the result is that their business is done without any external
check whatever? A. We have no power to go behind them.
Q. You don't audit? A. No.
Q. You don't examine the audits except as to formalities? A. No.
Q. The comptroller does not audit? A. I don't know about that.
Q. Does the auditor audit? A. His stamp is not on it.
Q. Whose audit stamp is on those vouchers? A. I think the chair-
man of the committee on supplies.
Q. Who is a member of the board? A. Yes, sir- and the bookkeeper.
Q. And the bookkeeper of the police department? A. Yes, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. A member of what board? A. The police board.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Is not that known as the auditing committee? A. I think it is
chairman of the committee on supplies; I think that is it.
Q. How does he sign - simply so and so chairman? A. I think
there is a stamp and then he signs his name.
Q. I wonder if Mr. Melville can go over and get one of those
A. Mr. Owen has charge of all those accounts and he is here.
papers
?
2622
[SENATE,
Q. Then so far as your office is concerned you are only a check on
the formal accuracy or inaccuracy of the entries in the books? A.
Of their books; yes, sir.
Q. Now, describe to us the system of accounting which prevails in
the dock department differentiating that department from the other
departments in the city government? A. The dock department, they
draw a requisition; they make up a schedule of bills and they attach
them to a requisition drawn on the sinking fund, and that is for-
warded with a communication signed by the president, and each
member of the sinking fund signs that, and then that goes to the
comptroller, and on that the audit of these bills is made.
Q. By whom is that audit made? A. Made by the auditor.
Q. In the first instance, isn't it? A. No, sir; he can't make this
audit until after this form of requisition comes in, and then it goes
through the regular form of audit.
Q. What part in the auditing the sinking fund commission performs?
A. They sign this requisition, this authority for the comptroller to
audit.
Q. Is not that signature of the sinking fund commissioners itself
an audit? A. It is not considered as such; oh, no; that is considered
as the authority.
Q. Do you know whether it is so considered by law? A. No; I
have looked into that to ascertain what provision of law there was for
this; and I can't find that there is any provision of law; but it is a
regulation of the sinking fund commissioners.
Q. Has it not been held that the requisition of the sinking fund
commissioners is assumed by law to be made only after the sinking
fund commissioners themselves have examined and audited the bills
for the payment of which they draw their requisition? I can't say
that.
Q. Well, the requisition being drawn, the accounts are then audited?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that it would appear on the face of it that the sinking fund
commissioners actually drew a requisition for the payment of money
before the accounts were audited? A. No; it is an authority for the
auditing.
Q. Simply an authority to audit? A. Yes, sir; an authority,
schedule, amounting to so and so, and that goes with the bills to the
finance department.
Q. Is all dock department money paid out through the finance
department? A. It is.
Q. In the first instance, it is? A. Yes, sir.
No. 80.]
2623
Does the finance department pay any money over to anyone in
the park department for disbursements by the dock deparment? A.
I think not.
Q. Do you know what regulations have been prescribed by the
finance department for the collection of dock revenues and the pay-
ment into the city treasury of such revenues when collected? A. I
don't know that the finance department has prescribed any; the dock
department prescribe their own rules and regulations, I believe.
Q. Are the park department accounts kept, so far as auditing and
draft of warrant and payment are concerned, in the same way as
the other general accounts in the city? A. The park department,
they make up and audit each bill, or two or three bills from the same
party are attached to a certificate, and those bills are all certified by
the proper authorities in the department, and that certificate is
signed by three commissioners, and then they make up what is called
an audit sheet, and that audit sheet is presented to the board and
spread at length upon the minutes, and they adopt a resolution
approving it, and authorizing the secretary to transmit the bills to the
finance department for payment; after they reach the finance depart-
ment, they go through the regular form of audit.
Q. When did you begin your investigation of the park department?
A. We commenced our investigation of the park department right
after we got through with the clerical portion of the dock depart-
ment învestigation, before the open investigation commenced; that
was suspended for the time being.
Q. What led to your investigation of the park department? A. It
appears to me that Commissioner Gallup and Commissioner
Hutchings; I had a talk with both of them in relation to it, and then
we had some little correspondence, I think, with Commissioner Robb,
and I think there was something in that in relation to it, and we said
that we would conduct an investigation as soon as we had time; but
it was months after that before we did it.
Q. Commissioner Gallup was the newest member of the board,
wasn't he? A. Yes, sir.
Q. The appointee of Mayor Grant? A. I believe he was; yes, sir.
Q. Was any specific complaint made? A. No, sir.
Q. Were you formally invited by that department to make an
investigation of it? A. I think the way the correspondence with
Commissioner Robb came about, was this, it was in relation to some
horses that had been purchased, and the bills had gone to the
mayor's office, and there was some question raised in relation to it; I
don't know why it was, but the mayor sent the bills to our office, and
2624
[SENATE,
told us to investigate them, and to see whether there was a larger
price being paid for those horses than was paid by other departments,
and to ascertain, if possible, whether the horses were sound; we had
the horses examined by experts, and from that I believe there was
some little feeling in the board apparently, evidenced, I believe, by
the president and the treasurer.
Q. The fact is it was a board which was not always harmonious by
any means? A. That is kind of characteristic of that board.
Q. It is characteristic of that board, the want of harmony? A.
Yes, sir; it has been for years; and Mr. Robb made a communication
to us in relation to the investigation; he said the board would be glad
to have us conduct an investigation, and a thorough one if we did;
and we replied to it, and then he came into the office, and we had a
conversation in relation to the matter; I think that was the only time
I ever had a conversation with Mr. Robb in my life.
Q. How long were you in the conduct of that investigation? A.
We were in it for a long time, for the reason that sometimes we
would work on it, and then we would be called off on other
work, and we wouldn't do anything for two or three weeks, the same
as we are on any work.
Q. Did you personally assist in the conduct of that investigation?
A. I did.
Q. By going up there? A. Yes, sir; I live in Seventy-third street
and on the west side, and while the clerks were investigating at the
arsenal; I used to go to the park almost every morning on my way
down; come around that way so as to see the clerks there.
Q. How many bureaus are there in that department? A. They have
no bureaus; they are not allowed by law to have any.
Q. Who is Mr. Conkling? A. Mr. Conkling has charge of the
animals.
Q. Does he keep a set of books? A. No.
Q. Who is Mr. Valkenburgh? A. He is the property clerk.
Q. Does he keep a set of books? A. The books are not very
efficient.
Q. Does he keep what he calls a set of books? A. He may call
them so.
Q. Did you examine his books? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Personally? A. No; not personally.
Q. Did you ever see his books? A. Oh, yes, sir; I knew what they
were.
Q. You knew what they were from old times? A. Yes, sir.
No. 80.]
2625
Q. Did he keep those books at the time that you were secretary of
the board; six years ago? A. No; his clerk kept them.
Q. Was he in the same position then as he is in now? A. Virtually.
Q. Who else in that department keeps what is, or is called a set of
books? A. The bookkeeper at the main office; he keeps a set of
books and the superintendent of the twenty-third and twenty-fourth
wards; he keeps more of a memorandum set of books.
Q. Now, what were the principal matters of which you complained
to the mayor as the result of your investigation? A. I don't know
that we have made any complaints.
Q. You have simply made a statement of facts as you found them?
A. That is all; we made no complaint; we made no charge.
Q. What particular points did you call to the attention of the
mayor? A. Well, in the first place, we called his attention to the
license fees, as I remember them now; instead of going into the city
treasury as we thought. they ought to have gone, they had been
diverted to other uses.
Q. To other departmental uses? A. To other departmental uses;
yes, sir; they had been expended in repairs and in the enlargement of
buildings, which we didn't think was legal.
Q. You thought that ought to have been paid into the city treasury
and then taken out again in regular form? A. Yes, sir; because there
is only one way prescribed by law for the spending of city money.
Q. What else was there? A. Well, we looked into the horse account.
Q. Did you find anything peculiar about the horse account? A.
Some of these accounts had never been examined before, and we went
back to the date of the last examination and came on from that; and
the clothing account.
Q. Did you look into the account of forage? A. Yes, sir; we
examined all the contracts that were in existence in the department
and amongst the rest of them came the forage contracts, and while
examining those and the number of horses, we came across a com-
munication from the property clerk to the board, stating that there
were so many horses and it would cost so much to feed them, and it
would require so much feed per diem, and we thought we would make
a calculation, which we did, and we found that it didn't agree with
his basis.
Q. It didn't agree with his basis? A. No, sir.
Q. But did you find anything to indicate that there had been irregu-
larity of any kind in the supply of forage? A. It didn't agree with
the receipts.
[Senate, No. 80.]
329
J
2626
[SENATE,
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. In what way didn't it agree? A. It didn't agree; the amounts
that were received didn't agree.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Are you confident that that does not agree with the receipts?
A. I didn't examine the receipts, personally; you can put Mr. Melville
on the stand; he is the one who examined that, personally.
Q. Did you examine the shoeing account? A. No, sir; because
they shoe their own horses.
Q. How many blacksmiths have they? A. I don't know.
Q. You didn't examine the account then at all as to shoeing? A.
As to how much it cost?
Q. Yes. A. No, sir; some time ago I know we undertook to look
into it and find out how much it cost the park department to maintain
a horse, as we were looking into it in the other departments, but we
didn't get any information; we couldn't get any information.
Q. How many horses are there in the park department? A. I can't
tell you to-day; the report says how many there were on hand.
Q. Just turn to that and tell me how many horses there were on
hand at that time?
Senator FASSETT. Is that the report of their investigations?
Mr. IVINS.-Yes.
The WITNESS.-This is our office copy; a rough copy [producing
report].
Question repeated. A. Ninety-two.
Q. Did those ninety-two horses belong to the city? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Isn't it a fact that seven or eight of those horses were simply
there on trial at the time? A. I don't know.
Q. Did you examine the bills showing the purchase of these ninety-
two horses? A. We asked for a statement and they gave us the state-
ment of the number of horses that were on hand.
Q. And you took that statement simply? A. Yes, sir; and the
number of horses that had died in the service; all of the data we got
was from the stable man.
Q. Did you make an investigation of the price paid for each of these
horses? A. I think we did.
Q. Then, how does it happen that you didn't find that a number of
these horses were not owned by the city, and had not been paid for,
but were there simply on trial? A. I never heard of such a thing
before.
Q. If you were to hear that now would you take that as an indica-
No. 80.]
2627
tion that your investigation had not been thorough in that regard?
A. No I would want more evidence than that.
Q. If it developed to be the fact? A. You will have to prove it to
me.
Q. Assume the fact? A. I am not assuming the fact.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. If it were shown to be true would that be an evidence that you
had been careless in the investigation? A. It would show that our
report was not correct in relation to that matter.
Q. But you deny the fact? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. That is all right, I am assuming the fact, it would show that
your examination had not been thorough? A. In that respect.
Q. Do you know that it is the custom of the horse railroads in this
city to keep careful accounts of shoeing? A. I have understood so; I
have never examined them.
Q. Apportioning the number of horse shoers to the horses and then
making a monthly estimate of the cost of shoeing including the labor
and shoes? A. I know it is in some of the other departments of the
government.
Q. That is so in the police department? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in the fire department? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in the street cleaning department? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you take any steps toward enquiring whether a system could
be established whereby it could be discovered what it cost to shoe the
horses? A. I told you some time since that when we were getting
up certain data as to what it cost to maintain horses, in the different
departments we endeavored to get the information from the park
department and we failed.
Q. Why did you fail? A. We asked for it and waited a long time;
but we didn't succeed in getting it.
Q. Why didn't you go and take it? A. You would have to show us
where it was to go and take it from.
Q. Did you go and try to find out where it was? A. No, sir, we
couldn't find out such a thing.
Q. Do you mean to say now that it is impossible to find out from
the books of that department what the cost of horse keep is? A. I
don't know what they are doing now since we closed the investigation.
Q. Was it impossible at the time that investigation was made to
find out from the books of that department what the cost of horse
2628
[SENATE,
keep was? A. It was apparently impossible at the time I asked for
the information which I didn't get.
Q. Did you ask for the books of original entry? A. No.
Q. You didn't ask for the book of original entry? A. No; I sent a
communication to the park department.
Q. Why didn't you go up there and take the books of original entry
and do the work yourself, if you wanted to find out? A. We thought
that we had a right to call on the park department for data.
Q. And when they refused to give it to you you stopped right
there? A. They didn't refuse to give it, but they failed; they
neglected to do it; and we waited such a long time that we wanted to
use the other data, and we went on without it and used the compar-
ison that we got from the street cleaning department and the fire
department and the police department.
Q. And you have never got that yet? A. No.
Q. Was not the fact that they failed to give it to you sufficient to
put you on your guard and lead to your going there? A. To prefer
charges against them?
Q. No; but to lead to your insisting on having it. A. Well, we got
along without it.
Q But just to the extent to which you got along without it, your
statement as to the cost of horse keep as affecting the horses in the
city government at large is insufficient, isn't it? A. No, sir; I
think not.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Incomplete? A. You might say incomplete but not insufficient.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Did you make any particular complaint about the failure of the
department to reap as large revenues as it might from any source
whatever? A. Well, really I can't tell everything that is in this
report, to-day, because when that report was made it went out of my
mind, and I haven't sat up nights reading it since, nor I have not
thought of it, hardly.
Q. Is not it a fact that the park department, through the acquisition
of new park lands, had, within the past year or two, come into the
possession of a number of buildings in the city? A. Many.
Q. Many buildings? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Some in Pelham Bay park? A. Yes, sir.
And some of them in Van Cortland park? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And some elsewhere? A. Yes, sir; in the different parks.
Q. How many such buildings were there? A. I don't know, I
No. 80.]
2629
believe there is an inventory or an assessed valuation, but I don't
know exactly how many buildings there are.
Q. Did you make any complaint of the fact that those buildings
were not yielding any revenue to the city? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that complaint contained in this report also? A. Yes, sir;
I think it is contained in that.
Q. When was your attention first called to the fact that these build-
ings were not being leased for the benefit of the city treasury? A. I
don't remember the date.
Q. Did you find out who was occupying those buildings? A. I
think that Mr. Hutchings, who was president of the park department,
and I were talking about it, and I made inquiry of him what they
were doing, and he stated that many of them were unoccupied, that
some were occupied and paying a small rental, and some were occu-
pied and paying no rental at all.
Q. Some of them were desirable buildings weren't they? A. Very;
yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember the building in Pelham Bay park which used to
be occupied by the Country Club? A. That I am not conversant
with; no.
Q. You don't know who occupies that building now, if it is occu-
pied at all, do you? A. I do not.
Q. It has not been torn down, has it? A. No.
Q. Do you remember the so-called Delancy place? A. Only by
reputation; I am not acquainted with them personally.
Q. Where was that? A. I don't know which one of the parks.
Q. Do you know whether it was in Pelham Bay park or Van Cort-
land park? A. I do not; no; I know that we had a list of those.
Q. Do you know whether any of these employes of the department
were occupying those buildings, rent free? A. I heard so; I am not
positive.
Q. Did you every prosecute any inquiries to find out? A. Not to a
very great extent; no, sir; I understood that some of the policemen
were living there; I think that there was a foreman living in one of
them.
Q. Did you ever request to be permitted to occupy one of those
houses? A. Never, neither directly or indirectly; I don't know why I
should.
Q. Did you ever hear of any commissioner of accounts asking to be
permitted to occupy one of those houses? A. I never did.
Q. Did you ever hear of any park commissioner asking to be per-
mitted to occupy one of those houses? A. Never.
2630
[SENATE,
I
Q. Who is Mr. Conover? A. Mr. Conover is the superintendent of
the parks.
Q. Of the new parks? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is of these parks in which the houses are?
Q. Is it in Mr. Conover's power to permit anyone to
those buildings? A. I am sure I do not know.
Yes, sir.
occupy one of
Q. Do you know whether or not, under the law, it is in his power,
or the power of the board? A. It is a question with me whether even
the board have a right to rent the buildings or not; I don't think that
they have.
Q. Do you think that anybody could be permitted to occupy the
buildings without a resolution of the board, or without the leave or
consent of the board, in some form? A. They should not.
Mr. IVINS.-Now I will excuse you for a few minutes, and recall you.
DENNIS F. MELVILLE, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. What is your business? A. Bookkeeper.
Q. How long have you been a bookkeeper? A. For the last sixteen
years, at least.
Q. You are one of the bookkeepers in the office of the commissioners
of accounts? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you been there? A. Five years this December
coming.
Q. Did you take any part in the investigation of the park depart-
ment? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What part of that investigation did you conduct? A. The
examination of the books and accounts of the arsenal and the prop-
erty clerk.
Q. That is, the books and accounts touching the keeping of the
animals and the purchase of animals? A. All the property of the
department.
Q. And all the property of the department is included in inventories.
either of Mr. Conkling or Mr. Van Valkenburg? A. No, sir; of Mr.
Van Valkenburg; he is responsible for the whole of it.
Q. He is superior to Mr. Conkling, is he? A. Yes; that is not
including the houses.
Q. Did you ever make any investigation regarding the houses which
are also the property of the park department? A. I did; I went
among them.
Q. You went among the houses? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you go to the houses at Pelham Bay park? A. I did;
yes, sir.
*
No. 80.]
2631
Q. How many houses are there there? A. I don't exactly remem-
ber the number; I have got a statement of them in the office.
Q. There are several very large fine houses there; are there not?
Yes, sir.
Q. The house that was occupied by the Country Club is a very large
fine house; isn't it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. There is an equally large and finer house, isn't there, bordering
on the Old Country Club property, right to the south? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who occupies the Old Country Club House? A. Mr. Ogden,
at present.
Q. At present? A. He did a few months ago.
Q. What Mr. Ogden? A. I don't know; I only know the name.
Q. Did Mr. Ogden get that through a lease from the park depart-
ment? A. I couldn't say; he must have got it, I guess, through a
resolution of the board.
Q. That is a very desirable summer place; isn't it? A. It is a
beautiful place.
Q. A beautiful summer place? A. Yes, sir; a beautiful summer
place.
Q. And it has been so regarded by some of the foremost people,
especially in the city, for many years? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you any idea what a like place would rent for for the sum-
mer to a private lessee from a private lessor? A. I should think $100
a month.
Q. Unfurnished? A. Unfurnished; that is, without any privileges;
without the privileges of using the grounds at all.
Q. Have you ever made any investigation at all as to where Mr.
Ogden got his right to occupy that house? A. No, sir.
Q. What is that large house to the south of it immediately adjoin-
ing called? A. There are two large ones; there is the one on Twin
island and the one on Hunters island; they are large, much larger-
that is, not much larger, but very fine houses.
Q. Do you know whether they were occupied this summer? A.
The Hunters Island House was; yes, sir.
Q. Who occupied that? A. A gentleman by the name of Dubois,
a French name.
Q. Do you know whether that was paid for? A. That was rented;
I guess they rented it.
Q. They pay rental to the city? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know whether Mr. Ogden paid rental to the city? A.
Yes, sir; it is so reported.
Q. Have you ever examined the resolution authorizing him to
occupy the premises? A. No, sir.
2632
[SENATE,
Q. Do you know the DeLancey place? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where is that? A. The De Lancey place is right south of his
place, closer to New Rochelle, below the entrance to Hunter's island.
Q. That is a very nice place, too, isn't it? A. It is a stone house;
but it is a very unhealthy place to live in, I am told.
Q. It is a nice house, too, isn't it? A. A beautiful house.
Q. Is it so unhealthy that you would hate to see one of your friends
live in it? A. I know I wouldn't live on account of the malaria; but
it is a beautiful house.
Q. Do you know Mr. Conover? A. I do.
Q. How long have you known him? A. I have known him a year
or more.
Q. He is now in charge of all these new parks? A. Yes, sir; so I
understand.
Q. He used to be a park commissioner, didn't he? A. So I
understand.
Q. This report shows that the buildings on lands lately taken from
the new parks have been insured by the city upon a basis of value as
follows: Bronx park, $79,000; Clairmont park, $40,000; Katonah park
$6,500; Pelham park, $289,000; St. Mary's park, $35,000, and Van
Cortland park, $50,000, being a total of $500,000, as the insurance car-
ried by the city on the buildings in those new parks.
Senator FASSETT.- There are some comments made below there.
Mr. IVINS.— I will take that up latter. Well, I might as well read it
now. "Many of these buildings are standing empty. Others are
occupied by parties who pay a small rent for the same and others
are occupied by parties rent free. We learn that the subject of
renting and leasing these buildings has received consideration
but the power of the department to rent or lease is doubted."
Q. So far as you know the department has made no answer to any o
the charges contained in this? A. No.
Q. They are pending and under consideration in the park depart-
ment as you understand it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you address a note to Mr. Conover at 5 P. M. on June 18,
1890, as follows: "Come down to the office to-morrow if possible. A
certain commissioner wishes to secure the De Lancey or some other
place. I will tell you his name when I see you. You know him.
Don't forget as he told me to send for you. Come about 11½ or
sooner if convenient. Yours, etc., D. F. Melville.” A. Yes, sir.
Q. You did? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was the commissioner ? A. I will tell you; I was up there
one day with Commissioner Holahan and his wife and we were look-
ing at the place.
No. 80.]
2633
Q. That is the commissioner of accounts who had just testified? A.
Yes, sir; and Commissioner Holahan looking at the houses there
said they were beautiful and very fine places to live in; so I wrote the
note to Mr. Conover, he having charge of those houses, asking him to
come down; that is all there is to it; he didn't come down though.
Q. Did you on the 23d of June, 1890, send him a letter as follows:
'Friend Conover: Received your telegram this morning, being two
days after your forwarding it. I suppose it came in late on Saturday
after office hours. The party I wrote you about will not need a house
now, having changed his mind, something having soured him against
living in the park? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You wrote that? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, tell us the whole story about that business? A. That is
what I told you; the commissioner and I were up there one day with
his wife; we had dinner there one afternoon, and he was admiring the
park and the house, and he said: "It is a beautiful place to live," and
I said: "Certainly," like that.
Q. You never talked with Mr. Conover about it at all? A. Since
that I did; I only just said to him then: "That party does not want to
have the house at all.”
Q. Was not the first communication sent before any complaint had
been made by any one that these houses were not yielding a revenue,
and was not the second communication sent after the complaints had
been made that those houses were not yielding a revenue? A. No,
sir; I will tell you; Commissioner Holahan told me that he wouldn't
live there; there was so much fuss about the place.
Q. There was so much fuss about it? A. The next day he told me
there was so much fuss about it that he wouldn't live there.
Q. In the interval between your first letter to Conover and your
second letter to Conover had not the attention of the people been
called to the use of those houses, rent free, by certain newspapers in
the city? A. I think it was sometime afterwards if I remember.
Q. Was not it between those two dates? A. I couldn't be positive;
it might have been.
Q. Are you sure that that was not what soured him against living
in the park? A. It might have been.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Commissioner Holahan said nothing to you about getting the
house rent free, did he? A. No, sir.
Q. There was no talk about it? A, No, sir; everybody was trying
to rent houses up there.
[Senate, No. 80.]
330
2634
[SENATE,
Q. And nothing in his refusal to take it led you to believe that it
was due to the report in the newspapers? A. Oh, no.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Did I understand you to say that Mr. Holahan didn't tell you to
do anything about it? A. He didn't tell me to do anything about it.
Q. He didn't tell you at all? A. No, sir.
Q. This was spontaneous on your part then? A. Yes, sir; a great
many persons were coming up into the park to rent houses there.
Q. If he said nothing to you it was an affair that affected himself
and his wife and family? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you volunteered quite spontaneously to write to Mr. Cono-
ver that a certain commissioner wished to secure the De Lancey or
some other place - you did that without authority? A. Without
authority?
Q. How did you know that he wished to secure the De Lancey
place? A. Because he admired it so much when we were up there.
Q. And you took that as equivalent to a wish? A. Yes.
Q. But if that word wish is to be taken as meaning that he expressed
such a wish to you it is falsehood isn't it? A. He didn't say that he
wanted to rent a house there; he said he would like to live there;
that it was a nice place.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. You mean by that that you guessed he wished? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And afterwards when you wrote that he had soured on the park
and didn't want to live there, you mean that you guessed he had
soured? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Have you ever asked Mr. Conover to give you those letters back?
A. Never.
Q. Have you ever tried directly or indirectly to get those letters
back? A. No, sir; never.
Q. You are confident of it? A. Positive.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Are you a pretty good guesser? A. I don't know; that was
nothing to be ashamed of; I would like to have all my friends living
in the park as long as they paid rent.
Q. There is no objection to a commissioner getting a house there
if he was willing to pay as much rent as anybody else would pay?
A. That is what I thought; the house was empty.
*
No. 80.]
2635
Q. And there was no objection to his saying to you that he would
like to live there? A. No.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. What did you mean by writing to Mr. Conover: "Don't forget
as he told me to send for you?" A. Is that in the same letter; I
don't remember it at all?
Q. That is in the letter: "Come down to the office to-morrow if
possible; a certain commissioner wishes to secure the De Lancey or
some other place; I will tell you his name when I see you; you know
him; don't forget as he told me to send for you?" A. I wrote a
falsehood; he didn't tell me to send for him.
Q. You wrote a falsehood? A. Yes, sir; he didn't tell me to send
for him; that is positive; I thought I might get him down quicker.
Q. Now did you know a Mr. Raines? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who is Mr. Raines? A. There are three or four Raines.
Q. Who are they? A. George W. Raines, and Tom Raines.
Q. Who is George W. Raines? A. Ex-Senator Raines, a lawyer in
Washington.
Q. Who is Tom Raines? A. His brother, a lawyer also.
Q. Who is John Raines? A. I didn't mention his name.
Q. There is a John Raines, isn't there? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where does he live? A. He lives in Washington at present.
Q. Was there a Raines living in New York on June twenty-third,
1890? A. He was here on a visit; W. G. Raines.
Q. In this same letter in which you wrote to friend Conover “that
the party I wrote about will not need a house now, having changed
his mind, something having soured him against living in the park;"
didn't you go on and write: "Raines writes me requesting that I
secure the cottage he was looking at?" A. Yes, sir.
Q.
"He means the second one from Mat Culver's place, which is
now empty; will it be all right; I expect him from Washington in a
few days; drop in or send me word when I can meet you any time
this week;" what Raines was that? A. W. G. Raines; he was moving
his family on from Washington.
Q. And he wanted a place? A. Yes, sir; and he was willing to pay
rent.
Q. Did you and he talk anything about the payment of rent? A.
Yes, sir; he said he was willing to pay forty dollars a month for the
place - Raizes was.
Q. Did you ever convey that to the park department? A. No,
sir; to Mr. Conover only.
2636
[SENATE,
Q. Did Mr. Conover ever convey that to the park department? A.
I don't know.
Q. Did the park department ever consider Mr. Raines' application?
A. I don't know; it was a verbal application.
Q. Did Mr. Raines occupy the cottage? A. No; he just saw the
cottage; it was empty at the time.
Q. Are you prepared to say now that you were not at that time trying
to secure that cottage for Mr. Raines rent free for that season? A. I
am positive of it; he wouldn't accept it; Mr Raines wouldn't
accept it.
Q. Are you sure that forty dollars a month is all that cottage is
worth? A. Well, it may be worth more, but the people around there
are not paying any more; this is about as big a rent as any are
paying.
Q. What people around — do you mean the other people who are
occupying park cottages? A. Park cottages; they are paying twenty-
five and thirty dollars per month.
Q. If those had been private cottages instead of park cottages,
wouldn't they have brought very much more? A. Yes, sir; but they
were in bad repair; many of them had to be painted, and plastering
had to be done in those houses, and they were not worth much.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Whatever the applications were, the park department did not
rent them? A. No, sir; Mr. Conover has charge of that business, or
it was left to him.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Did you feel that you were justified, while a subordinate of the
commissioners of accounts making an investigation of the manner in
which Mr. Conover was conducting that business, in entering into
negotiations with him for any of these houses whatever? A. He had
full charge; I saw no impropriety in it at all; it was an honest
transaction.
Q. You were actually sitting in judgment on the way in which he
was doing his work, weren't you? A. No, sir; the houses were empty
there, and I thought it would be better for the houses to be rented.
Q. As commissioner of accounts you were sitting in judgment on
the manner in which he was doing his work, weren't you? A. Yes.
Q. And you were conducting that investigation, weren't you? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. And although so conducting that investigation, you saw no
No. 80.]
· 2637
impropriety whatever in negotiating with him for one of those houses?
A. No.
Q. Either for a commissioner of accounts or for a gentleman in
Washington? A. No, sir.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Did you negotiate with Mr. Conover for that house, or simply
call his attention to the fact that somebody wanted it?
A. I just
called his attention to it.
Q. Then you didn't negotiate with him. A. You might call it nego-
tiating.
Q. You simply called his attention to the fact that somebody
wanted to rent the house? A. That was all.
Q. Did Mr. Raines intimate any thing to you to any extent, or in
any manner, that he desired to occupy that house rent free? A. No,
sir.
Q. The mere fact that a person applies to another party to rent a
house does not imply that he wants to occupy it rent free, does it?
A. No.
Q. But the presumption is that he expects to pay rent? A.
Yes, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. I understand the witness to say that Mr. Raines wouldn't have
it rent free, and offered to pay forty dollars a month? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which was more than others were paying? A. Yes, sir; those
houses were in bad repair; you couldn't ask much rent for those
houses.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You don't think that the city, under those circumstances, was a
very desirable landlord? A. No, sir; I shouldn't think so.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Could the park commissioners have rented that house or those
houses for any definite length of time? A. No.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Didn't they rent them for the summer season? A. From month
to month only.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. That fact has a tendency to reduce the value of the rental? A.
Yes, sir.
2638
[SENATE,
Q. Your representing to Mr. Conover that Mr. Raines or some com-
missioner wanted to rent a house, does not constitute negotiation for
the house by you? A. No, sir; someone had to be in the houses
there.
Q. You did the errand as you would for any body else; for Mr.
Raines and for the commissioner? A. Certainly.
Q. You didn't do it in your official capacity, at all? A. No, sir.
Q. But simply as a friendly act? A. That is all.
Mr. IVINS.-That is all for the present.
EDWARD P. BARKER, recalled.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. What did you find, Mr. Barker, was the average cost of keeping
horses in those departments which gave you the data? A. I can not
remember it now; it is a long time ago.
Q. Do you remember whether it was twenty five cents a day or
fifty cents? A. Oh, I could not remember; I could not carry the fig-
ures in my mind.
Q. Do you know what the average cost of keeping a horse on a city
railroad at the present price of supplies is? A. I do not, sir.
Q. Have you any idea whatever? A. I have not.
Q. Well, were you so fully equipped to make comparisons that after
you got those figures you could tell whether they compared favor-
ably with private enterprises? A. I was only doing it in the city gov-
ernment, just to see what the different rates were throughout the city
government.
Q. Did it suggest itself to you after you got that rate to try to com-
pare it with the rates paid by horse-car people? A. No, sir; it did
not, because I did not care to go outside of the city government.
Q. Would not that be a proper means of checking off the economy
of the department? A. I had heard that the railroads cost much less.
Q. Having heard that the railroads cost much less, and having
made this examination, did you go any further to find out how it
compared? A. No; I just confined myself to the city government.
Q. After you got it what good did it do you? A. I do not know
that it amounted to very much.
Q. Did it take a very long while to do it? A. It did not.
Q. Now, Mr. Barker, what suggestions have you to make, if any,
about the proper way of checking of the accounts of the police
department? A. Well, I do not know that I am prepared now to
make any suggestions; it does appear to me though, on general
principles, that all moneys should be paid in in some way.
No. 80.]
2639
Q. Do you believe that any good purpose is subserved by requiring
that you should check off the warrants and the audits after payment
has been made, notwithstanding the fact that they have passed through
the hands of the comptroller, the hands of the mayor and the hands.
of the chamberlain, or do you not think that if the law was changed
so that duty was not imposed upon you, you could save a great deal
of valuable time? A. Perhaps so.
Q. How many clerks have you got all told now? A. I think from
the chief clerk down to messenger, there are eleven.
Q. Eleven? A. I think so.
Q. Now, suppose those eleven clerks, your fellow commissioner
and yourself making thirteen, were to so arrange your work that
some one clerk should at all times have imposed upon him the duty
of looking after the accounts of some particular department, could
you not in that way keep the accounts of all the departments under
continuous surveillance? A. I might express my views in relation to
the organization of the office, which perhaps might explain it to you,
if you desire ?
Q. What did you say? A. I say I might explain my views in rela-
tion to the organization of the office?
Q. I wish you would? A. In the first place you know the commis-
sioners of accounts are appointed by the mayor and without a tenure,
and are removable at pleasure; they go into office and get what appro-
priation they can; now the commissioners of accounts are only com-
missioners in name, they are not the head of a department nor are
they virtually the head of a bureau; I do not know what you could
classify them as in the city government; they are almost like official
mugwumps.
Q. They are neither fish, flesh, fowl nor good red herring? A. No,
sir; but I know they are very unpopular; I can say that; if the com-
missioners of accounts were recognized by the charter in a different
way from what they are, and they had a tenure of office and they
would not be subordinate to the immediate appointive power to
remove, the same as the other commissioners are, and had a tenure of
five years, they would be enabled when they went into the office to
lay out a plan of work and to get around; we get on to a certain piece
of work and sometimes we are called off, and we find we have to stop
this department and go into another, and to say the least, it is very
unsatisfactory; I think that would be a very decided improvement.
Q. Do you think that commissioners of accounts ought to be vested
with the power that is now vested in them of calling witnesses and
www
2640
[SENATE
compelling the disclosure of most intimate facts in the private life of
a man who has ever seen fit to do business with the city?
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Where do they get that power from?
Mr. IVINS. They get it under the statute of 1884; it has been so
considered by the corporation counsel, and it has been so applied in
several investigations.
The WITNESS. And decided by the courts.
-
Mr. IvINS.— And a person refusing to come forward and answer, and
exhibit his check books or stubs, is held in contempt, as he would be
if he refused to obey the summons of a court ?
Senator MCNAUGHTON.—A private individual ?
Mr. IVINS. A private individual.
Senator MCNAUGHTON. It seems it is a pretty broad construction.
The WITNESS.— It is a very great-power, and in the hands of unprin-
cipled men it would be very dangerous.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Do you think it was the intention of the
party who framed that act to have it go as far as that?
The WITNESS.-I do not know what the intention was; that is the
fair construction.
Senator FASSETT.—“They shall have full power to compel the atten-
dance of witness, administer oaths, examine such persons as they
may deem necessary."
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-
But not power to send for books and papers.
Mr. IvINS.-It has been so held by the courts as incident to this
power.
The WITNESS. It has been held by the courts. Under the decision
of the courts under that law there are people now who are beyond the
jurisdiction of the court in both the market and the dock investigations.
Q. There was one man named O'Byrne, was there not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. O'Byrne, at the time of that investigation, was not an employe of
the city, was he? A. No, sir.
Q. He was a lawyer? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Conducting a regular legal practice here? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Or an irregular one; and complaint had been made that he had
been an intermediary in a certain transaction? A. Yes, sir; it was
intimated so.
Q. It was intimated that he was an intermediary? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And for the purpose of running the thing down, you tried to
call him, did you not? A. He was subpoenaed, and he appeared.
Q. He was subpoenaed and he appeared? A. Yes, sir.
Q. He subsequently disappeared, did he? A. He did; he declined
when a question was asked of him as to what disposition was made of
No. 80.]*
2641
}
this $13,000 that was entrusted to him in relation to certain legislation
by the oystermen, he declined to state, and then there was an appli-
cation made to the court to compel him to answer.
Q. And he evaded the process of that warrant which issued out of
the court on your application? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now for the purpose of illustrating this police department busi-
ness, I will take one bill dated New York, September 5, 1890. The
Police Department of the City of New York. Treasurer's Office. To
Martin B. Brown, Dr. Stamped with a hand stamp "Duplicate."
They keep the original? A. These duplicates are filed in the finance
department.
Q. Continuing it reads: "958 E 2, 1 record book, etc., $13.50; 59
E 2, 1,000 blanks, etc., $17.50," footing $31.00; at the bottom of the
bill is written "Order 5962.
"Order 5962. Extensions and footings correct. Ed.
C. Gay, clerk." At the foot of the bill is a stub, "$31. New York,
September 24, 1890. Received from John McClave, Treasurer of the
Police Department of the City of New York, the sum of $31, being
payment in full for bill above rendered. Check No. 16,733. Martin
B. Brown, per Alfred." On the back of it is "Voucher No. Martin
B. Brown. $31. Duplicate. I hereby signify that the articles enumer-
ated in this bill are necessary for the lawful uses and purposes of the
police department and approve of the charges therein made. John R.
Voorhis, Chairman of the Committee on Repairs and Supplies, Sep-
tember 16, 1890. Police Department, New York, September 16, 1890,
ordered to be paid by the Board." What signature is that; do you
know? A. William F. Kip.
Q. "William F. Kip, clerk;" now, Mr. Commissioner, is there any
audit at all on that bill anywhere? A. That is the only audit there is.
Q. Is that an audit? A. Well, that is the way we would get the
vouchers.
Q. That is all the audit, assuming that to be an audit, that there is?
A. That is all; we get it just that way; and we get the pay-rolls that
are audited just about the same way.
Q. In the rolls for supplies, is there any certification that the
articles have been received, and that the prices charged are fair? A.
I think there is some such certificate as that.
Q. That does not accompany these certificates to you? A. There
it is [referring to paper].
Q. He says: "I hereby certify that the articles enumerated in this.
bill are necessary for the lawful uses and purposes of the police
department, and approve of the charges therein made;" now, the
usual audit is that the goods have been received, are in conformity,
[Senate, No. 80.]
331*
2642
[SENATE,
with the contract, and that the prices charged are fair and proper
prices? A. That is all we have.
Q. There is nothing of that kind in the case of the police depart-
ment? A. That is all we get.
Senator MCNAUGHTON. That voucher is examined by the auditing
bureau or the comptroller's department, is it not? That is sent there?
After Mr. Voohis certifies to it, then it is sent to the auditing bureau?
The WITNESS. No, sir; it is sent to the finance department, and
filed there, and that is the only action that is taken. Then we get
those. We send down once a month and have them all taken up to
our office, all these vouchers and pay-rolls, and we examine every one
of them, and see whether they are correct in form, and whether the
extensions are right, and from that we copy our set of books.
Mr. IVINS. That is all for to-day.
Adjourned to to-morrow, October twenty-fourth, at 11 a. M.
NEW YORK, October 24, 1890.
Present-Senators Fassett, McNaughton, Birkett and Deane.
JOHN R. FELLOWS, recalled:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Colonel, how long have you beer district attorney of New York?
A. Since the 1st of January, 1887.
Q. Prior to that time you had been assistant district attorney?
A. Yes, sir; for six years, beginning with Mr. McKeon and terminating
with Mr. Martine..
2. So that now you have been in that office continuously for
upwards of nine years as assistant district attorney, and district
attorney? A. At one time, nine years continuonsly.
Q. Prior to that time you were in the office, were you not? A.
Yes, sir; for something more than three years.
Q. During whose term was that? A. During Judge Garvin's full
term and part of the term for which he was appointed; only two months.
however of that.
Q. Have you filed your provisional estimate for the coming year?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What does that call for in the aggregate? A. I really can not
tell you without reference to the figures, Mr. Ivins.
Q. Not in round figures, can't you tell me? A. No, sir; it is about
the same—I will have it here in a few moments; it is about the same
as last year.
Q. It is about the same as last year? A. Yes, sir.
No. 80.]
2613
Q. Do you know what the appropriations for this current year
were? A. About $190,000; that is my recollection.
Q. Can you tell us how the appropriations for the current year
compare with the appropriations of the last year of Mr. Martine's
term? A. They are increased.
Q. How largely are they increased? A. Well, they are in the
aggregate — I must qualify that; they are in the aggregate smaller,
because under Judge Martine and under one year of my administra-
tion $25,000 was appropriated for the contingent expenses of the
office; since that time the appropriation has been diminished by
$10,000 for contingencies; the salary list has been increased.
Q. What appropriation have you asked for contingencies for the
coming year? A. Fifteen thousand dollars.
Q. How are those contingencies expended; for what, generally
speaking, are they expended, and how are the expenditures audited?
A. The expenditures are largely for the expenses of bringing criminals
from other jurisdictions, either from abroad or from the States, pay-
expenses of special investigations of detectives from time to time,
paying, in some instances, the expenses of those who are detained in
the house of detention as witnesses, providing them with suitable
clothing, paying the expenses of expert witnesses, mostly in insanity
cases, in the investigation of such cases; and they are audited by the
comptroller.
Q. Are they, before audited by the comptroller, accompanied by the
bills and receipts of the parties to whom the money is paid? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. It is not in any sense in the nature of a secret service, payments
for which are made without voucher, is it? A. Well, in some
instances, but in very few, Mr. Ivins; the particular items, the partic-
ular character of the work done is not disclosed, because to do it
would be to defeat the service itself; that, however, is rare;
we take
the investigations of detectives in some instances, and they state that
they have devoted so much time, that they paid out so much money
for traveling expenses, or for meals or otherwise.
Q. Who in your office has charge of the retention of the persons to
whom this money is paid out of the contingent fund? A. Of what?
Q. Of the retaining of persons; the retainer? A. I do not under-
stand you.
Q. Which one of your subordinates employ the people to whom this
money in the contingent fund is paid? A. No one of my subordinates.
Q. Do you do that yourself? A. Yes, sir; I frequently do it upon
2644
[SENATE,
the recommendation of my subordinates who have the special matter
in charge.
Q. Any one of your subordinates may recommend them? A.
Certainly.
Q. That is, the assistant in charge of a particular case may make
the recommendation? A. Yes.
Q. But the act is finally your act? A. Yes.
Q. Well, I assumed that, but I did not know but what you had some
one personally in the office into whose hands all this sort of material
ultimately came? A. No; the accounts are all made up by my private
secretary.
Q. Does he keep a regular set of books of account in the office? A.
He does.
?
Q. That set of books of account in the office shows the payments
for salaries, for instance, to yourself and subordinates? A. Yes, sir;
we have a pay-roll.
Q. You keep the regular pay-roll there? A. Yes, sir.
>
Q. Which should correspond with the pay-rolls as sent in, corres-
pond with the entries in the comptroller's books? A. The pay-roll
on which the comptroller issues his warrants is our pay-roll made out
each month and sent to him.
Q. Do you open a set of books at the beginning of each year, credit-
ing your department with the appropriation and then making charges
against it to the end of the year? A. My private secretary keeps that
account.
Q. Who is your private secretary? A. Mr. David Anderson, now.
Q. Who was prior to his term? A. Mr. William N. Penny.
Q. Is Mr. Penny still in the office? A. No, sir; Mr. Penny is now
clerk of one of the courts; clerk of Judge Fitzgerald's court.
Q. Now, will you give us the names of your assistants? A. Mr.
John W. Goff, McKenzie Semple, Gunning S. Bedford, Benjamin
Dospassos, Mr. Parker, Mr. Davis, Vernon M. Davis.
Q. Are they all the assistants? A. Yes, sir; six.
Q. Were the six assistants in that office during the term of Mr.
Martine? A. Some of them were.
Q. I say, were there six in number? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many assistants were there employed in the office during
the term of Mr. McKeon? A. I think there were five, but I won't be
sure, Mr. Ivins; I don't remember at what precise period the number
of assistants were increased.
Q. These assistants were paid $7,500 per annum each? A. Yes, sir.
No. 80.]
2645
1
Q. You have a number of assistants known as deputy assistants
have you not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. There are John D. Lindsey, William Travers Jerome, A. H.
Dawson, Henry D. McDonough, Henry Hartman and Edward
Grossy? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I find by this list, which has been sent me from your office,
that Mr. Lindsey receives $4,500, Jerome and Dawson receive $4,000
each, McDonough, Hartman and Grossy receive $3,500 each? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. You then have, I see here, Charles J. McGee as deputy assistant
and chief clerk, $3,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, will you tell us generally what the duty of an assistant
district attorney is? A. It is to discharge any duties that may be
assigned him by his chief, and in the case of the six regular assistants
whom, as you understand, Mr. Ivins, are designated by the Legislature
and have their salaries fixed by the Legislature
Q. Yes. A. They are sworn officers who file an oath when they
assume their office, and may, under the direct instructions of the district
attorney, perform any of his functions; in other words, when any of
the six assistant district attorneys act, it is the act of the district
attorney; they are subordinate to the district attorney.
Q. Now, in what respect are the duties of the deputy assistants
different from the assistants? A. They are not, if they are assigned
to the performance of the same duty; the deputies, as a rule, with one
or two exceptions, are retained for the clerical discharge of duties in
the office, the examination of cases in consequence of the various com-
plaints that from time to time come to the office, the demands for
investigation into certain cases; and the assistant district attorneys
are more usually assigned to the work of trying cases in court, and
prosecuting the appeals therefrom.
Q. The assistant district attorney is simply a little more dignified
officer? A. That is all.
Q. And apart from that, there is no practical difference? A. None
whatever.
Q. For instance, Mr. Jerome might just as well try a case in the
Supreme Court as Mr. Goff or Mr. Bedford? A. And very frequently
does.
Q. And very frequently does? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Mr. Goff or Mr. Bedford might just as well appear, in case
of Deen, before a police justice or General or Special Sessions as one
of the assistant deputies? A. And frequently do.
2646
[SENATE,
Q. Now, what was the salary of the assistant district attorney during
the time of Mr. McKeon's term? A. It was the same as now.
Q. Was any deputy assistant known at that time? A. I think Mr.
McKeon had some persons whom he designated as deputy assistants;
I think, without remembering distinctly, because that is a designation
conferred by the chief of the office, that his private secretary and his
chief clerk were designated as deputies, although I won't be certain.
Q. Two of them, you` think, were so designated? A. I think so; I
do not wish to be considered as stating that positively; it is only my
recollection.
Q. How many deputy assistants were there in the office during the
term of Judge Martine? A. Four.
Q. As against which you now have seven? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know what the salary was that was paid to those deputy
assistants during Judge Martine's term? A. As I remember, the
salaries were changed from time to time, according to the appropria-
tion; I am inclined to think that some of them received as high-one
certainly-as $5,000; the other $4,000, and so down.
Q. Didn't you, at the beginning of your term, make an application
to the board of estimate and apportionment to increase the number
of these deputies or to raise their salaries? A. I made an application
to increase the force.
Q. How many did you ask for? A. I asked for three additional.
What was your reason for asking for that? A. Because I thought
that the work of the office could be better expedited and kept up by
the increase of the force; there is a vast accumulation in the office of
untried cases, and there will continue to be until some adequate relief
is furnished by the Legislature; the cases are very largely in excess
of the capacity to try them, either of the courts or the district attor-
ney's office, and I hoped, by the formation of a bureau which should
prepare, prior to its being taken into court, each particular case,
to get the cases in such shape as that each court day we could dispose
of more and keep the business of the office better up.
Q. You were elected, were you not, as the representative of the
Democratic party of this State? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And were placed in nomination by both factions of the
Democratic party? A. Yes, sir.
Q. On whose recommendation did you appoint John W. Goff? A.
I think Mr. Power was the first gentleman who spoke to me of
Mr. Goff.
Q. On whose recommendation did you appoint Mr. Bedford? A.
Well, on numerous recommendations.
4
Q. Well, just tell us some of them? A. Well, I believe all the
No. 80.]
2647
judges of the courts, both of the Supreme Court and of the Sessions,
united on an application for the appointment of Mr. Bedford.
Q. Has it been usual for the judges of the court to request you to
make appointments? A. Oh, it is frequently the case, as they
approved of candidates during a canvass, so they approve of their
appointments.
Q. Who, beside the judges asked you to appoint Mr. Bedford? A.
I think Mr. Wood, of the Daily News, suggested him as an admirable
man to appoint.
Q. Do you know William Padean? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did he ask you to appoint Mr. Bedford? A. He did not.
Q. Do you know Morris DeKulsky? A. I do not know that I do;
certainly I do not recognize him by his name as a person I know.
Q. Did anyone representing the Central Liquor Dealers' Associa-
tion, ask you to appoint him? A. No, sir; not a man.
Q. On whose recommendation did you appoint Mr. Semple? A. I
do not know as it was on any man's recommendation; he was in the
office and I retained him; he had charge of the appeals; his principal
business under Judge Martine had been to prosecute the business of
appeals in the Court of Appeals, and he has been wonderfully suc-
cessful, showing great ability in the preparation of those cases, and I
continued him.
Q. Who asked you to appoint Mr. Davis? A. Mr. Davis is another
one whom I found in the office and with whom I had been associated,
and his capacity, character and ability for his work commended him
very strongly; I do not remember now any person who asked me for
the appointment of Mr. Davis, but I know that Charles Daton and a
number of other gentlemen, very warmly approved the appointment.
Q. Mr. Davis and Mr. Semple were both kept in the office because
of your satisfaction with their ability and character and the perform-
ance of their duties in the past? A. Yes, sir.
Q. At whose solicitation did you appoint Mr. Dos Passos? A. At the
solicitation of a number of persons.
Q. Was it not mainly on the solicitation of his brother? A. His
brother mentioned him as a proper person to be appointed; I con-
ferred with Judge Power, with John E. Devlin, since dead, who spoke
very warmly of him, and with a number of others.
Q. Who recommended Mr. Parker to you? A. I do not remember
now, Mr. Ivins; Mr. Parker had been called to the office by Judge
Martine, after Mr. Coleman ceased to be the chief clerk, and Mr. Par-
ker was assigned to the duties of chief clerk, a very important position
in the office; he showed great capacity, great energy, made an excel-
lent officer.
2648
[SENATE,
Q. He is a man of marked ability; is he not, in fact? A. He is a
man of most excellent ability?
Q. Now, is the work of the office divided up in any particular
way between these six assistant district attorneys, so that each
knows generally what his particular field of work is? A. To a
degree, yes; for example, Mr. Semple has almost exclusive charge
of the appeals, and the exceptions are only of so slight a character
as to establish the rule; in certain special cases where gentle-
men have expended a great deal of time in the preparation and
arrangement of a case, and have tried it, they are permitted
to take charge of the appeal; that is the case in the Flack case, where
Mr. Goff had very largely the preparation of the preliminary steps of
that case, and I have requested him to take charge of the appeal to
argue it before the Appellate Court; but those cases are rare; the
ordinary appeals of the office go into the hands of Mr. Semple; he
examines the various decisions on the exceptions, prepares the brief
and conducts the argument, and it occupies almost his entire time; it
is a very important work; Mr. Dospassos has been assigned almost
exclusively to the duty of attending to the prosecution and settlement
of the collateral inheritance tax cases, a business which came into the
office for the first time under my administration by the operation of
the law which did not take effect in this county until 1887.
Q. Will you just explain how those cases arise in such a way as to
compel the attention of the district attorney? A. The law compels
the district attorney to attend to them,
Senator FASSETT. He is the collector's attorney?
The WITNESS. He is the collector's attorney; whenever the comp-
troller of the city sends a list of cases to the district attorney
notifying him that the State tax has not been paid upon these various
legacies, it is made the duty of the district attorney' to issue citations
and the necessary notices and take steps to prosecute the claim in the
Surrogate's Court, and the volume of business has been very large,
and the emoluments very small.
Q. What record do you keep of that volume of business? A.
A perfect record, an absolute record; Mr. Dospassos keeps it; and I
may say, in passing, that Mr. Dospassos, by reason of his experience
in that direction has become very useful, and has just published a
volume which is accepted by the profession, I think, as the law on
the collateral inheritance tax.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Does he get an emolument from this work? A. He does not.
Q. I mean does the office? A. Yes; the district attorney is allowed
not less than ten dollars and not more than seventy dollars in each
1
No. 80.]
2649
A
case; the comptroller is allowed a percentage upon the amount col-
lected, varying according to the amount; the work of the district
attorney, I think well, I may say it has averaged twenty dollars in a
case; I think I have had but three cases in which the costs allowed
have been as high as seventy dollars; most of them have been twenty-
five dollars nearly all of them twenty-five dollars — and out of that
we have to pay the expenses in the preparation of papers.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Have you any accurate recollection as to about the number of
such cases? A. No, sir; I have not, but I can give it to you; we have
the complete record.
Q. Do you know why the district attorney came to be named as the
person to act for the comptroller in the collection of these taxes? A.
Why he can not be named'?
Q. Why he came to be named? A. No; I do not.
Q. Is not this the fact, that so far as New York city is concerned,
that is an anomaly? A. Utterly so; and I want to say just
here in the presence of those who shape our legislation, that no wiser
provision could be made than to take that from our office; it has no
place there.
Q. The law provides that these collateral inheritance taxes shall be
collected by the county treasurers in every county of the State except
in the city and county of New York, where it shall be collected by the
comptroller? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now the district attorney in the other counties of the State is
quite the proper person to act for and with the county treasurer in
collecting those taxes, because there is no county counsel, so to
speak? A. That is it; it is a part there of a State system, and here
they are dividing a State officer and part of our general system with
a bureau of the city government.
Senator FASSETT.- Who could be the proper person here, the cor-
poration counsel ?
THE WITNESS.-The corporation counsel or some person designated
by the comptroller and paid for out of his fees; certainly the
district attorney's office ought not to have charge of it.
Q. So far as the comptroller's office is concerned, have you any idea
as to the proportion of the comptroller's fees which is required to
enable him to administer the law? A. No; I have not.
Q. But in any case, you think that the cost which is now borne by
the district attorney's office should be borne by those fees? A. I do.
Q. So that the return should be net and not gross? A. I certainly
do, I think it is as you have designated it, it is utterly an anomaly
[Senate, No. 80.]
332
2650
[SENATE,
that the district attorney of a county like this should be required to
be the attorney for the prosecution of these cases; let me say that it
has cost the county of New York, in the person of an assistant district
attorney, $22,500, or will by the first of January, to assist in the col-
lection of these taxes, not one single penny of which goes into our
county treasury, and the emoluments of which will not realize to the
district attorney $1,500 in all, out of which he has to pay the expenses
of the work.
Q. But out of which he has to pay such expenses as arise addition-
ally to the salary of the assistant? A. Certainly; he has to pay for
the preparation of all the papers; there are volumes of that; in some
instances we have to send out, forty, fifty, seventy-five subpœnas in a
single case, and they go all over the county.
Q. The performance of his work has not actually cost you anything
over and above the amount of the fees? A. Oh, no; not as much.
Q. It has not cost you as much? A. It has not cost us as much.
Q. In a word, there has been a small margin of benefit to you? A.
Yes, sir.
•
Q. But as a matter of fact there is some $22,500 paid out of the city
treasury to enable you to earn that small balance? A. To enable the
comptroller to earn the commission which he gets out of the entire sum
collected through taxation of collateral inheritance; what I mean to
say is that it takes an assistant district attorney his whole time to
properly attend to these cases, and that his attention can not be
diverted from the preparation and conduct of these cases; very vast
sums have been gained for the State, enormous sums; the State treas-
ury has been the recipient of a very large amount, and a single
glance at that large work that has been done will show how onerous
the duty has been here upon who is assigned to it in the district
attorney's office.
Q. Do you know of any reason why the law should not be changed
as affects the entire State, so far as concerns the manner in which the
district attorneys employed in this particular work are to be paid?
That is, should it not come out of the fees of the county treasurers
instead of out of the county treasury itself? A. Unquestionably; I
think there is very good reason why it should be changed, and none
why it should remain as at present.
Q. There can be no argument against it? A. None whatever.
Q. Now, Mr. Dos Passos has charge of this particular branch? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. And you have described Mr. Semple's work? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, how is the work of Mr. Goff, Mr. Bedford, Mr. Davis and Mr.
No. 80.]
2651
Parker, for instance, divided among them? A. Mr. Goff, Judge Bed-
ford, Mr. Davis, Mr. Parker and Mr. Jerome are the force who are
constantly in court; except in rare instances; they are the gentlemen'
who each month have charge of the calendars; they seem, by their
experience, by their professional knowledge, by their powers as advo-
cates, to be better fitted to try cases in court than perhaps other
gentlemen would be, and they are largely assigned to that duty; then
on the months that they are off - because there are but three courts
there are constantly arising important cases before the coroner,
important cases in connection with the police department, and especi-
ally with the chief inspector of that department.
Q. Now, will you stop right there and tell us what you mean by
important cases which run into the police department? A. I mean to
say, Mr. Ivins, that there are frequently cases where the district
attorney's office, and the chief inspector especially, who is at the head
of the detective force in this city, work together for weeks and months
quite unknown to the public in the development of the case before the
public knows anything about it; that is the secret work which is
inseparable from the conduct of the district attorney's office in a county
like this.
Q. Isn't that a part of the work for which you pay out of your con-
tingent fund? A. In some instances, yes; where detectives are sent
to gather certain information for the district attorney's office, we must
pay their expenses.
Q. In the first place, let me ask you why do you ever use any
detectives except the detectives of the police force? A. I do not.
Q. You never do?- A. I never do; that is a rule that I adopted, and
a rule that, when I was assistant, I always impressed upon my chief;
and I think the whole history of this county has shown that it is dan-
gerous to go outside of the regular police force of the city to secure
police work.
Q. That was not the rule of the office prior to your term, was it?
A. Well, perhaps not; it is my rule, and it will be very rigidly and
explicitly adhered to while I stay there.
Q. But largely in the office prior to your own term? A. Yes, sir;
I think some outside detectives were employed, not to a considerable
extent, under Judge Martine; far, far more so under Mr. Olney and
Mr. McKeon.
Q. By the way, were you not in the office with Mr. Olney? A.
Yes, sir; and with Mr. McKeon.
Q. Mr. Olney having held for the remainder of Mr. McKeon's time?
A. The unexpired time of Mr. McKeon's term; Mr. McKeon died
2652
[SENATE,
before his term expired; the suggestions which I wish to make is this,
Mr. Ivins: According to my experience and observation in this office,
anything which is calculated to produce friction or hostility between
the district attorney's office and the regular police force of this city,
is injurious to this city, and tends very largely to subvert the true
purpose of both departments.
Q. Is it not a fact that the police department and your office are
the right and left arm of the whole system? A. They are, and should
act in conjunction and harmony with each other.
Q, Suppose that a detective were to be sent to some ominous place
like Montreal A. I have heard of the place.
Q. [Continuing] and had a lot of expenses, which expenses had
been accruing from the time he left New York city until the time of
his return, who would pay those, you or the police department?
A. If sent under the direction of the district attorney's office, the
contingent fund of the district attorney's office would pay for it.
Q, What do you mean by under the direction of the district attor-
ney's office; at the request of the office? A. Yes; at the request of
the office, since I think in the police department no fund is provided
for that whatever.
Q. Suppose the superintendent of police were to send a man to
Montreal or Chicago in a matter that interested his department alone,
and which had not been called to your attention at all; for instance,
in the detention of a criminal for the purpose of bringing him back
'here and securing his indictment, after discovering that a crime had
been committed, but it being still undiscovered who committed it;
that would certainly be charged against the contingent fund of the
police department, would it not? A. Certainly, if they have any con-
tingent fund; it would be paid for by them, and not by us.
Q. If, on the other hand, you requested that some person be desig-
nated by the police superintendent to get evidence to convict a man
already indicted, that would be paid for out of your contingent fund,
would it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you ever made any inquiry, directly or indirectly, as
to the possibility of such persons being paid for out of two con-
tingent accounts? A. No; I have not; where the accounts are pre-
sented to me properly certified and sworn to and they seem to be
reasonable, I approve them.
Q. Well, now, it would be perfectly certain that that thing could
not under any circumstances happen, would it not, if the vouchers of
the police department as well as the vouchers of your department
went through the hands of the same auditor? A. Yes, sir; and it is
very certain it ought not to happen.
No. 80.]
2653
Q. You are aware of the fact that the vouchers of the police depart-
ment are not audited in any such way as to enable a comparison?
.A. I believe that to be so.
Mr. IVINS.— Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to cast any insinuations
on the police department at all; I do not know as anything of the
kind has ever happened; I am simply running down the system of
accounting, and some inquiry will have to be made as to the pos-
sibility of a means of preventing anything of that kind in case it were
to happen.
Q. Now, Mr. Jerome, I find that yoù clash with the assistant dis-
trict attorneys who are allotted generally to the trial of cases and the
attention of the calendar? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What does Mr. Lindsay do? A. Mr. Lindsay is at the head of
the indictment bureau, has charge of the preparation of all cases and
the presentation of them to the grand jury.
Q. Who draws the indictments? A. Mr. Lindsay.
Q. At whose suggestion did you appoint Mr. Lindsay? A. Mr.
Lindsay was there and I continued him; he was in charge of that
bureau.
Q. At that time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long had he been there? A. I think from the first year of
Judge Martine's term.
Q. Is there any more important place in your office than Mr. Lind-
say's? A. There is not.
Q. As a matter of fact, if Mr. Lindsay errs in the drawing of an
indictment, that is very apt to end the matter, is it not? A. Yes.
Q. Did Mr. Lindsay draw the indictment in the case against Flinn
and Squire? A. Without an examination of the indictment, I could
not say; his handwriting would show me whether he did or not.
Q. Flinn and Squire were discharged because of the insufficiency of
that indictment ultimately, were they not? A. No; I think Flinn and
Squire went out of court because we had no evidence; the indictment
was a good pleading; we had no evidence; after the death of Mr.
Thompson and the death of Mr. Charles P. Miller, there was abso-
lutely no evidence which justified us in going to trial upon that
indictment; the evidence that we did try to get in, the court held was
incompetent and irrelevant, and we could not possibly start the case.
Q. Is it not a fact that they were indicted for something you
could not prove, and that that indictment was a second indict-
ment, and that the first indictment which might have been proved
had been withdrawn and a new indictment found? A. Well, I
won't answer that the first indictment might have been proved; the
2654
[SENATE,
1
}
second indictment I certainly never favored; I did not think that it
could be successfully prosecuted; I believed that if a crime could be
established at all, it could be established under a different section of.
the code where the proof was plain and simple, if we had any proof
at all.
Q. Is it not a fact that Mr. Nicoll drew that second indictment? A.
That I can not tell you without looking at the indictment; the hand-
writing will disclose who did it.
Q. What experience did Mr. Lindsay have in drawing indictments
prior to his coming to your office, do you know? A. He was an
assistant under Mr. Davis, who had charge to some extent, of that
bureau; and Mr. Lindsay exhibited from the outset of his career a
wonderful adaptation to that work, extraordinary capacity for a young
man as a criminal pleader, which every lawyer knows is one of the
most important functions of the profession; and it was on account of
his accuracy, his thorough knowledge of the statute and his capacity
in that regard that he has been kept.
Q. What do Messrs. Dawson, McDonough, Hartman and Grossey do?
A. Mr. Hartman has charge, particularly, of the forfeited recogniz-
ances cases, and that is an important branch in the office.
Q. That is a branch in which you worked some improvement, as
testified heretofore? A. Well, I hope so; I think that I have certainly
paid over to the city a great many more thousands of dollars each
year than has been hitherto paid, except that Judge Martine in one
year collected from Sayles, as you will remember, $25,000 in one sum,
and that swelled the aggregate of that year pretty largely; but I
mean in the general collection, I think there has been an improvement.
Q. That word "Sayles" there is a proper name? A. Yes, sir;
S-a-y-l-e-s.
Q. Well, what does Mr. Grossey do? A. Mr. Grossey is employed
generally, to attend to examinations before police magistrates from
time to time, to attend upon coroners' inquests occasionally, to try
cases in court, and to examine and prepare cases which come into the
office.
Q. And Mr. McDonough? A. Mr. McDonough tries more cases in
court than Mr. Grossey, but his work is very largely the preparation
of cases.
Q. Mr. Dawson? A. The same; although Mr. Dawson has had some
important cases assigned to him which he has worked up and tried in
court; they are general work; the idea I had in view was that this
class of officials should prepare the cases.
Q. Will you tell the committee how your calendars are made up?
No. 80.]
2655
A. The calendars are made up by the chief clerk; it is supposed
to be under the personal supervision of the chief of the police
as is every other department, manifestly, it can not be literally;
the chief clerk to whom all the indictments go and upon whom
all writs and processes of every kind are served, has the physical
custody of the indictments; legally they are in the custody of the
chief clerk of the General Sessions; actually, they are left for the pur-
pose of convenience, in the hands of the district attorney and in the
safes of that department, and are under the control of the chief clerk;
he makes up the calendars.
Q. He makes them up, rather, under instructions as to special
cases? A. As to special cases.
Q. For instance, you say "I shall be prepared to try such and such
a case on a certain day, so put it on the calendar of that day?" A.
Yes, sir.
Q. And that the assistants do as well? A. Yes; let me go further;
the assistants whỏ, from time to time; have charge of the calendars
very largely assist the chief clerk in making up the calendars; there
are special cases which have come to their knowledge, and about the
facts of which they are conversant, and they instruct the chief clerk,
to put those on the calendars, but, outside of that, he makes up the
calendars at his will.
Q. Now, aside of that, suppose the chief clerk wanted to keep a case
off the calendar; let us say some minor case; you recognize the impos-
sibility of his doing so in relation to any case that arouses the public
attention; but some minor case, he might keep the case off the calen-
dar for a long while, might he not? A. He might.
Q. Could he not virtually keep it off so long that it would amount
practically to immunity from trial? A. Yes; unless attention was
called to the fact by the press, or it was called to the especial attention
of the district attorney, or, in some way, knowledge of what was being
done came to the official head of the office; then, of course, the respon-
sibility would be upon him.
Q. Now, without asking why the work of your office is in arrears, if
it be in arrears, I ask first if it be in arrears? A. It is.
Q. And how much is it in arrears? A: Well, that I could not tell
you now.
Q. How many thousand cases do you suppose there are in your
office, in the form of indictments, now awaiting trial? A. I do not
think there are thousands of cases.
Q. Well, there are a thousand, are there not? A. Probably; may
be more.
J
2656
[SENATE,
Q. Possibly 2,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. There have been accumulations of cases to the extent of 4,000
or 5,000, have there not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the calendar has been cleared, from time to time, by the
action of the grand jury, in wiping out whole classes of cases? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Do you suppose that you have now two thousand, or twenty-five
hundred cases untried in the office? A. I doubt if there are as many
as that; there may be 1,500 or 1,600; there may be more, or there
may be less; I can not tell; I mean of cases that have come in since I
have been district attorney, without going back.
Q. There are a number of cases in the office that were there when
you became district attorney, are there not? A. There are cases in
the office that have been there for twenty-five or thirty years untried
Q. How many thousand cases do you suppose there are which had
accumulated in that office, and which were left as a legacy to you?
A. Mr. Ivins, it would be utterly impossible for me to tell without
making an examination of the records; it is very large.
Q. Has it not been a very exceptional thing for you to try any cases
which were so left as a legacy; - when I say exceptional, I mean
excepting cases of homicide, or cases such as the aldermanic cases, or
cases which had attracted great public attention? A. It has been.
Q. Now, as matter of fact, has it not been the practice in your office
´for all district attorneys to confine themselves more especially to the
trial of the indictments found during their term, than to the trial or
indictments found during antecedent terms? A. It has been.
Q. From which it results that if a man escapes trial until a new
district-attorney has been elected, he is very apt to escape altogether?
A. If the case is a misdemeanor, and if the party is on bail, that is
quite apt to be the case; it may readily be the case.
Q. To all practical intents and purposes, those calendars are cleared
by the election of a new district attorney every three years, aren't
they? A. Well, they are not cleared, by any means.
Q. They are just as good as cleared, are they not? A. They are
suspended; in cases of misdemeanors - I mean to say this: that the
district attorney who comes in on the first day of January, at the
beginning of a new term, finds from that hour more cases, more new
cases coming in than he can try.
Q. Then from that hour the cases begin to overtake him? A. Yes.
Q. And that class of cases has overtaken you by certainly 2,000?
A. I should think so.
Q. So that instead of keeping up with your work, and being able to
No. 80.]
2657
get rid of some of the work that you inherited, your work has over-
run you? A. It has; now, let me say just here, because it is only
fair, I think
you are seeking for remedies
Q. We are seeking for remedies, and we are not seeking anything
else? A. This should be known; these courts we have three courts,
and we have at various intervals in the year an Oyer and Terminer,
which sits about three weeks at a time; we have three courts; each
day the calendars of those courts are full; each day they are trying
cases; in other words, all the criminal facilities we have in this county
for the trial of causes are constantly employed; it, therefore, can not
be said that the courts are not being given business; and yet, sitting
all the time, there is this accumulation of business; the statement
simply indicates that the business is beyond our facilities, and that
there must always be an accumulation of indictments untried.
Q. Haven't you had several controversies with the recorder as to
the want of preparation of your subordinates? A. Yes.
Q. And has he not publicly charged that your office was not
ready to try the cases that were set down on the calendar for the day,
and so the court had to be adjourned with nothing done?
In one or two instances, in the history of every administration of the
district attorney's office that has ever been here, it has been done, and
in every part of this court; you, and every other lawyer, has seen it
done often and over again; that from some causes that you could not
anticipate, a calendar brakes down; that is very, very rare in the
Sessions here.
Q. Now, let's stop there a minute; let's take the calendar, the civil
calendar in this Superior Court; the calendar may break down in that
case, because each particular lawyer having charge of each particular
case, may have some other engagement or may be ill, but, as a matter
of fact, when you make up a calendar that entire calendar is in the
hands of one district attorney, is it not? A. Yes.
A.
Q. Well, why is it that that particular district attorney should not
be prepared to go on with any cases on that whole calendar?
Well, let me tell you why it may be that he is not; in one instance in
which a court was adjourned, one part of our court was adjourned,
for the want of cases, there were four cases on the calendar in which
every witness was present; the people were prepared to go on; I
have never been able to see yet just why that part adjourned, because
there was .business enough to have occupied the day, but there was
one case about which there had been considerable comment, and that
had excited considerable interest in which we could not procure the
witnesses; they were not present on that day, and when that case was
[Senate, No. 80.]
333
2658
[SENATE,
called and the witnesses did not respond, the court adjourned, I think
without any real necessity for its having done so; now, I will cite you
what may occur what does occur frequently; we put fifteen cases
upon the calendar; fourteen of the fifteen defendants march right
up to the bar of the court in the morning and plead guilty, and the
work of the court, so far as that calendar is concerned, is practically
over in fifteen minutes, and it may be that in one case out of the
fifteen, by the absence of witnesses, etc., we are not ready to go on.
Q. You have to be prepared in every one of those cases on the
assumption that they will plead not guilty? A. We do.
Q. And have no means of knowing? A. None, whatever; this week
two of the parts have adjourned at quarter of 12, having entirely dis-
charged the calendar, every prisoner having pleaded guilty.
Q. You never heard a judge complain of that, though, did you?
A. No.
Q. What the judges have complained of is that cases which had to
be tried were not ready for trial? A. I don't think there has been
complaints of that sort; there have been some, not many.
Q. Let us assume that the number of accumulated cases untried,
which came into the office during your own term is, in round figures,
say 2,000; I will make the record perfect in that regard by getting
the exact figures.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. You said fifteen or sixteen hundred? A. I should think, but it
is all conjecture.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. [Continuing.] Well, 1,500 or 2,000; it is immaterial A. It is all
conjecture.
Q. On what class do these cases mainly consist? A. Misdemeanor
cases.
Q. Now, what particular class of cases makes up the majority of the
misdemeanor cases? A. The excise cases.
Q. Now, how does any particular excise case ever get on the calen-
dar ? A. The chief clerk is instruced, as the calendars get arranged
with reference to the prison cases, to put on, from time to time, as many
excise cases as he can; there is no specific instruction with regard to
that case, with regard to that class of cases, beyond that.
Q. He picks them out haphazard, does he not? A. He picks them
out hap-hazard.
Q. Does he take them in order of time? A. Not usually for trial,
although we take them in order of time, or I have attempted to, for
No. 80.]
2659
:
the purposes of indictment; let me say to you Mr. Ivins, that when I
went in the district attorney's office I found over 5,000 complaints in
excise cases which had not been submitted to the grand jury; you can
judge from that what the accumulation is; I had a special grand jury
convened
Q. How many such complaints do you suppose there are now which
have not been submitted to the grand jury? A. A good many.
Q. A thousand? A. No; I should hardly think there were as many
as that, because, for the purpose of preventing the statute of limita-
tions from attaching, I have taken the older cases and given them to
each grand jury; yet I have had grand jury after grand jury that
have refused to take any cognizance of these cases, or that have
attended to only a very small percentage of them, and that by reason
of the fact that the accumulation of prison cases, prison business,
was so large.
Q. Offenders against the excise laws may escape in either of three
ways, may they not; first, by the failure of the police justice to hold
them; second, by your failure or inability to have the grand jury con-
sider the complaints, or, third, after indictment, by your failure or
inability to try? A. Yes.
Q. Now, have you ever heard of an excise case where the indict-
ment was found during the term of one district attorney being tried
during the term of a succeeding district attorney? A. Yes; I think
I have tried a good many.
Q. You think you have tried a number of the old excise cases? A.
Yes; I think that when that general stirring up occurred and we
found this accumulation, I took up the excise cases; indeed, I started,
Mr. Ivins—if I may interrupt your inquiry for a moment—
Q. Certainly. A. I started out with a good deal of confidence in
my capacity, with this new force organized as it was, to keep abreast
of these excise cases, and when Dr. Crosby and Judge Arnaux and
some other gentlemen visited me, I told them, at the outset of my
term, I had no doubt of my capacity to keep up with these cases; I had
not gone far before I found that I could occupy every grand jury and
all of the three parts of the court in the trial of those cases alone
during each year, to the exclusion of every other case.
Q. As a result of which you tried very few excise cases? A. Com-
paratively few; a great many cases have been disposed of by sending
them to the
Q. Now, I call your attention to the fact, as shown by a statement
rendered from your office, running from the 1st of May, 1889, to the
19th of May, 1809, being a few days over a year; showing that you
2660
[SENATE,
only placed before the grand jury 1,683 cases; that of this number,
353 were indicted, 261 dismissed; that there were disposed of by
indictment and dismissal, 641? A. Do you refer to excise cases?
Q. These are excise cases? A. Yes.
Q. Now, that 614, as you will notice, does not compare with 1,683,
the number which was placed before the grand jury, the grand jury
having found 353 indictments and 261 dismissals? A. Yes.
Q. What became of the remainder of those cases? A. They were
not acted upon by the grand jury.
Q. They were not acted upon by the grand jury? A. They were
not acted upon at all.
Q. Then you called the attention of the grand jury to 1,683 cases?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Of which number they only acted upon 614? A. Yes.
Q. And of which 614 they only found indictments in 353? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Well, have you called the attention of the grand jury to all the
cases? A. At every session.
Q. All the cases go before them? A. Oh, no.
Q. All the cases of complaints, I mean? A. In excise cases?
Q. Yes. A. Oh, no; they cannot.
Q. Why don't you call their attention to all the cases and then let
the responsibility rest with the grand jury as it does in the balance
of more than a thousand, as shown on this statement for this current
year? A. Mr. Ivins, the Code of Criminal Procedure expressly pre-
scribes the order in which the work of the grand jury shall be done,
and that is made by law, a part of the charge of the court at each
convention of the grand jury, to them; they are required by law to
give their first attention to the cases of the people in actual custody;
people who are locked up and unable to give bail must, by the pro-
visions of our statute, receive the first consideration from the grand
jury; they are next to inquire into the corrupt action of public officials,
if any such cases exist; and, third, they are to inquire into the care
and condition of the prisons and houses of detention, etc.; that is the
order prescribed for them.
Q. Does each grand jury inquire into the condition of the prisons
and houses of detention? A. Usually by the appointment of a com-
mittee; rarely ever as a body; they designate a committee.
Q. Does each grand jury receive a report from that subcommittee?
A. Yes.
Q. And is that made of record? A. Yes.
Q. In each case? A. Yes; I think in every single instance of the
}
No. 80.]
2661
assembling of a grand jury, immediately upon their retiring from
the court to their room; I have gone before them and asked them to
assist me as far as they could in getting rid of this accumulation of
misdemeanor cases, particularly of excise cases; I have told them
what a growing scandal it was that there should be such a vast num-
ber of untried cases in the district attorney's office, and I have asked
them to make such presentments as they have made from time to
time calling the attention of the Legislature to the necessity
of some relief, because it will continue to grow just as long
as we continue a city, unless some new methods are prescribed of
dealing with the question, and I believe the grand juries, as a rule,
have given all the attention to these excise cases they can; the fact
remains right there that the grand jury can't consider one-fifth of the
cases and the courts can't try one-tenth of the cases they do consider.
Q. And for all practical purposes, so far as the policing of the liquor
business of this city is concerned, it is a tub without a bottom, is it
not? A. It is, indeed.
Q. There is absolutely nothing in it? A. No, sir;
A. No, sir; - well, I won't
say that.
Q. You know that there are many thousands of arrests made for
violation of the law in the course of a year? A. A great many.
Q. And as against a great many thousands of such arrests we find
but 353 indictments? A. Yes.
Q. Now, I find that of those 353 indictments you secured convic-
tions in forty-four cases? A. Yes.
Q. But I find by this statement that that list of forty-four convic-
tions stands for forty-three persons who pleaded guilty and one who
was tried and convicted? A. Yes.
Q. So that you secured on trial one conviction? A. Yes.
Q. Out of that lot? A. Yes, sir; and I consider it a very fair per-
centage.
Q. Then out of the many thousands of arrests made in the course
of that year you were enabled on a trial to get the conviction of one
offender? A. Yes, sir; Dr. Crosby, Mayor Hewitt and myself formu-
lated a method of dealing with this question which I think would have
relieved us, but which did not receive the approval of the Legislature,
Q. Do you think there is any reason why the liquor dealers of this
city should stand in awe or terror of the law, in view of this condition
of affairs? A. They ought to.
Q. Why ought they; if that is the condition of affairs why should
they stand in fear of the enforcement of the law? A. I don't think
you expect me to answer that question.
2662
[SENATE,
Q. No; but your last answer-you are the prosecuting attorney of
this county? A. Yes.
Q. Do you think that any offender should stand in fear of a law
which you, as the prosecuting attorney, testify can not be enforced?
A. Can not be enforced to its full extent; it is largely the same with
bail cases and the same inquiry might be addressed me with reference
to bail cases; the accumulation of business, of criminal business,
beyond our present facilities for trying is so large that when parties.
give bail in misdemeanors, not only in excise cases but in assault cases
and in all the lower grades of crimes, the percentage of those who are
thereafter tried is very small because our courts are occupied every
day in the trial of men who can not give bail, who must be tried or
kept locked up in prisons.
Q. Is it not a fact that our public expects to see these laws enforced?
A.. They do.
Q. Is it not a fact also that breaches of the law are so numerous
that the present means for enforcing them A. Are inadequate.
A.—
Q. Are not only inadequate but markedly inadequate? A. That
is true.
Q. And is it not true that if we are to have an enforcement of these
laws, it would require double or treble the force, and double or treble
the expenditure? A. Yes; if you leave the law as it is.
Q. If you leave the law as it is? A. If you leave the law as it is.
Q. Now, will you make any suggestion as to how the law could be
amended so that we would not be accumulating criminals here who
are untried? A. The first suggestion that I would make would be to
call the attention of the Legislature very earnestly to the report of a
commission that was appointed, composed of most estimable gentlemen,
who had in view the revision of our excise law, the simplification of it,
its arrangement and adjustment, so that its provisions should be
understood.
Q. You mean that commission of which Dr. Howard Crosby was a
member? A. Yes.
Q. And concerning which he testified on this stand? A. And Mr.
Rollins, who had been assistant district attorney and the district
attorney of this county for a long period, and than whom no man in
the world was better equipped to give suggestions upon this subject;
there is one suggestion I would make for what it is worth; I think
that a simulation of our system of excise to the English system would
be a very vast improvement over the present; and let me tell you why
it is that it is very difficult to try these cases in our courts while
prisoners are locked up, and why the difficulty of getting convictions
No. 80.]
2663
is so great; it becomes, in every instance where a man is indicted, a
life and death fight; you would suppose that the trial of a case in
which the punishment might be the infliction of a fine of five dollars
or of ten dollars would not be severely contested, but there is one
provision of our excise law that makes these excise cases to the men
involved matters of importance; a person is engaged in the liquor
business; he has, if you please, every dollar in the world he has got
in the plant and equipment of that business; he receives, after paying
a sum of money, a promise by the law that he shall pursue that
business if he keeps a covenant that he makes with the law; he is
indicted; a conviction, although it may be followed by a five dollars
fine, is a revocation of his license, and imposes upon him a disability
to receive another license, either for himself or his place, for three
years; that amounts to a practical confiscation of the property, and
by reason of that fact these people who are indicted fight with an
intensity and bitterness which you can readily understand; they
exhaust every single remedy in their power; they make it as difficult
as possible to try these cases, and a change in the law would be
extremely beneficial; the English law prescribes a certain penalty for
the first offense, but is not accompanied with a revocation of the
license; and it is only there, I believe, after the third repetition that
the license is revoked and the party is rendered unable to procure
another; I only throw that out as one of the reasons why this class
Q. That is one reason of difficulty in the trial of a case? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that difficulty is accompanied by this other difficulty that
the police officer who makes the arrests must satisfy himself from the
evidence that is before him, that there has been a breach of the law?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which evidence, though sufficient to satisfy him to make the
arrest, however, may not be sufficient to satisfy a court in holding an
indictment? A. Yes.
Q. Now, you said that you would advocate a simulation in some
measure of our system to the English system; is it not a fact that
under the English system, conviction also works a forfeiture, not
only to the person, but to the place? A. After the third indictment;
the first indictment, the first violation, as I remember the English
excise -
Q. You don't mean the indictment; you mean the summary pro-
cedure before the magistrate? A. Well, the procedure, yes; the
information of the crown, in whatever way it is received, in the first
instance, is accompanied, where there is a conviction, by the infliction
of a fine; in the second instance, by the infliction of a fine and a term
2664
[SENATE,
of imprisonment, or either; in the third instance, an increased penalty
and the absolute forfeiture of the license without power to obtain
another; it is a perpetual forfeiture, so that the parties, from step to
step, are placed upon their guard, and made to know that the law will
be enforced.
Q. There are simply three admonitory steps under their system?
A. Yes, sir; the result in England is that the excise law is enforced;
it is thoroughly enforced.
Q. Now, Colonel Fellows, can you tell me how many excise cases
have been put on the calendars during the last six months, or since
May nineteenth? A. No; I can not, here; I can tell you from the
records of the office.
Q. Do you know how many excise cases have been put on the
calendars during the past month? A. I do not.
Q. Do you know whether any excise cases have been put on the
calendars during the past month? A. Well, you ask me if I know; I
should say yes, there had, but I don't know positively without an
examination.
Q. Would you make the same answer if I had made the question
during the past two weeks? A. Yes; I should say yes.
Q. Do you know of any reason why no excise cases should have
been put on the calendar, in case we were to discover that they were
not at all? A. None whatever.
Q. Have you given any instructions to anyone about putting excise
cases on the calendar? A. I have not.
Q. How long is it since you have given any instructions to anyone
concerning the placing of excise cases on the calendar? A. I have
given no instructions.
Q. At any time? A. No, sir; beyond the general instructions to put
those cases on the calendar, just so far as they could be put on with
reference to the other cases.
Q. That is what I mean, general instructions; you gave general
instructions at the beginning of your term? A. And I have repeated
them from time to time since.
Q. From time to time? A. I think almost every month.
Q. What steps have you taken personally to see whether any such
cases have been put on the calendar? A. Oh, I have taken the step of
personal inquiry; the calendars are put upon my desk each morning
after they are printed and before the courts convene; I examine them
and see what cases are on, to see if there are any to which I wish to give
special attention; I go almost every day before the grand jury to see
what they are doing with these excise cases, and I have to say to you
No. 80.]
2665
now, Mr. Ivins, that it was but day before yesterday that the foreman
of the grand jury, whom you know well, a most excellent and efficient
man, told me that they were just prepared now in their work—
Q. Who is the foreman of this present grand jury? A. Mr. Little,
the type founder; he told me that the grand jury was just prepared,
for the first time in their investigations this month, to consider some
excise 'cases.
Q. Now, during the year, from May, 1889, to May, 1890, you actually
tried and secured a conviction in one case; has that phenomenal thing
been repeated since the nineteenth of May? A. Not that I am aware
of; I can not tell you.
Q. Not that you are aware of? A. I don't know.
Q. You are not aware then of the fact that there has been an actual
trial resulting either in acquittal or conviction in any case since the
nineteenth of May? A. No; I could, of course, ascertain, but I do
not know now.
Q. Would not that be so remarkable a thing, that if it had occurred
you would be pretty apt to know it? A. Perhaps so; as a rule, Mr.
Ivins, the parties, when finally compelled to go to trial, plead guilty,
or ask to have their cases sent to the special sessions; that court has
jurisdiction, and our courts, finding that they could not be burdened
with this volume of cases, have always very readily consented to send
them to the Special Sessions, and nearly all these cases, when they are
finally forced to issue, go to the Special Sessions.
Q. Colonel Fellows, a great deal of attention has been called to the
fact, during your term of office, that while certain convictions were
had in what are known as the aldermanic cases during the term of
your predecessor, you have failed to secure convictions in like cases
during your own term; you have been subject to a great deal of very
harsh criticism through the public press with regard to that? A. I
believe I have.
Q. And if you have anything to say, that you care to say, as explan-
atory of your failure in those cases, I am sure the committee would be
very glad to have an explanation of the entire matter. A. Well, I
don't know, Mr. Ivins, I have received a good deal of criticism, but I
have been somewhat comforted under it by the assurance of such a
man as Judge Daniels-than whom, I believe, it is conceded we have
no abler jurist and no more honorable man that every possible
effort that could be made to secure convictions in these cases was
made, and a failure to do so arose from a changed condition of affairs;
it was utterly impossible to secure conviction for a number of reasons.
Q. Let's take that a little in detail you give your number of
[Senate, No. 80.]
334
2666
[SENATE,
› reasons first though? A. There are a number of reasons; first, these
cases, with one exception, were reversed.
Q. That one exception was what? A. Was the O'Neil case, because
the Jaehne case did not come within the category?
Q. The Jaehne case did not come within this category, properly
speaking, at all, did it? A. Not at all.
Q. And if it had not been for the fact that Jaehne had been a law-
breaker in other matters, and before this, and had himself, as inci-
dent to the discovery by the police that he had been a receiver of
stolen goods, made a confession which implicated him, he would not
have been convicted, in all probability, would he? A. Well, it is
certainly — no; I should say not; it is certainly
Q. So it is fair to say that his conviction grew out of the fact of his
own confession? A. Yes; it grew out of his own confession, accompanied,
as the statute required, by just so much of corroborative evidence as
seemed to imply that a crime had been committed; when we first
came to what is known as the informers' testimoney, to the trial of
cases which had for their foundation the evidence of Fullgraff and
Duffy, the case of McQuade was the first one; the first trial of
McQuade resulted, as you know, in a disagreement, the jury standing,
from first to last, nine for acquittal to three for conviction; in the
subsequent trial of McQuade this same testimony was introduced,
re-enforced by the testimony of Katie Metz, and our cases thereafter,
as far as the aldermen were concerned, rested upon the direct
evidence of these three witnesses and upon the suspicious cir-
cumstances which accompanied the grant of the franchise.
Q. And upon the evidence, in some of the earlier cases, of the
testimony taken before the Senate committee? A. The Senate com-
mittee; now, then, all of those convictions were reversed, the notable
instance being Sharp, upon one end of this line
Q. The main ground of reversal being there that the testimony
taken before the Senate committee was not admissible? A. Was not
admissible, and the testimony that we had introduced regarding his
connection with legislative matters was not admissible.
Q. You assisted in the trial of those cases, did you not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You and Mr. Nicoll tried those cases, did you not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you not, both Mr. Nicoll and yourself, in frequent, if not
continuous consultation with the court pending that trial, those
trials? A. I never had any consultation with the court.
Q. Was not Mr. Nicoll? A. That I can only answer from
information.
Q. Did not Mr. Nicoll tell you that he was himself conferring with
the court with regard to the preparation and trial of those cases dur-
No. 80.1
2667
ing the term that the cases were pending? A. I think only with
regard to the time, the place, the time that could be given to the
trial; if you mean to imply by that, Mr. Ivins, any consultation with
the court by which anything was prearranged as to the results of the
trial or as to methods that should be pursued; no.
Q. Did not Mr. Nicoll tell you that he was in consultation with
certain judges of this city with regard to the question of the
admissibility of the testimony taken before a Senate committee? A.
I don't remember that he ever did; he may have stated
Q. Did you never hear that? A. He may have stated that he had
conferred with judges and with lawyers with reference to the admis-
sibility of testimony, but I never heard it implied or intimated that
he had conferred with the trial judge with regard to the admissibility
of testimony, nor do I believe he did.
Q. Now, had that testimony taken before the Senate committee been
refused admission in the first of those cases, do you, as having par-
ticipated in the trial, believe that conviction would have been
possible? A. I do not; if the evidence that was stricken out from
those cases by the Court of Appeals had never been admitted in the
cases there never would have been a conviction.
Q. Any conviction whatever? A. No; there could not have been a
conviction.
Q. Then the taking of those cases to the Court of Appeals, the
taking of the time of the Court of Appeals and of the time of the
General Term, and of the time of the trial court, with all the conse-
quent expense to the State and the subsequent failure to hold the
parties, was incident to the error of the trial court and of the district
attorney's office, the one in suing for the admission of that testimony
and the other in admitting it; is that not the fact? A. Well, it
was unquestionably, in my judgment, the fact of the admission of that
testimony that reversed the judgments; we are constantly making
those mistakes and being corrected by the higher courts; but that is
not all, Mr. Ivins; you asked me to state the reasons why
Q. Give the rest. A. -Why a conviction could not be secured;
that was but one cause; a changed condition of public sentiment was
largely another; there was a perfect tempest of excitement here at the
first discovery of this aldermanic corruption, about the extent and
character of which nobody on earth doubted, but when I came to try
these cases, that storm had entirely subsided; the subject matter had
grown to be an old one, people had largely become tired of it.
Q. The storm around your head had not subsided though, had it?
A. No; I have some reason to know that it had not; there was a
2668
[SENATE,
changed condition of public sentiment which everyone residing in the
city must now appreciate, respecting the enterprise itself; I believe
that more than one-half of the taxpayers of this city were opposed at
first to a railroad in Broadway, and the grant of that franchise not
only incensed them by reason of the manner in which it was done, the
use of money corruptly in the board of aldermen, but from the fact
that the franchise was granted; there was a sentimental feeling
regarding the preservation of Broadway from that which assumed to
be a desecration of our old street.
Q. Right here let me interject this question, notwithstanding the
manner in which that franchise was got, and although the public
clamor that the franchise was not only bargained away for money to
be paid to the aldermen, but was sold, so far as the public was con-
cerned, at a price which was very much below its actual value, that
franchise still exists, don't it? A. Yes.
Q. And New York city, so far as its treasury is concerned, is no better
off than if this corrupt bargain had not been made? A. No.
Q. And somebody or other is the beneficiary of that situation; is
not that the fact? A. That is the conclusion that every one may draw.
Q. And New York city is not the beneficiary of it, so far as the
treasury is concerned? A. No; but while there was this sentiment
that no railroad should be laid on Broadway, and after it had been
laid and we had begun to use it, the whole public of New York came
to know that, so far as our business interests are concerned, it was
one of the grandest improvements we had ever had, and all those who
had been an enemy of the franchise became its friends, and you could
everywhere hear the statement, why should we go on longer in prose-
cuting men who have conferred upon the city a great public blesssing.
Q. You have never heard anyone suggest going back to the days of
the old omnibuses, have you? A. No; I have not; now, I had that
to contend against; then I had the interpretation of the Court of
Appeals, with regard to our jury law, which was, perhaps, after all,
the most disheartening and disastrous thing in attempting to try
these cases; in this court room I tried for two weeks, before Judge
Daniels, to get one single juror, calling hundreds and hundreds to
try the case of Cleary; not one man did we get, because our Court of
Appeals have said that where a person has made up an opinion in
regard to the guilt or innocence of an accused, from testimony which
has been taken in previous cases of a like character of that which he
is to hear as a juror, he is legally disqualified; he cannot be accepted;
and there is not an intelligent man in the county of New York who
has not read the evidence in these cases until he knows them by
No. 80.]
2669
heart and has thereby formed an opinion upon evidence; he is dis-
qualified as a juror; I have no power to move the cases out of the
county, and it would simply have been a wicked further expenditure,
after trying three of those cases as I did; a foolish, criminal expendi-
ture of public money, for which any prosecutor should have been
removed from office to have tried them farther.
Q. Well, now, Fulgraff and Duffy lost their memory also, did they
not? A. To a very marked extent; an unusual degree.
Q. Now, do you remember the means by which Duffy was first
given a memory? A. I don't; Mr.
Q. Let me ask you a question or two about that; did you ever hear
of the proposed Thirty-fourth Street Railroad Company's franchise?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recollect the suggestion made that certain members of
the board of aldermen had received money for their votes in that
matter? A. Yes; all that came out on the trial.
Q. Did you know that Duffy and Fulgraff became witnesses for the
State only after it had become known to them that it was known to
your office that they had been implicated in the Thirty-fourth street
steal? A. So I understood; that our office possessed the evidence of
their complicity in that.
Q. Do you know that certain affidavits were then made which ·
implicated Duffy and Fulgraff in that Thirty-fourth street business?
A. I do not know it; I have heard it.
Q. Did you ever see those affidavits? A. I never did.
Q. You were told there were such affidavits? A. Yes.
Q. You were told such papers were in your office? A. Yes.
Q. After you came into the office did you ever make search for those
affidavits? A. Yes; they are not in the papers.
A. No.
Q. Are they in the office so far as you are able to discover?
Q. Have you ever been able to account for the disappearance of
those papers? A. Except that in conversation with some of the
gentlemen who were associated with me in the trial, it was believed
that one of the counsel in the O'Neil case, to whom these affidavits
were handed, had mislaid them or had not returned them to the files
of the district attorney's office.
Q. One of the counsel in the O'Neil case? A. Yes.
Q. That is one of the counsel for the defense? A. Yes.
Q. Is it customary for the district attorney's office to give private
documents of that kind documents implicating the criminal, to the
counsel for the criminal? A. In the trial it is, if they call for papers.
2670
[SENATE,
Q. If they are called for on the trial you mean? A. Yes, sir; that
is what I mean.
Q. That affidavit was never introduced in evidence on any trial, was
it? A. No.
Q. Then it could not have got into the hands of counsel for the
defense on the trial? A. It was not introduced on the trial, but if it
existed it was in the papers; it was part of the record.
Q. But how could counsel for the defense have got that unless they
got it as right, being introduced on the trial, or as a matter of com-
placency from the district attorney prior to the trial? A. It so must
have been received; it was generally known by the publication of the
press that these statements that were reduced to the forms of
affidavits of Fulgraff and Duffy were the basis upon which this pro-
secution proceeded.
Q. That was the basis? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that basis disappeared from your office when you went in
there? A. I have never seen it in my life.
Q. But you knew of its existence? A. Yes, sir; but I have never
seen it.
Q. You knew of its existence sufficiently to swear that it was the
basis? A. Various parts were assigned in these cases; of course, as
you understand, the cases were of the greatest public interest, and
when Mr. Martine marshaled the forces of his office to the prepara-
tion of these cases, to Mr. Nicoll was assigned the duty of sifting and
preparing the evidence; with that part of the case I never had the
slightest to do; I was notified from the start that I would be
expected to make the summing up in these cases and to take such part
from time to time during the actual trials as it might be found neces-
sary for me to take; but with the preliminany work I had nothing to do
and therefore it was not strange that this affidavit should not come
under my observation; I never talked with the witness; never had the
slightest conversation.
Q. Your connection with the case was confined to the trial in the
court as other counsel would do after the preparation had been
made? A. Yes sir.
Q. In other words you were really the senior in these cases? A. I
was the counsel if I may so say; I was the counsel for the trial of the
cases and not the attorney for the preparation of the cases at all.
Q. So the basis for the trial which was the affidavits which impli-
cated Fulgraff and Duffy, and which led Fulgraff and Duffy, on finding
themselves to be implicated, to become State's evidence, was in the
No. 80.1
2671
1
hands of Mr. Nicoll? A. Yes, sir; of Judge Martine, and in the hands
of the office.
Q. Not in your hands, however? A. It was in my hands, if I asked
for it, but I did not; I never asked to see any of the evidence or con-
verse with any of the witnesses.
Q. And the only explanation of its disappearance that you have ever
heard is the explanation that one of O'Neil's counsel had it? A. Yes;
that during the trial one of O'Neil's counsel had it and that it from
that time was mislaid among the papers.
Q. Which one of those counsel? A. Well I do not care to state; I
am willing to tell you privately, but I do not think I ought to be asked
to say publicly.
Q. I think that you ought to; I think that you ought to tell as a
matter of fact; I believe that the miscarriage in those cases was
incident to the disappearance of that paper; it is for the committee to
say whether you shall tell which of the counsel got that document?
Senator MCNAUGHTON.—I think Mr. Fellows is the best judge of
that; he knows all the circumstances of the case; I would not press
the question.
The WITNESS.— You see I am not cognizant of the fact; I do not
know that any counsel received a paper which disappeared thereafter,
and therefore it might be a cruel injustice if I were to give any name.
Q. In other words you are under oath, and you do not want to
swear to it that any person did it? A. I do not; I know nothing of it
and I might do a wrong to a man by imputing any such thing.
*
Q. I think your position is a perfectly fair one; You know do you
not that those papers implicated and involved several other parties in
the city who were not under indictment? A. So I have understood.
Q. Have you not heard that those persons so implicated were per--
sons who had held very important public offices? A. I have heard
so in the way of humor; I have never heard it from any direct source
that gave me any reason to know whether it was true or not; I know
positively nothing about it; I have heard much.
Q. Have you ever tried to get the paper? A. That paper?
Q. Yes. A. When I came into the office and became charged with
these responsibilities I made a very thorough examination of all the
records in the office; I got all there was and have kept all I got.
Q. You mean you got all that were there? A. Yes.
Q. And not having been a party to the preparation of the case
therefore you have no means of knowing whether there were other
papers or not? A. No.
2672
[SENATE,
Q. There may have been other papers? A. The papers that were
used upon the various trials and which formed a part of the court
record in these cases were turned over to me; if there were any other
papers prepared at any other time, I knew nothing whatever of
them; I have never seen them.
Q. Didn't you lose one of those cases mainly because Duffy and
Fulgraff seemed to have completely lost their memory of the facts?
A. Yes; I should say that was one of the main reasons.
Q. Do you believe that if you had this paper, knowing its contents
as you do by hearsay, and were still in custody of that document,
that you would have been subject to such a loss of memory on their
part? A. It might have refreshed their memories if I had such
paper; the intellectual lapse on the part of those gentleman was
something remarkable; I do not know as I have ever seen an intellect
go to pieces as theirs did.
Q. What did you call it? A. I called it intellect, for one must use
appropriate terms before the committee; where the witness told me
at one hour that he would swear to a certain state of facts, that he
was positive in his recollection, and as soon as he was put upon the
stand forget it all, I quite despaired of the cases; nay, more, I
became satisfied that no honest, just prosecutor, knowing that such
things had transpired as a falsehood stated by the witness off the
stand to the district attorney and his lapse of memory on the stand,
that no public prosecutor was justified in going to the jury on such
evidence and ask them to believe it; it was too uncertain and unreli-
able to convict people on.
Q. The result of it all is that Mr. O'Neil is serving his term? A.
No; he is discharged now.
Q. He has served his term? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Mr. Jaehne is serving his term? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Jaehne's case, however, was distinguished from Mr. O'Neil's
because in that case you had Jaehne's confession? A. He was con-
victed on his confession; no other evidence was introduced except
the evidence that the statute required to corroborate the allegation
that the crime had been committed.
Q. And no one else has been punished among all those who made
no confession except O'Neil? A. None, and I have spent seven
months of my term in actual court proceedings in those cases; I think
that Judge Daniels would be willing to state to the committee as he
has stated to the World often, that cases were never tried with more
thorough preparation than these cases were, and the failure to get a
No. 80.]
2673
conviction was simply the fact of changed conditions; the elimination
of evidence.
Q. In other words, your predecessor in office, through Mr. Nicoll,
secured certain convictions which superior courts held were improp-
erly secured? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you inherited these cases from them with the expectation
on the part of the public that you could secure convictions legally
-although the convictions secured by your predecessor had been
secured illegally? A. That is about it; that I was left with the cases
as the Court of Appeals left them to me, and with this changed con-
dition of public sentiment and the education of the mass of our people
in regard to the facts of the case by the publications of the press;
all of that rendered it impossible to get convictions; I do not know that
if the cases were to be tried to-morrow by the whole array of talent
of the New York bar -I simply say this that no particle of evidence
that exists upon this earth could be introduced in the case that was
not introduced; everything that we had knowledge of in the case
that would tend to its elucidation was presented, and the district
attorney of this or no other county is chargeable with getting convic-
tions; it is his duty to present cases, to present the evidence, and it is
for juries to say whether men are guilty or not.
Q. You spoke awhile ago about public clamor having been very
great during the first of these trials and having subsided afterwards;
is it a fact that public clamor plays a part that may contribute to the
success or failure of your office? A. I am afraid it does.
Q. Is it not, in your judgment, a fact that public clamor led to the
introduction by the district attorney's office, and the receipt by the
court of the evidence taken by the Senate committee in those original
cases, although the general feeling of the bar through the city was
against the admissibility of that evidence? A. I can not answer that;
I do not know; I know as to one piece of evidence that was stricken
out by the Court of Appeals; I believe very sincerely, as a lawyer,
that it was admissible, and I urged before the trial court its presenta-
tion; it was that action of Mr. Sharp's in Albany with a member
of the
Q. Of the lobby? A. Yes; and I believe it was admissible; I urged
it; the Court of Appeals reversed for that among other reasons; I
never did think the Senate testimony was admissible.
Q. Did you, among all the lawyers that you talked to at that time,
find anyone who did, outside of your office? A. Well, I think the
consensus of opinion among lawyers, was that it was not admissible
[Senate, No. 80.]
335
2674
[SENATE,
Q. And that consensus of opinion was very strong, was it? A.
Yes; I think so.
Q. And still the newspapers were clamoring for its admission; were
they not? A. That I do not know; the newspapers were doing a
good deal of clamoring about various subjects; whether it was that
particular subject or not, I do not know; the newspapers have a good
deal to do with the formation and direction of public opinion in this
city, and I am one of those who believe that the cause of justice is
best administered when it is not administered in periods of popular
passion and clamor; that such things as sensational trials should
never exist in our courts; that there should be a perfectly clear, cool
atmosphere in which to try these judicial proceedings, and weigh the
question of the liability or lives of men; I have always been opposed
to sensations in the trials of cases, and I suppose I have weakened my
force as district attorney a great deal from that fact; I have never
allowed sensational cases to be tried as such.
Q. You spoke of the difficulty you have in finding jurors in cases.
of this character under the ruling of the Court of Appeals; do you
not have an equally great difficulty in finding a jury because of the
smallness and character of our jury lists in this city? A. That is
true, but-
Q. How far do you watch the operation of the jury list in this city?
A. I necessarily watch them by observation, because I am called
constantly.
Q. You are a party to their enforcement in such respects, are you
not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In what particular respect to their enforcement? A. Not now;
under the new law the corporation counsel has absolutely the enforce-
ment of the fines against delinquent jurors; a new law, as you know,
has recently gone into operation.
1
Q. Do you take any part in the drawing of jurors? A. None what-
ever; we have nothing to do in the preparation of jury lists; it is but
fair to our city government, and it is creditable to it to say that
within the past three or four years there has been a very noticeable
improvement in our jury lists, a very much larger number added, and
certainly an infusion of a better class of people.
Q. That is under the administration of Commissioner Reilly? A.
Well, whoever does it.
Q. It is during the past two or three years you say particularly?
A. Yes.
Q. As compared with the time immediately prior to it? A. Yes, sir;
there has been a very marked improvement noticeable in all our
courts.
No. 80.]
2675
Q. An improvement which gives you a class of men who, generally
speaking, seemed to be better qualified for the performance of the
duties of jurors? A. Yes, sir; to illustrate: In the trial of McGonigal
a few days ago, I examined personally four jurors, who testified, and
they were all men of a marked degree of intelligence, seemingly men
of character and responsibility; they all testified that although they
had lived in this city for a long time, they were this year for the first
time on the jury list; that has been noticeable for three or four years
whenever we have summoned a jury; I should say for two years
passed certainly, whenever we have summoned a jury, we have found
a percentage of men who have never been placed upon our jury-list
before; it shows that men are being got there that ought to have been
there years ago, but who are now being put there, and it is extending
the list and improving its character; there is no question about it.
Q. What are the duties of Mr. Anderson? A. Mr. Anderson is the
private secretary.
Q. He keeps these books of which you speak? A. Yes; and it is he
who makes up the provisional estimates; it is he who keeps account
all the time of my contingent fund, so that I am enabled to know just
how far I am permitted to draw on it.
Q. At whose suggestion was he appointed? A. Just let me answer
this one question; it is he who receives in the first instance all the
executive letters, and they are very numerous, and who prepares the
replies to them, of course, to be submitted to me and to receive my
signature; it is he who examines the sufficiency of the bail bond in
all cases; Mr. Anderson was another legacy from Judge Martine, and
a better official for the position he occupies I have never seen.
Q. Now, I find that you have here fourteen subpoena servers and
one special messenger at $1,200 apiece? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Two messengers at $1,200 apiece and one messenger at $750?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The first of these is John J. Carroll; for whom did you appoint
him? A. I can not tell you.
Q. For whom did you appoint Thomas A. Maguire? A. I do not
know the source of appointment of a solitary one of these men, save
in one instance, and I can tell you that.
Q. Can you tell how you came to appoint any of those men? A. I
think the most of them were there, and I continued them; I think it
was Mr. Kelly, although I won't be sure; I think it was Peter J. Kelly.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Did you prepare the list which you have? A. No.
Q. Did you ever see it before? A. No.
2676
[SENATE,
Mr. IVINS. It was sent over here by Assistant District Attorney
Bedford.
The WITNESS.— It is correct, so far as the roster of the office is con-
cerned; I know these names; I have made one or two removals, and
have appointed other persons in their places, but I think that nearly
all of those men, if not all of them, were subpoena servers in the office
when I came there, and as the political situation of the office was the
that is, I was, as Judge Martine had been, in affiliation with
one organization of the Democratic party here, and the office had been
largely made up of friends of that party, I continued them.
same
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Which organization was that? A. That was the County
Democracy.
[The list above referred to was offered in evidence, marked Exhibit
I of this date, and is inserted at the end of to-day's testimony.]
Q. Do you remember how much money was paid into the city treas-
ury from the collateral inheritance tax? A. No, sir; only the comp-
troller could tell that.
Q. The report of the State Comptroller shows that New York county
paid the State Treasurer $721,830.16? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That report also shows that the comptroller's fees - I now refer
to the comptroller of this city-were $10,506.96? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That the fees paid appraisers were $6,501.45? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that for the assistance rendered by your office in the col-
lection of that large amount your office was paid $110? A. Yes, sir.
Q. The proportion of fees to your office, for the services it rendered
and for the expense, etc., would seem to be very greatly dispropor-
tionate to the fees received by the comptroller? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And greatly disproportionate to the large amount which was
collected? A. Yes, sir; the comptroller receives a percentage.
Q. Five per cent? A. He receives five per cent up to a certain
sum; he then receives a much lower percentage; but, of course, on the
collection of three-quarters of a million, as is shown there, the per-
centage must be large.
Mr. IVINS.— The chief bookkeeper is here; he has been sworn and
can tell just what that is.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Looking at it from that standpoint, is it not your judgment that
the fees of the comptroller should be reduced, in view of the large
amount collected? A. No; you understand that this can continue but
a very short time; these legacies will diminish from year to year; that
No. 80.1
2677
is, people who design to give to collateral sources certain money are
very apt to do it hereafter before their death and not leave it to be
distributed after death; those settlements will be made in the lifetime
of the parties; I do not know as I should say that it will be dimin-
ished; what I want to say is this, that it seems to me almost a scandal
that the State of New York should receive $750,000 in a year in its State
treasury from the county of New York for collateral inheritance taxes
and that this county should pay all the expenses of the collection and
not receive one dollar except in the case of individuals; I do not know
why I should be required to pay out of this miserable pittance that
is given to me for prosecuting these cases, why I should be required
to pay the expense of the preparation of papers; the fund goes into
the State treasury, and it seems to me that the State ought to pay the
expenses of the collection, and the law ought to be modified to that
extent at least; it ought to be taken out of the hands of the district
attorney; he has no business with it.
Q. The district attorney of each county is obliged to prosecute cases
where the taxes are not paid and he believes the taxes are due? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. There is no exception with New York, is there? A. I am further
inclined to agree with Mr. Ivins, that in the country counties the rela-
tion of the district attorney to the county treasurer is so entirely
different from that here the county officers; here we have a dual
government; here we have our State organization; we have a distribu-
tion of our territory in counties which is the only distribution the
State knows of; we have inside of that, and coequal with it in
territory, a municipal government; now, I am a constitutional officer
fixed by our State system and not amenable to the city government
in any way or form, and yet I am to act in conjunction in certain things
with a departmental officer of the city government; that makes my
relation to the comptroller here very different from that of the dis-
trict attorney of a county to the treasurer of a county in the country.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Under natural conditions the chamberlain of this county would
perform those duties? A. Yes; I think the law, in that respect, so far
as it relates to this county, should be changed.
By Senator McNaughton:
Q. Those cases have come directly under your charge? A. Yes,
sir; all of them; the volume of work has been large and Mr. Dospassos
has succeeded in settling a great many disputed questions of law, so
that I think the business is in excellent shape.
2678
[SENATE,
Q. It was the law passed in 1885? A. Yes.
Q. And it was an entirely new law in this State? A. Yes.
Q. That came, I think, from the recommendation of a board of com-
missioners who were asked to revise the laws? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And consequently required more attention than a law that had
been on the statute books for a quarter of a century and had numer-
ous decisions upon it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, it is not unusual for the most able draughtsman, in a
district attorney's office or for the district attorney himself to make
an error or mistake in drawing an indictment? A. Oh, no; of course,
we are all fallible and liable to make mistakes in judgment.
Q. The proportion of errors of that kind in your office has not been
very large as conducted by you, as to errors in drawing indictments?
A. I do not know of any.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. It can be put in this way: Have any of your indictments been
dismissed on demurrer? A. One.
Q. Only one? A. Only one; that in the case of the sheriff's officers
where we indicted for bribery, and we recognized the fact that it was an
exceedingly close question; it was the first time that we were called
upon to interpret the statute in reference to such an act; we drew the
indictment under the only section we could; we knew if that was not
good no indictment could be found, and the court decided that it was
not good; the indictment was good as a pleading.
Q. Did not the grand jury make a presentment on the administra-
tion of the sheriff's office? A. Yes, sir.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Do you think that the number of indictments found by the grand
jury of this city or county is entirely beyond the capacity of the courts
to try? A. Undoubtedly so.
Q. And the accumulation of the cases is beyond the power of the
grand jury to inquire into unless we have special grand juries; unless
we could have two grand juries sitting?
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Is there any reason why we should not? A. We will have to, if
this condition of things goes on; I have hoped for remedial legislation;
these cases for misdemeanors should not be tried in the Court of
Sessions; we have grown to be a city of nearly 2,000,000, and the per-
centage of crime is in excess of the growth of our population, because
No. 80.]
2679
naturally a city of this character invites to it the disorderly elements
from other parts of the country; they can find shelter and security
here for a time in the crowded streets of our city that they can not find
in similar places, and whenever a criminal is hunted down in every
other part of the world and has to leave, he goes to New York, if he
comes to America.
Q. I thought he went to Montreal? A. He goes to New York, and
after he is indicted here he goes to Montreal; but he comes here to com-
mit his crime; so that the growth of crime is large now; we have four-
teen police justices, and we have a court of Special Sessions, and, if
necessary, there can be another court of Special Sessions, and there
seems no reason why this class of cases should not be tried there;
then they could dispose of them, but if they are sent to this district
attorney's office, with the thousands of felonies of a grave character
that we have, we can not try them; it is impossible.
Q. Now, you can not interfere with the grand jury system without
constitutional amendment, can you? A. No.
Q. In no form? A. No.
Q. But there is nothing which prohibits the simultaneous sitting of
two or three, or four grand juries? A. No, sir; none.
Q. As a matter of fact one grand jury in this county is doing the
work of a population of 1,700,000? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Whereas a grand jury of equal strength, and equal ability to
work, has a population, not one-tenth or one-twentieth of its size in
the other counties of the State? A. Yes, sir; apropos of that, will
you let me suggest one difficulty?
Senator MCNAUGHTON.— Certainly.
The WITNESS.-I can have grand juries here; there judges have
always been ready to yield to the request of the district attorney, and
furnish facilities for a grand jury, and the Governor will always act;
but after you have got a grand jury, and you have closed up this
great mass of accumulated business by finding indictments, then you
have merely perpetrated another scandal, a great number of bills of
accusation that we have not facilities for trying.
Q. That is increasing the number there, and above the rate at which
they normally increase, as it is? A. Certainly; you have got then
what is always a reflection on the city, and upon the administration of
justice, a great accumulation of accusations in the form of indictments
we can not try; they might better be dismissed by the limitation of
the law, than to have them accumulate in the form of untried indict-
ments; no; you have got to deal with it more radically than that; our
2680
[SENATE,
Legislature has got to provide new facilities for the trial of those
cases here, or they can not be tried to any great extent.
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. Including excise cases? A. Including excise cases, I mean;
those are the larger part of the cases; where you find by reading that
the police arrested eighty persons a day for violation of the excise law,
you know what that means to a district attorney's office; you can
understand why we can not try them.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Doesn't it spring from this condition of things, that the people
expect an improved administration with a lower tax? A. It may be.
Q. Isn't that about it? A. Very likely.
Q. Isn't it a fact that while your office is held responsible for the
failure to try the 2,000 cases that have accumulated, and that while
the grand juries are not sufficient to find indictments against number-
less law breakers who go untouched altogether, your office is entirely
unequipped, so far as doing the volume of work in a thorough syste-
matic way, which would really result in the actual inforcement of the
law? A. It is; it is simply a physical impossibility for the district
attorney's office, and the courts of this city, to try all the cases;
can not be done.
By Senator McNaughton:
Q. You have co-operated, always, with Dr. Crosby and his friends.
in any suggestion they have had to make in regard to the trial of the
excise cases? A. I have; indeed, Dr. Crosby and Mayor Hewitt and
myself, thoroughly agreed in what was a liberal arrangement of our
excise system, and I think if our suggestions had been adopted very
much of the difficulty that we now experience would have been done
away with; those men who received a license from the State, and are
therefore entitled to the protection of the State while they violate
none of its laws, would have been in a much more comfortable posi-
tion than they are now; they would have known just what was
expected of them; the law would have been in every respect simplified,
and we would have eliminated from it a great many of its idiosyn-
crasies and contradictions which now are discouragements in the way
of its enforcement.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You have an increased appropriation over your predecessors,
have you not? A. Yes, sir.
مان
No. 80.]
2681
{
Q. Have you the figures and data to show that the results of the
work in your office have been commensurate with the increase in the
expenditure? A. Yes, sir; I think so.
Q. Will you give us those? A. I will; it must be remembered that
one of these assistants, as I have told you that $7,500 is required
for the matter of inheritance tax which was unknown to any of my
predecessors.
By Senator McNaughton:
Q. And from which the city derives no direct benefit? A. None
whatever.
Q. And still has to pay the expense? A. The city has to pay the
expense and turns all the money over to the State.
Q. What became of the law formulated by Dr. Crosby and that
commission? A. I put it in the form of a bill; we talked it over and I
put it in the form of a bill and sent it to the Legislature, and I have
forgotten now to what member I sent it; it was referred to the
judiciary committee; I went up there and made some arguments; I do
not think the bills were ever reported from the committee.
Q. You made an argument in favor of the bill? A. Yes, sir; I do
not think it was ever reported from the committee; I do not think it
ever came to the Legislature proper, at all.
Q. And that was known as the commission bill? A. Yes, sir.
Q. The history of that is this: That it was referred to a committee
and they made several amendments and then reported it and the
amendments were not agreed to by Dr. Crosby; Dr. Crosby says he
did not agree to the amendments which the Legislative committee
made—it is immaterial what they were? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. IVINS.-That is all.
ISAAC S. BARRETT, recalled, further testified as follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Have you the minutes of the board of estimate and apportion-
ment for the last four years there? A. I have not the minutes?
Q. You have the final appropriations? A. I have the final estimates.
Q. Just turn to the final estimates for those four years and state
first the aggregate appropriations for the district-attorney's office for
each of those years? A. For the year 1887, the appropriation for the
district attorney's office, for his assistants, clerks, stenographers, sub-
pœna servers and messengers, also including stenographer for the
grand jury, was $98,060; in 1888, for the same purpose, $125,790; for
[Senate, No. 80.]
336
}
2682
[SENATE,
the year 1889, for the same purpose, $125,790; and for the year 1890,
for the same purpose, $119,790.
Q. I find that the appropriation for the contingencies for these four
years was not included in this amount, and I would like to have the
amounts of contingencies during the term of these four years and we
will give the aggregates? A. For contingencies of the district attor-
ney's office, including arrearages of 1886-that is in 1887-$30,000;
in 1888, $45,000; in 1889, $25,000; and in 1890, $15,000.
Q. Those three are sums without the appropriations made during
the time of the pendency of the aldermanic cases? A. Yes, sir.
WILLIAM H. VON GERICHTEN, being called as a witness and duly
sworn, testified as follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. What is your business? A. Deputy chief clerk in the district
attorney's office.
Q. What is your business in the district attorney's office as such
deputy chief clerk? A. To assist in making up the calendars and
attend to the general detail work, such as receiving writs and receiv-
ing papers from magistrates-police court papers.
Q. Colonel Fellows has testified this morning as to the general
method, as he understands it, of putting excise cases on the calendar;
do you make up the calendars? A. Sometimes.
Q. Are you making up the calendars now for instance? A. Not at
present; no.
Q. Who is? A. Mr. Magee.
Q. Have you ever received any directions or instructions from Col-
onel Fellows about making out the calendars? A. Not from Colonel
Fellows; I have not.
Q. From whom have you? A. From Assistant District Attorney
Bedford.
Q. When did you receive instructions from him about making out
the calendars? A. I think it was last Thursday or Friday.
Q. What instructions did he give you? A. He ordered me not to
place any excise cases on any of the calendars.
Q. Did he give you any limit of time within which you was not to
place any excise cases on the calendars? A. That order was to remain
until either he himself or the district attorney rescinded it.
Q. In consequence of which you have not placed any excise cases
on the calendar? A. No.
Q. There are no excise cases now on the calendar? A. No.
No. 80.]
2683
Q. What day did you say that was that order was given you? A.
I think either last Thursday or Friday, I am not sure which.
GUNNING S. BEDFORD, being called as a witness and duly sworn, testi-
fied as follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You are an assistant district attorney? A. I am.
Q. How long have you been such? A. In 1865 I was appointed
assistant district attorney under Mr. Hall; at the expiration of his
term he was re-elected and he reappointed me; then when Mr. Mar-
tine was elected he appointed me; I served under his administration;
when Mr. Fellows was elected he appointed me, and I am now serving
under his administration.
Q. What part of the duties of the office do you perform? A. When
I am an assistant my duties consist in trying cases before juries and
my first duty is to acquit the innocent consequently and convict the
guilty.
Q. What are you when you are not an assistant? A. When I am
not in court trying cases before a jury, then it is in office work that
my chief sees fit to give me; I am now acting district attorney and
have been for about a week.
Q. Will you state by what warrant of law you are acting district
attorney in view of the fact that the district attorney is within the
jurisdiction? A. I do not know by what warrant of law; but I know
that usage is considered warrant of law; Mr. Hall used to appoint
me acting district attorney when he would have to go to Albany.
Q. A. Oakey Hall? A. A. Oakey Hall, and Mr. Martine has appointed
persons to act.
Q. You say when Mr. Hall had to go to Albany? A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Fellows is here? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know of any law which permits any one to act as district
attorney of this city and county, when the district attorney of the city
and county is actually within the county? A. I know this that if the
district attorney has certain duties to perform which require him from
not sitting at the desk, he will tie one of us there down to work, and
the McGonigal case which took me six weeks to prepare and two
weeks before the verdict was rendered which is now before Judge
Barrett, which was to have been argued on Tuesday to see whether
he would under the statute grant a certificate staying proceedings and
keeping this man in the Tombs waiting the Court of Appeals
2684
[SENATE,
*}
Q. What constitutes you acting district attorney? A. You have
asked me a question I would like to answer.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Proceed and make a full explanation.
The WITNESS.-Can I?
Senator MCNAUGHTON.— Yes, make a full explanation.
The WITNESS. Where was I, because I only want to tell the truth
here?
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. I asked you a question and you are going over the face of the
county?
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-Let the witness make such explanation as
he sees fit in regard to his view of the duties of an assistant district
attorney.
Mr. IVINS. That was not the question.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-Let the stenographer read the question.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. The question was this; by what warrant of law he could be
acting district attorney while the district attorney is in the county?
A. I shall now give my explanation; it may go for nothing, or a great
deal; am I permitted ?
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Certainly.
The WITNESS.— After the rendition of the verdict, there was a motion
made before Judge Fitzgerald to grant a new trial; I asked Mr. Fellows,
as he had helped me in the case, to sum it up-I opened the case
and prepared it—he summed it up and I said, you come in here
with me, and we will answer any argument if we deem it necessary;
Mr. Oliver made quite a lengthy argument, and the motion was
denied, and McGonigal was sentenced for fourteen years; on last
Monday, I think the day I was appointed, if I recollect
Q. Now, tell us how you were appointed? A. If you will allow me-
Q. I will stop you when I want to, to know how you were appointed?
A. Well, I am coming to that.
Q. Will you come to it now? A. I am coming to it in my own way.
Mr. IvINS.—I ask the committee whether this witness is going to go
on in his own way, or whether this examination is going to be con-
ducted in the usual way, by question and answer.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.—I think it is being conducted in the usual
way now; he is making a full explanation.
Mr. IVINS.-I have not asked him to make a full explanation; he has
said he has been appointed, and I asked him how he was appointed.
7
No. 80.]
2685
The WITNESS.-I am coming to it.
Mr. IVINS.-I want it now.
The WITNESS.—You will have it if you are patient; I am talking as
rapidly as I can.
Mr. IvINS.-Yes; and you are talking too rapidly.
The WITNESS.-Then I will talk more slowly and you will have to
wait longer.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-The witness seems to be fair.
The WITNESS.-Yes sir; I am very glad to have this opportunity to
appear before this committee; now, I will go on again.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-Proceed.
The WITNESS.-There were motion papers brought before Judge
Barrett for us to show cause why Mr. McGonigal should not have a
stay, and be kept in the Tombs until the Court of Appeals could
decide this case; I then said to Mr. Fellows, "I want you to prepare
this case; to look up all the questions of law;" he said, "I have a
great many other things to attend to about the office, and I want you
then to take charge"- the expression about acting is, “sit at the
desk;" that was the whole thing, and I have sat at the desk ever since,
and have done my best to do what I think is right as acting district
attorney.
Q. And you are now in charge? A. No, sir; I am under you now.
Q. Who is in charge? A. Mr. Fellows is waiting for me, ten to one.
Q. Does the district attorney and the acting district attorney
happen to be the man who sits at the desk? A. The acting district
attorney takes the desk and he is responsible for everything that
occurs in that office and in the court room.
Q. Does the fact that he takes the desk constitute him acting as the
district attorney? A. No, sir; but if the chief says, "Take the desk
and act for me," that makes me acting district attorney.
Q. Do you then sign as an acting district attorney when the chief
has asked you to take the desk? A. Why, I think I have made it
plain; he told me, “ You take and sit here; take the desk and conduct
everything," and that makes me acting district attorney.
Q. Do you sign as acting district attorney under those circum-
stances? A. What do you mean by signing?
Q. Do you sign the papers that come before you? A. Yes, sir;
when I am not acting, I put "assistant" district attorney, and on
every other paper I put "acting" district attorney.
Q. When you are sitting at the district attorney's desk under his
request, do you sign the documents "acting district attorney?" A.
Unquestionably.
2686
[SENATE,
Q. Always? A. Every bail bond to the best of my recollection;
perhaps I might put "assistant" to something, but I always endeavor
to put, and I do not think I have ever made a mistake yet, that I have
always put "acting district attorney," and I think I have signed fifty
bail bonds in the last week, and you will see "Gunning S. Bedford,
acting district attorney;" "district attorney" is always in print, and
I either have to put "assistant" or "acting," because sometimes the
bail bond will be brought in the General Sessions when I am trying
a case, and I will just sign it, because the judge who is sitting there
takes the bond.
Q. Suppose Mr. Fellows is in court in the trial of a case, and as
such is acting as district attorney? A. In that case; yes.
Q. Do you sit at his desk and sign papers with the suffix "acting
district attorney?" A. "Acting" district attorney, not "axing"
district attorney.
Q. What is the matter with your tongue? A. I am trying to
imitate you.
Q. Do you think it is any part of a witness coming here seriously,
to try to imitate counsel? A. You asked me the reason, and I want
to answer you everything squarely.
Q. Do you think it is any part of your business to imitate counsel?
A. Perhaps I was wrong in that.
Q. I think you were? A. But I want to answer the last question,
please.
Q. Now answer it. A. I will explain to you; I take all that back;
we won't get mixed.
Q. You are trying to run this investigation and this examination,
instead of answering questions as they are put; now I purpose to let
you go ahead in your own way. A. What was the last question?
[The stenographer read the last question as follows: "Do you sit
at his desk and sign papers with the suffix "acting district attorney?"]
A. Mr. Fellows is in the court for instance; he was in court, I think,
five or six weeks, if I recollect, in the McQuade trial; during all that
time he put me at the desk to conduct and run the business of the
office, because he was, I think, from five to six weeks from the first
commencement of getting a jury, until the verdict, and he was then
acting as district attorney in the McQuade case, and he put me there
to act as he would act if he were there, and not in the district
attorney's office.
Q. Now, let me make a specific case; suppose Mr. Fellows was in court
in the trial of the McGonigal case? A. We were both there; we tried
that case together.
No. 80.]
2687
Q. Now, you are volunteering something that is not pertinent to
my question and is entirely immaterial to the issue which I now pro-
pose to make? A. He is assuming a state of facts.
Q. I am assuming that Mr. Fellows is in the court in the trial of the
McGonigal case or the X Y Z case or any other case, and as such is
actually within the county, acting as the district attorney of the
county; that you or some other assistant district attorney is in the
office occupying the desk in the district attorney's room; could you or
such other person so occupying that desk sign the provisional
estimates as acting district attorney, do you think I do not say that
you did it; I ask you if you think that you would have the power to
do that? A. May I explain ?
Q. Certainly. A. On several occasions that very proposition has
been made to me; but as I do not understand that particular work, I
have always said I owe it to Mr. Fellows to look over those and sign it.
By Senator McNaughton:
Q. You have never signed one of those under the conditions that
Mr. Ivins described? A. The estimate of the office?
Q. Yes. A. Never, sir; I have always said to the persons that
wanted any pay the other day, for instance, the grand jury's
stenographer's bill was something like $200 for taking notes, and he
wanted me to sign it, and I said, "no; there it is on the desk for Mr.
Fellows;" I did that as a matter of courtesy; I suppose I would have
the power, as you ask me, but I do that as a matter of courtesy,
because I do not know about the money matters of the office; the con-
tingent fund is always requested by the district attorney and made
out and every appropriation, etc.; so I have always referred it to him
as a matter of courtesy.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Did you, as acting district attorney, Mr. Fellows being in the
city on Thursday of last week, give orders to Deputy Clerk
Von Gerichten not to put any excise cases on the calendar? A. Until
further orders, I did.
Q. Did you tell him not to put any on until further orders, either
from yourself or the district attorney? A. I did so that if Mr.
Fellows should happen to countermand me it would be all right.
Q. What was your reason for giving that order? A. I will tell you;
on Monday, the twenty-first, there were 346 prisoners in the Tombs;
on last Tuesday there were 364 prisoners in the Tombs; on last
2688
[SENATE,
Wednesday there were 356 prisoners in the Tombs; on Thursday, yes-
terday, there were 328; there are in many cells two prisoners, each
one held there for felony; there are 120 male prisoners in the tombs;
there are ten females held for felonies, awaiting the action of the grand
jury and trial by a petty jury in the General Sessions; there are only
300 cells in the Tombs; the daily average of prisoners, taking them
all, drunks, as we call them, and everything, average in the Tombs as
inmates, 370 daily.
Q. For what period is that average made? A. It is since I was
acting district attorney.
Q. That is the average since you began to act as district attorney?
A. Oh, the average has been that for two or three years, I suppose;
these are the warden's figures.
Q. Well, is that average higher than the average a month ago? A.
That I am not able to answer; if I had been acting district attorney
then, I could answer it, for I then would see to everything; if I had
been appointed I would have been able to give you the figures; the
reason why I directed that no excise cases should be put upon a
calendar when I was appointed acting district attorney, is, that this
October term is rapidly drawn to a close, and I learn that the fact was
that there were so many prisoners in the Tombs awaiting trial, and
two of them in a cell, which is at least demoralizing; two in a cell,
instead of one
Senator MCNAUGHTON.— What you mean is, many cells containing
two prisoners?
The WITNESS.-Two prisoners in each cell; many cells containing
two prisoners; thank you, that is what I mean; I then said "do not
put on any excise cases, but try and put on all the prisoners, so as to
relieve the cells;" now, I might state here, Mr. Ivins, that the reason
that the bail cases and I take this responsibility on myself - the
reason the bail cases are not more rapidly and promptly tried, and in
fact all their cases, not only the excise cases, but I dare say if you will
kindly send over to our office, you will find by the records that there
are not thirty per cent of bail cases tried in a month, simply because
we have not got courts enough or judges enough; I say that when
the Legislature will see fit to give us in the General Sessions three or
more judges, so that we can take and run five branches a day, instead
of three, then the people will be satisfied, because then we can dispose
of excise cases and all bail cases.
Q. Will you let me see those figures? A. Yes, sir; there they are.
[Handing paper to Mr. Ivins.]
No. 80.]
2689
Q. Now, we can not discuss the whole subject at once; we have got
to take it in sections? A. All right, sir; any way you wish.
Q. Do you know what the average number of prisoners in the Tombs
is daily; I mean from month to month? A. No, sir; but whenever I
have been acting district attorney I could tell you.
Q. Do you know that those figures are unusually large figures,
or are they just about the average figures? A. I can not say; I
only came here to be responsible for what I have done and know
while acting as district attorney.
Q. Do you think it was a duty of humanity on your part on Thursday
of last week to have excluded any excise cases from the calendar in
order that prison cases should be given preference? A. I say so, and
you certainly concur with me as a law-abiding citizen, don't you.
Q. That was a duty of humanity of your office, was it not? A. That
I considered to be my duty as a prosecuting officer of this county.
Q. Will you tell me why it was not done before and the prisoners
allowed to be so full? A. That is a matter for others to answer; I
did not put the prisoners there; I do not know what put the prisoners.
there.
Q. Can you tell me why a provision was not made at an earlier date
to keep those excise cases off the calendar? A. I will tell you what
I did in July, if you will allow me.
Q. Did you not have 100 excise cases stricken off? A. One hun-
dred and twenty-five, I believe; but allow me to go on with the explan-
ation; in July or August I was acting as district attorney, and we
were all on a volcanic eruption of a riot; the Central road had struck
and it was reported to me that the surface roads were going to strike,
and the grand jury-in the first place, bail cases are rarely ever sent
to the grand jury in July or August; the presiding judge as part of
his grand jury charge tells the grand jury that there is only one
branch in July and August, all the other months three, and therefore
the court is held open, for the relief of prison cases, and that they
should take up the prison cases and no bail cases; bail cases are never
tried before a petty jury in July and August; I was sitting there, and the
grand jury wished 100 or 125 cases put on; as soon as it was brought to
my notice even the subpoenas were made out-I said, no; well, why
not? I said no, for this reason, that there is a strike going on and at
any time a riot may break out with the New York Central and the sur-
face cars; there may be a riot; 125 excise cases require 125 police-
men to be brought down to the grand jury on one and the same day,
and I would not take the risk in those days, where we did not know
[Senate, No. 80.]
337
2690
[SENATE,
what an hour might bring forth; I would not allow 125 policemen to
be brought down on one particular day during that strike; but I
believe, if I remember correctly, there were fifteen or twenty cases
before the grand jury, and I think they dismissed all but three on the
ground that they were not legal arrests, if I remember aright.
Q. Let us get the date right; you are perfectly confident that this
was all as incident to the strike of the employes of the Central rail-
road? A. I am positive that if there had been no strike I would
have told the jury it was a very peculiar thing to put 125 excise cases
on in July or August.
Q. Well, now, is it not the fact that that strike occurred in
its initial stages about between the twenty-second and the twenty-fifth
of August, and that only assumed its most dangerous shape after the
beginning of your September term? A. I do not know, sir; I do not
carry dates.
Q. Now, is it not a fact, that you ordered those cases struck off the
calendar only within the past five or six weeks? A. What is this?
Q. Those 125 cases? A. It was during the strike; it was before
the strike was settled.
Q. That was during the past four or five weeks, and not in June as
stated? A. I beg your pardon, I said July or August.
Q. Well, the strike began in the last end of August and it assumed
its most dangerous aspect the beginning of September? A. That
was the time; I do not think I said June; I said July or August.
Q. It is possible that I was in error about your saying June?
Very well.
Q. Do
you ever receive a written designation as acting district
attorney? A. An appointment in writing?
Q. Yes. A. No, sir.
A.
Q. Well, suppose the question were to be raised as to whether or
not you signed by authority, it being shown that Mr. Fellows was in
the city at the time, how would it be possible to prove that your act
was an authoritative act, Mr. Fellows being here in the performance
of the duties of his office, and you signing as acting district attorney?
A. Well, there are six on Colonel Fellows' staff; I have the honor to
be one of those six; and I believe the first thing each one of those six
must do is to obey orders without questioning the authority, and I
obey orders when he tells me to take that desk and act; that is all I
have to say; and whether the question will be raised whether I could
act or not, that is for a higher tribunal.
No. 80.]
2691
By Senator MCNAUGHTON:
Q. It never has been raised? A. No, sir; not for twenty-five years.
Q. Has that been the practice for twenty-five years? A. Yes, sir;
under Mr. Martin and Mr. Oakey Hall, and I served two terms.
Mr. IVINS. Is that any reason why it should not be raised if it
should be found to be irregular?
The WITNESS.-Certainly not; you can raise any question.
Adjourned to Tuesday, October 28th, at 11 a. M.
2692
[SENATE,
NAME,
1
;
EXHIBIT I- OCTOBER 24, 1890.
DEPARTMENTAL ESTIMATE FOR THE YEAR OF 1891.
Residence.
Official designation.
Salary
per annum.
John R. Fellows
John W. Goff
Gunning S. Bedford
McKenzie Semple
Vernon M. Davis.
Benj. F. Dos Passos.
A. D. Parker
John D. Lindsay
Wm. Travers Jerome.
A. H. H. Dawson.
Henry D. Macdona.
Henry Hartman
Edward Grosse..
Charles J. McGee.
David Anderson
Wm. H. Von Gerichten
George C. Banzar.
Andrew Fay
Henry Alexander
John Huntley
Terrence J. McManus
Henry Merzbach
John W. Reilly
152d street and Boulevard.
679 East 135th street.
66 Fifth avenue
129 East Twenty-third street.
109 West 129th street
43 West Eighty-second street
842 East 164th street.
106 West 133d street
33 West Nineteenth street
122d street and Seventh avenue
4 East Forty-ninth street
322 West 157th street
140 East Sixteenth street
District attorney
Assistant district attorney
Assistant district attorney
Assistant district attorney
Assistant district attorney
Assistant district attorney
Assistant district attorney
Deputy assistant district attorney
Deputy assistant district attorney
Deputy assistant district attorney
Deputy assistant district attorney
Deputy assistant district attorney..
Deputy assistant district attorney
Deputy assistant and chief clerk
Secretary and recognizance clerk.
Deputy chief clerk.
$12,000
7,500
.
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
•
4,500
4,000
4,000
3,500
3,500
3,500
3,000
2,000
(
2,000
Grand jury clerk
1,500
Stenographer
1,500
Clerk
1,200
Clerk
150th street and Tinton avenue
161 East Fifty-seventh street.
270 West Thirty-seventh street.
3 Bank street.
1,200
Clerk
1,200
Indictment clerk
1,200
Clerk
1,000
Clerk
1,200
472 Sixth avenue
2414 Second avenue
31 Dominick street.
439 East Twenty-second street
83 Madison street.
46 Dominick street
•
Florence Gould.
John J. Carroll
Thomas A. Maguire
Jacob Dubert
Charles J. Lyons
Abraham Marks
James H. Driscoll.
William Gallagher.
Peter J. Boylan.
Cornelius Leary
Eugene S. Isaacks
Jacob Schaeffler
James Smith
•
Daniel Sheehan.
John J. Madden
George J. Radford
Oscar A. Baere
Peter J. Kelley
John H. Donohue
Total
435 Grand street
29 City Hall place
207 Hester street
239 East Fifty-fourth street
27 North Moore street
113 West Fifty-sixth street
195 East Houston street
304 East Thirty-Eighth street
229 East Eighty-second street
325 West Twenty-first street
Central Park Casino
256 East Thirty-third street.
20 Vestry street
624 East 145th street
245 Clinton street
Typewriter.
Subpoena server
388 East Fourth street
Subpoena server
1,000
1,200
1,200
161 Essex street
Subpoena server
1,200
No. 80.]
656 Second avenue
Subpoena server
1,200
Subpoena
server
1,200
Subpoena
server
1,200
Subpoena server
1,200
1
Subpoena
server
1,300
Subpoena server
1,200
Subpoena server
1,200
Subpoena server
1,200
Subpoena server
1,200
A
Subpoena server
1,200
Subpoena server
1,200
Special messenger
1,200
Messenger
1,200
2693
Messenger
1,200
233 East Twenty-eighth street.
Messenger
750
$119,150
}
!
2694
[SENATE,
NEW YORK, October 28, 1890.
Present Senators McNaughton, Ahearn, Birkett, Deane (Fassett
later).
Mr. IVINS.—If the committee please, I, acting in behalf of the com-
mittee, yesterday afternoon visited the board of police and notified.
the commissioners that the investigation of their department would
be taken up to-day, and incidentally I asked them if they would allow
the committee to use the large room in that building for the conduct
of this particular investigation, inasmuch as it would very much
facilitate the work of the committee, in my judgment, and cause them
the least inconvenience under all the circumstances; and I understood
from the gentlemen that there would be no objection to that-
Commissioner MCLEAN.- Not only that, but we said we would accord
it to you with pleasure.
Mr. IVINS (continuing). And the commissioners then said that when
we met this morning they proposed to make a motion for an adjourn-
ment of this investigation, so far as their department was concerned.
That being the case, they being here, I have nothing further to say
until they are heard from.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Well, the commissioner will state the case.
Commissioner MCLEAN. My recollection of what we said to your
counsel was practically this: That while we were unwilling to delay
the investigation in anywise, we were quite ready to have the investi-
gation proceed at once; that it came at a time scarcely opportune for
us, inasmuch as the new election law, chapter 262, Laws of 1890,
requires very constant attention from ourselves. We presume that
the members of the committee are even more familiar with that law
than ourselves, because they knew about it earlier and passed it. But
it constrains us now to give almost unremitted attention to it. You
are aware that to-day is the day when the ballots, the sample ballots
of a different color from the original, are to be ready. The law con-
strains us not only to examine those ballots in effect, but it also con-
strains us, whenever we discover any defect or anything wrong about
them, to immediately correct it. The number of ballots to be issued
throughout the city is very large. Although the county clerk has
certain duties, and the printer has certain duties really in respect to
that, we each of us have practically to be responsible for the correct-
ness of those ballots. Then the equipment of the several voting
places must be looked after. The equipment for the registration is
one thing and the voting is another. We not only have to put these
booths there, but we have to provide guard rails and everything of
that kind. In fact the requirements of the statute are in many respects
No. 80.]
2695
so novel that each new perusal we discover something which must be
looked after which we had hardly taken into due consideration before.
So each of the commissioners for I speak for Mr. Voorhees, who is
now absent looking after some of the details, especially as to the
detail of the voting places, as well as Mr. McClave and Mr. Martine
and myself each of the commissioners is quite willing to defer to
the judgment of the committee, and to present himself before the
committee for examination. But we state this to you so you can
determine for yourselves whether it be opportune to continue the
examination at this time.
Mr. IVINS.- In your judgment, Mr. McLean, would the calling of
any one commissioner, the investigation being held at police head-
quarters, seriously retard the work of the board or interfere with me?
Commissioner MCLEAN. For myself, I am not going to set up any
matter of judgment. I am going to leave it entirely with the com-
mittee.
Mr. IVINS. But that would be the question, would it not, for the
committee to determine. If the calling of any one witness and of
course we would never have more than one witness on the stand at a
time were to be a serious drawback for the proper performance by
this board of its duties, I for one should advocate the position taken
by the commissioners themselves. If, on the other hand, it is possible,
without interfering with the work of that board, to have one com-
missioner on the stand to-day, and another for another day, and so on
until the commissioners have been examined, and in that way a basis
laid for the more complete and thorough investigation of the depart-
ment in detail, all without the actual interference with the proper
performance by the board of its duties, then I see no reason why we
should not go on. If, on the other hand, the calling either of Mr.
McLean for a day, or the calling of Mr. Voorhees for a day, were going
to interfere with that work, prevent necessary steps being taken to
carry out and enforce these provisions of the ballot act, then, it seems
to me, that the committee would have no recourse whatever, except to
grant the application for an adjournment. I think it all depends on
that one question as to whether or not Mr. McLean's being on the
stand, or Mr. Martine's being on the stand, is going to interfere with
the work of the board as a board and the commissioners as a body.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Well, Mr. Ivins, it seems to me to be very
proper if one commissioner was examined that the other should be
present. They have no means, except through the public press-and
the reports are not very full of ascertaining what has or has not
been testified to, and in all the proceedings here where certain depart-
2696
[SENATE,
1.
J
ments have been examined, other members of the department have
been present and listened to the testimony.
Commissioner MARTINE. Very natural that we should be present
at the examination of any one of the commissioners.
Senator MCNAUGHTON. So that it would seem to me that if one
were to be present the others naturally should be present to enable
them to shorten their testimony when they came on the stand and
avoid long explanations.
Mr. IVINS.— The only question, it seems to me, is the question,
whether or not the conduct of the investigation at this time is
going to seriously hamper them in their work. If it is, certainly
no one has a deeper interest in the successful operation of this
new ballot reform law than I myself have than this committee
has. There is no individual in the community, in the police
board, or anyone else who takes a greater interest in that than
any single one of the members of this committee, and necessarily
because it is the greatest of all public duties now devolving upon the
city government, possibly upon any department of the State.
Commissioner MCCLAVE.— Mr. Chairman, as a member of that board,
that commission, and of a different political complexion from my col-
league who has made this motion, I desire to say that I fully concur
in everything that he has said in connection with this matter; and I
further desire to add that while the board of police commissioners
will be very glad indeed to receive with open arms this committee,
and afford them every possible convenience that it is possible for
them to grant them to enable them to perform the duties which have
been assigned to their lot, yet we do believe that at this particular
time, owing to the peculiar embarassments and circumstances con-
nected with the new ballot reform law, that certain duties are devolved
upon the board of police commissioners that would make it absolutely
improper for this committee to go on with this examination at this
time. I do not believe that it would be possible for us to be able to
give the attention requisite to an examination of that department prior
to election, without placing ourselves in a position where we ourselves
would be subject to criticism, because of the fact that we were not
performing the duty which we were directed to do under this new
law. And I believe further, Mr. Chairman, I believe that if this com-
mittee should undertake to force this department to go to an investi-
gation at this particular time, right in the midst of this election, that
they themselves would be subject to a criticism which I am not sure
that they would not be deserving of, and we ourselves would be sub-
ject to a criticism, because we are not able to perform the duty which
No. 80.]
2697
the law assigns to our lot. And I do hope that motion which has been
made by the president of our board-that while speaking for our-
selves personally, as individuals, we have no desire to postpone for
one hour this investigation, yet, as public officials, having certain
duties to perform, that we do feel that this investigation should be
postponed until a reasonable time after election.
Mr. IVINS. At what time after the election, if it be postponed, will
the board be in a position to go on actively prosecuting the investi-
gation from day to day until it is completed.
Commissioner MCLEAN. - Any day that suits the committee. On
Wednesday morning.
Senator MCNAUGHTON. I understand the application is not made
with any view to retard the examination otherwise than as their
official duties in connection with the new ballot reform law requires
their attendance otherwise.
Commissioner MCLEAN. If the committee please, I prefer it should
not be an application from us. My own intention was merely to state,
for the advisement of the committee, the facts of the case and leave it
to the committee to pursue the course which in its own responsibility
it being proper. So far as the commissioners are concerned, if the
committee decide to go on, we are here, at least so far as I am con-
cerned; I shall make no application on motion to the committee.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-That I understand to be the case; that you
make no motion to have your examination postponed until some sub-
sequent day, but you make a statement of facts, and upon that you
leave it to the committee to decide what is best to be done.
Commissioner MCLEAN.- Entirely.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Of course, we all know the embarrassment
that proceeds from the new ballot law. The scores of interpretations
given to it by the Attorney-General, given to it by the public press
and by lawyers throughout the country, and by judges, would lead
almost any one to know that the questions arising are very embarras-
sing and that it involves an entirely new system of voting, and one
that will require your particular attention in this city. And, speaking
for myself, I can see that it would be unjust to you to ask that you be
present at this time. I can see further from my standpoint that when
your examination proceeds, it would be proper for all to be present,
shorten labors.
Commissioner MCLEAN.- The examination of one would be practi-
cally the examination of all.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Yes. And after conferring with Senator
Deane -
[Senate, No. 80.]
338
ने
2698
[SENATE,
;
Mr. IVINS. If you will pardon me a minute. I would like to call
the committee's attention to this fact: If this committee were to see.
fit to aid the police commissioners themselves in the enforcement of
the ballot law by calling some of their captains for the purpose of
discovering what work has been done by those police captains them-
selves, in order either to prevent fraudulent registration and ascertain
what steps have been taken to prevent fraudulent voting on election
day, whether or not the calling of such captains would in any way
interfere with the performance of this board of the duties to which it
had referred.
Senator MCNAUGHTON. Mr. Ivins, has there been any charge that
there has been any attempt made
.?
Mr. IVINS.— The charge has not only been made, but I now have in
my possession a list of 600 lodging-houses in this city, and from one
of those lodging-houses a police inspector has told me that there are
thirteen persons registered, although there is not a bed in the house.
And I have heard of other cases of the same kind in the list of 600
houses. Nothing can be more important in this investigation than
the discovery in the manner in which the police officers enforced the
laws with regard to registration, and the law with regard to voting, so
far as lies in their power. It is one of things that has necessarily to
be considered by this committee in an investigation of the police.
department before that investigation can be properly concluded.
Now, the question arises, will refraining from calling the police com-
missioners at this time, and refraining from the calling of inspectors
at this time, necessitate also the refraining from calling captains and
sergeants and others in the precincts who ought to have, if they have
,not, knowledge of the condition surrounding this as well as all other
elections held in their precincts, as incident to these complaints.
Senator MCNAUGHTON. This is the intimation that I have had of any ·
charges of that kind. It seems to me it would be better to have an
executive meeting of the committee, either this afternoon or to-mor-
row morning, and submit to them such proof as you have of that and
let them consider then what is best to be done.
Mr. IVINS. That is entirely satisfactory to me. The only question
is this: Whether or not calling some of these sergeants and calling
some of these captains would also fall in the field of argument pre-
sented by the commissioners with the work of the board by calling
the commissioners at this time.
Commissioner MCLEAN.—The instance which my friend the counsel
has mentioned, is merely one of those discoveries which are made
under the common practice of the board prior to every election, to
No. 80.]
2699
a very rigid scrutiny of the registration and of the readiness of voters.
so as to discover instances of this kind which are certified to as
promptly as possible to the other authorities, so that they shall there
be presented and the persons punished. I think, if inquiry should be
made, very many more instances of that kind would be found. The
board of police regularly, before every election, requires such examina-
tion to be made and such scrutiny to be had, so that any false
registration or any attempt to evade the laws relative to registration
and voting shall be discovered and prevented.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Those matters are reported to you by the
police sergeants and captains, are they not?
Commissioner MCLEAN. Some of them are; they go to the super-
intendent under the general authority of the board that this investiga-
tion shall be made and steps should be taken to suspend the violation
of the law on the one hand and looking toward the punishment of the
offenders on the other.
Mr. IVINS. So far as that question is concerned, I think your
suggestion, that if it be left to the committee to decide in an executive
session whether that shall be taken up as a partial investigation for
the time being of the police department, would entirely cover the case.
In view of what has been said by the police commissioners themselves
as to the possible interference with their most important work, if they
be called away from it, I for one shall interpose no objection whatever
to the granting of their motion.
Commissioner MCLEAN.- It is not a motion.
Mr. IVINS.- Well
Commissioner MCLEAN.- Decision upon statements made.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- They make a statement of facts, and upon
that they asked us to postpone.
Mr. IvINS. To the delay of this inquest, so far as concerns their
department, until after election is over, so far as concerned their
department, other than I have specifically referred,
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Would you care, Mr. Commissioner, to
express an opinion in regard to subpoenaing the police captains and
sergeants, about interfering with their duties, which you have pre-
scribed and which they are now carrying out?
Commissioner MCLEAN. If they were subpoenaed as a whole it
would, but if there be any such specific things as the counsel has
mentioned which the committee would deem it wise to look into, we
are perfectly willing that that should be done, taking the persons one
by one instead of making a wholesale subpoena of a large number of
persons, withdrawing them from their other duties.
2700
[SENATE,
Senator MCNAUGHTON. That we can take up in executive session.
Mr. IVINS. We can arrange to call one captain at a time, and pos-
sibly subpœna two or three sergeants at a time, so that the committee
should not be without witnesses.
Commissioner MCLEAN.—I see no objection to that.
Mr. IVINS. And further than that the committee may determine not
to take that matter up at all; but I simply at this particular time call
those facts to the attention of this committee, because, as I say, I have
had certified to me over 600 houses from which it is charged there
has been fraudulent registrations and from which it is charged, there
is proposed to be fraudulent voting in a very large number, and con-
cerning which it is also charged the necessary preliminary steps have
not been taken by the police to prevent this registration, particularly
in view of the fact of this recent census, which shows that from
these various houses in which the census shows there are only two or
three or four residents for the purpose of the census, there now
appear to be a large number for the purpose of registry and voting.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Which census do you refer to?
Mr. IVINS. The census taken by the mayor and by the police
department.
Commissioner MCLEAN.- If it please the committee
we have
detained the committee longer than we have intended to — but if the
committee or its counsel can show us in anywise that the measures
which the board has taken or are taken for the prevention of the
violation of the registration of election laws, and the new ballot act
are inactive we shall be very grateful to the committee for pointing
them out. The inquiry is made as systematically as our arrangements
will permit as to such false registration. The way in which they are
prevented is not usually made very public, but I will say as one thing
which usually escapes the attention, that a large number of warrants
are prepared; they are issued and ready for services upon the person
in case they appear on election morning or on election day, prepared
to vote. The members of the committee are well aware that a person
can put this vote in if he pleases to swear it in, if he will incur the
pains and penalty of perjury, he can have his vote put into the ballot
box, but the retribution follows immediately after the service of the
warrant in most cases.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-Well, it may be necessary for one of the
members of the board of commissioners to meet with the committee
when they are in executive session, to make such suggestions as they
see fit, and I suppose it will be convenient for you if we notify you
to meet with us.
No. 80.]
2701
Commissioner MCLEAN. Yes, sir, undoubtedly; I suppose one of
us can be present on that occasion.
Mr. IVINS.—I think it would rather be more important if one
of the commissioners, in case this committee in executive session
decides to take up this matter, that then, after having so decided,
in case it does so decide, it would be more important to have one
of the commissioners here for ten or fifteen minutes to explain in
general terms what steps are taken by the board for the purpose of
preventing the commission of this sort of crime, in order that may be
spread upon our minutes regularly as testimony, and as a point of
departure for the investigation or inquiry; but it will not take longer
than fifteen or twenty minutes in my judgement, of any one of the
commissioners.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-Yes, but if the commissioners were to be
possessed of the facts which you suggest, then they make some
Mr. IVINS. The assumption, sir, is that they are not only possessed
of many more facts than I have. That is the assumption in many
cases, although I have found out during the past six months that
in many cases it is very much easier for me to come in the posses-
sion of facts, apparently, than it is for the police board to.
Senator MCNAUGHTON. That remains to be seen.
Commissioner MCLEAN.— This is getting to be desultory, but we
would be very pleased to assist the committee and supplement the
efforts of the committee in making use of all the facts we have, in
regard to the maintenance of the statute, and the prevention of the
violations of the law.
Senator MCNAUGHTON. Upon consultation with the members
present, we decided unanimously, I believe, to postpone the examina-
tion of the police commissioners until after election; although the day
is not yet fixed, but until after election at all events.
Mr. IVINS.— That is, as a department?
Senator MCNAUGHTON.— As a department; yes.
Commissioner MCLEAN.- Then we will retire, and if the committee
desires to have any one present
Senator MCNAUGHTON. We will notify you.
Mr. IVINS.—If the committee please, I have subpoenaed no other
witnesses for the day, and expected that the entire day would be
taken in the examination of the president of the board of police, and
the adjournment having been granted, I have no other witnesses here
to call before the committee. Such being the case, I suggest that we
adjourn until to-morrow.
2702
[SENATE,
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Before we adjourn to-day, I should like to
call the attention of the committee to a circular which I received by
mail; this is a copy of it. It may be proper to spread that informa-
tion upon the record. I do not take any notice, very much, of
anonymous communication, but this seems to be from a party —
Mr. IVINS. Is that the circular from Mr. Laird?
Senator MCNAUGHTON.
Yes.
""
Mr. IVINS. Mr. Laird if the committee wish, I will subpoena Mr.
Laird for to-morrow morning. The proper way, Mr. Laird, to testify
before this committee, as the proper way for any one to testify before
it-I notice that this is a letter which appears to be a "round robin'
written to divers newspaper editors, to the Senate committee, to
counsel and others—if Mr. Laird has anything to say, I think it is
entirely proper that he should come here and say it under oath.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Well, Mr. Laird has done in this particular
what fifty other people have done - have called the attention of the
committee to certain things, and when the attention of the committee
was called to it, they have usually followed it up.
Mr. IVINS. And in every case where that has been done, it has been
followed up by calling the party himself in the first instance, the party
complainant.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.-Not in every instance.
Mr. IVINS.— Well, I know of none.
Senator MCNAUGHTON.- Well, I know nothing of the facts connected
with the circular except I have the circular itself, but it seems to be
something worth calling attention to.
Senator FASSETT.-You can subpoena Mr. Laird, and bring him here,
Mr. Ivins. We will adjourn till to-morrow morning at 11 o'clock, and
in the meantime the meeting will go into executive session.
Adjourned to October 29, 1890, at 11 o'clock.
NEW YORK, October 29, 1890.
Present Senators Fassett, McNaughton, Ahearn and Deane.
Senator FASSETT.-Are you ready to proceed, Mr. Ivins?
Mr. IVINS.-Yes.
Mr. FINDLEY.-Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee -
Senator FASSETT.— One moment; what is the name, please?
Mr. FINDLEY.-I am Mr. Findley, counsel for the fire department; I
am informed that it is the intention of the committee to take up the
matter of the fire department this morning. Mr. Purroy, the presi-
dent of the department, wished me to say to the committee that
No. 80.]
2703
although he has not been formally subpoenaed to appear here this
morning, he is before the board of estimate and apportionment in the
mayor's office, and will attend at any moment before the committee if
his presence here is desired, and you send word to him. Mr. Eickhoff
and Mr. Robbins are there also, and will attend at any time the
committee desires their presence.
Mr. IVINS.-We will send for one at a time. It is not necessary for
all to be here at once. We will send for Mr. Eickhoff first.
Mr. FINDLEY.I would, if the committee please, beg the privilege of
being permitted to appear before your committee on behalf of the fire
department, and to ask any questions that seem to me necessary in
order to throw any light upon the subject.
Mr. IVINS.—Mr. Findley stands in a different relation from that
which has been occupied by most of the counsel that have appeared
here before the committee. He is the official counsel of the fire
department, and as such, I, for one, would welcome his help.
Senator FASSETT. There is no objection whatever to his appearing
here, but I do not know whether he has noticed in what way the com-
mittee has heretofore permitted counsel to attend; that is, it must
always be remembered that counsel is here by the courtesy of the
committee to assist the committee, and not in any manner in the
capacity of lawyers who attend court to try cases.
Mr. FINDLEY. -I understand that the department is not on trial, and
that I am simply here for the purpose of assisting the committee.
Senator FASSETT.-We do not want to fall into any error in that
regard, and I think you can be very useful to us.
Mr. FINDLEY.-I understand that, Mr. Chairman, and will be pleased
to assist the committee in any way.
HENRY E. TATE, recalled.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. I asked you to prepare a statement showing the total payments
made from January 1, 1884, to May 1, 1889, on account of the fire
department for apparatus furnished, materials furnished, supplies,
labor, etc., in sums exceeding $100 at one time, but not including
payments on account of contracts for building new engine-houses or
rebuilding old ones; have you prepared such a statement?
Yes, sir.
A.
Q. This is the statement [handing paper to witness] ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. This is the summary [handing paper to witness]? A. Yes, sir.
Q. This is the summary of the statement? A. Yes, sir.
2704
[SENATE,
2
Q. And this is a detailed list of vouchers of each of the parties to
whom payments have been made [handing paper to witness]? A.
Yes, sir.
[The two first papers marked respectively Exhibits 1 and 2 of this
date.]
Mr. IvINS.-The detailed statement, which is summarized in the
other two, I will simply keep for the purpose of reference, but will not
spread it upon the minutes, because it is entirely too voluminous, and
there is no necessity for it.
Senator FASSETT.—What are they?
Mr. IvINS.- Simply a list of vouchers.
Senator FASSETT.-You do not care to make an exhibit of these?
Mr. IVINS.- No, sir.
*
Senator FASSETT.-You just introduce that for the purpose of reference
and investigation further on?
Mr. IVINS.-Yes, sir.
1
Senator FASSETT.-I think it is just as well as to cumber up the
minutes.
Q. From what sources are the lists and these statements made? A.
They are taken from copies of the City Record, which contain quarterly
reports of the auditor of warrants paid for the quarter.
Q. And these are correct transcripts and summaries of these
particular items? A. Yes, sir.
ANTHONY EICHKOFF, called as a witness, being duly sworn, testified
as follows:
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Mr. Eichkoff, what is your business? A. My present business is
that of fire commissioner.
Q. Is that your only business? A. That is my only business.
Q. And you are now devoting yourself entirely to the affairs of the
fire department? A. The fire department.
Q. How long have you been a fire commissioner? A. Since, I
believe, the 3d of May, 1889.
Q. What was your business before you became a fire commissioner?
A. A journalist.
Q. Connected with what newspaper ? A. With the New York
Staatz-Zeitung-no; immediately before that I was fifth auditor of the
treasury at Washington; four years previous.
Q. And prior? A. Prior I had been correspondent of the New
York Staatz-Zeitung at Washington.
Q. How long had you been correspondent of the New York
No. 80.]
2705
Staatz-Zeitung at Washington? A. Since 1880 or 1881; I do not know
exactly when.
Q. So that as correspondent at Washington and fifth auditor of the
treasury, you had been out of the city for some eight or nine years?
A. Well, when I was acting as correspondent, I was only out of the
city during the sessions of Congress, and was in the city hall all the
rest of the time, my family being here all the time.
Q. Had you, prior to your appointment as fire commissioner, paid
any special or particular attention to the question of municipal
government, or to the question of fire management, in particular?
A. Well, as to the question of municipal government, I have been
paying attention to that for many years, because I had been a news-
paper man up to the time I went to Washington, in this city ever
since 1850.
Q. Well, had you paid any special or particular attention to the
work and problems of the fire department? A. No special attention.
Q. Had you any particular or expert knowledge of this or any other
fire system? A. I had no expert knowledge.
Q. Did you have any particular knowledge of the building trade,
or of problems of construction? A. Problems of construction; no;
but I had devoted a good deal of attention to buildings, special repairs.
to buildings.
Q. Had you at any time had any charge of large bodies of men,
directly handling or organizing them in their work? A. Not except
in newspaper work.
Q. Were you a member of Tammany Hall at the time of your
appointment, Mr. Eichkoff? A. No, sir.
Q. Will you now explain in general terms to the committee, in your
way, what you regard as the duties of a fire commissioner, and having
explained the duties of a fire commissioner generally, explain gener-
ally the organization and system of the fire department? A. Well,
the duties of a fire commissioner I consider are to watch carefully
over the working of the various bureaus as far as he can; a good deal
has to be left tothe bureau-to investigate any complaints that might
be made against any officer or any bureau, to investigate cases of
violation of the discipline as far as the uniformed force is concerned.
Senator FASSETT.- Mr. Ivins, is this a civil service department?
Mr. IVINS.-Yes.
Q. This is one of the departments which fall within the operation
of the Civil Service Laws, is it not? A. Yes, sir; certainly.
Senator FASSETT.-Are there any appointments made that are not
subject to the operation of the Civil Service Laws? A. Yes, sir..
[Senate, No. 80.]
339
2706
[SENATE,
}
7
Q. All of the appointments, as I understand it, to the uniformed
force, are made under the operation of and subject to the provisions
of the Civil Service Laws? A. Yes, sir.
Q. There are some places in the department which are not so sub-
ject to the operation of the Civil Service Laws? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Eichkoff, you were about to say that part of your
business was to investigate violations of the discipline? A. Yes, sir;
when charges are made against members of the force.
Q. And what else? A. Well, my especial duty was, besides that, to
investigate as to necessity of repairs when such necessities were
reported to me, to go to the various engine-houses and see as to the
necessity for them; the estimates for the repairs are then made out by
the superintendent of buildings, and his estimates are handed to me
for approval, and when repairs were ordered I would go there from
time to time to see how they were getting on, and when the work was
finally finished, I would make a note of that.
Q. Well, what else? A. Besides that, I have charge of the relief
fund, listen to any complaints that may be made against any member
of any bureau.
Q. Now, have you described, as fully as you care to, the duties of a
commissioner? A. And act as a bureau officer.
Q. What do you mean by that? A. Well, I mean to attend to
business as it comes up in the bureau.
Q. In what bureau? A. In the bureau of the fire department.
Q. Oh, in the main office? A. In the main office; yes, sir.
Q. I supposed you were speaking of one of the subordinate bureaus?
A. No, sir; in the main office.
Q. So that you are in constant attendance at the main office?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. As a commissioner who is continually present? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What are your office hours, Mr. Eichkoff? A. I am generally
there from 9 o'clock in the morning until 1 or half-past 1 in the
afternoon, and then I take my lunch and examine the houses
Q. How does the fire department perform its business; by the board
acting as a board? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Or by the imposition of this business upon individual commis-
sioners as committees? A. Well, yes; part of it; as I said before, the
repairs of buildings are first referred to me, but then afterwards to
the board.
Q. How often do you have board meetings? A. The regular meet-
ings are once a week; sometimes there are special meetings.
Q. What did you say the regular meeting day was? A. Every
Wednesday.
No. 80.]
2707
Q. How long do these meetings last as a rule? A. Well, that
depends upon the amount of business before the meeting; sometimes
one hour, sometimes three hours, sometimes more.
Q. Do you have special meetings frequently? A. Not very fre-
quently, only when occasion requires; when something comes up
which requires immediate attention.
Q. Is it the custom for the commissioners to go to headquarters
every day? A. Well, it is my custom, and I can not say as to the
others, because I do not know whether they are there or not.
Q. Do you see your fellow commissioners there every day? A. Not
every day, because I do not watch them.
Q. You have no occasion to see your fellow commissioners have
you, except on the regular meeting days? A. Except regular meet-
ings, or when special meetings are called.
Q. Otherwise the commissioners might be in the building, or they
might be in Washington or in Albany, and you would not know it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you have told us what special work had been assigned to
you; tell us what special work is assigned to Mr. Purroy? A. Well,
would it not be better to ask him?
Q. No; I want each member of the board to state; you are a com-
missioner as well as he; I shall not ask you, how he performs it, I only
ask you what special work is assigned to him, that is all? A. Well,
he is an ex-officio member of those other committees.
Q. What are the so-called other committees ? A. They are for
buildings and apparatus and telegraph.
Q. I find in the report for the year of 1890, and which is dated
March 15, 1890, that Commissioner Robbins was appointed chairman
of the committee on telegraph and supplies? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is he still chairman of that committee? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That you were appointed chairman of the committee on build-
ings and apparatus? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you still chairman of that committee? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Each committee consists of the whole of the board, does it not?
A. Yes, sir; I am chairman of my committee and am supposed to
attend to all of it.
Q. But each committee is a committee of the whole of the board?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, do you have regular committee meetings? A. Only when
occasion requires it, when anything comes up that requires-yes; the
reports are passed upon and the accounts are passed upon by the
committee as a whole.
2708
[SENATE,
!
·
Q. By the committee as a whole? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that done by calling the committee together in meeting? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. And passing a resolution? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And does each committee keep minutes of its proceedings as a
committee? A. Not as a committee.
Q. Not as a committee? A. No, sir.
Q. Now, when do these committees meet; simultaneously with the
meeting of the board? A. Yes, sir; sometimes they have a little
special meeting.
Q. For the purpose of these committees meeting the board resolves
itself into a committee of the whole of telegraph, or supplies, or on
buildings or apparatus, as the case may be and passes its resolutions?
A. No special resolution is passed.
Q. No special resolution is passed? A. No; not as a committee of
the whole.
Q. But these committee meetings are not held separately and
distinctly from the general meetings of the board? A. No, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Purroy, you say is a member ex-officio of both those
committees ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. He has, however, no special or particular duty with regard to
telegraphs and supplies? A. I do not know what his duties in that
respect are.
Q. You do not know that the board has ever assigned any to him,
do you? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know whether the board has ever assigned any special
or particular duty to him concerning building or apparatus? A. I do
not know of any such.
Q. Then Mr. Purroy's duties do not require him to be present at
headquarters as the chairman of a committee, as your duties require
you to be there? A. No, sir.
Q. They do not? A. No, sir.
Q. Now let us take your special duties; you referred first to the
fact that as chairman of this particular committee on buildings and
apparatus you investigated the necessities of the department for the
repairs of its apparatus and its own buildings as well? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now this designation "committee on buildings and apparatus"
refers only to department buildings, does it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. It does not refer to the general buildings throughout the city?
A. Not at all.
Q. Which are under the control of your particular bureau for that
purpose? A. Yes, sir.
No. 80.]
2709
·
Q. Do you make any investigation into the necessity for repairs
before your attention has been called to the need? A. Yes; sometimes
I do; it is my habit to visit various houses, and when I find that
anything is necessary, I call the attention of the superintendent of
buildings to it, Mr. Lamb.
Q. Now, have you ever investigated an engine-house and without
your attention being specially called to it by any of the officers
discovered for yourself the necessity for repairs or alterations? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Just give us two or three illustrations, will you? A. I do not
remember the illustrations now, but I have found things there
that should be done, and I requested that superintendent should do it.
Q. Repairs involving any extensive expenditures? A. No, sir; not
involving any extensive expenditures.
Q. Repairs involving any material changes? A. No, sir; not
material changes, because the captains of the companies are very :
eager to call our attention to anything that is needed.
Q. That is the exact point which I had in view; that is, how it could
be possible that you, as a commissioner, could discover the neces-
sity for a change or alteration before the captain could? A. As I
told you before, the captain may not have reported them, and those
things that I discover, as I say to you, are not very important.
Q. Then, it is fair to say in the vast majority of cases these neces-
sities for repairs are first brought to your attention not by your own
inspection but by the requisition or suggestion from the captain?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you immediately upon receiving such notice visit the place?
A. Well, not immediately; in the course of a day or two, as soon as I
have time.
Q. Now, let us take the matter of buildings; suppose a captain
reports that certain repairs are necessary to any building and you go
down and inspect it-have you ever had any experience in the
inspection of buildings? A. No; but I can see whether that building
needs repairs.
Q. Can you see in what particnlar manner the repairs should be
made? A. Not in the manner, but I know that they should be made
and what should be done.
Q. You can tell, for instance, if a floor is not in good condition, that
a new floor should be put in? Yes, sir.
Q. But suppose some suggestive change is made with regard to
matters more technical than that, have you any expert knowledge
which enables you to judge? A. I have not.
2710
[SENATE,
Q. Now, take the matter of the engines; you make yourself some
sort of an inspection when a requisition is made for repairs to an
engine, do you not? A. I do not generally as to the details.
Q. Why do you not? A. Because that is a technical matter which
we leave to the chief of the department.
Q. Is there any commissioner in your department who has any
technical mechanical knowledge, so far as you know? A. I do not
know whether the other commissioners have; I have not.
Q. You think you are as well qualified, however, to inspect an
engine and see what changes are required technically as the other
commissioners, do you not? A. No; I do not; I do not know whether
the others have more technical knowledge than I have; I have none;
it is a matter in which I follow the judgment of the chief.
Q. Now, as far as you know, is there any commissioner in that board
who is personally qualified to pass upon the need for new and
different machinery or for repairs of old machinery? A. Whether
the other commissioners have that capacity or not, I can not say.
Q. You do not know? A. No, sir.
Q. Then so far as your inspection of the machines are concerned,
prior to granting the requisition for repairs, it is entirely formal and
perfunctory, is it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who orders the repairs made; take buildings in the first
instance? A. Well, the superintendent of buildings gives an estimate.
Q. And after the superintendeut of buildings gives the estimate-
A. And after I have considered that estimate carefully, then it is
submitted to the board for its approval.
Q. The superintendent of buildings gives an estimate for the cost
of the proposed changes? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which estimate you consider? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, have you any expert knowledge in the matter of construc-
tion or building which enables you to consider that estimate judicially
and technically? A. Not technically, but I think I can consider it
judicially.
Q. You consider it judicially? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you have more than one estimate before you? A. Some-
times I have; yes; in cases where I was in doubt, I have had other
estimates to draw from.
Q. Is it the rule of your department to require, or at least to invite
proposals for competitive bids for repairs on engine-houses? A. Not
when the cost of the repairs is below $1,000.
Q. Well, in the majority of cases, the repairs are below $1,000, are
they not? A. In the majority of cases.
No. 80.]
2711
Q. Consequently, in the majority of cases the bidding is without
competition? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in the majority of cases the estimate comes to you accom-
panied by only one bid? A. Yes.
Q. Well, now if you were an expert builder, having only one bid
before you, you would be able to judge of the fairness of the bid,
would you not? A. As I said to you, I have had cases where I was
in doubt, and had expert builders with me.
Q. Now will you tell some of those cases where you were in doubt?
A. I do not remember the instances now.
Q. What raises the doubt in your mind? A. Well, because it
appeared to me the estimate was rather high, but expert builders in
many instances gave a larger estimate than the one that I had.
Q. Did you call in the same expert builder on each of those
occasions? A. No; I did not.
Q. Different ones? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What expert builders have you called in from time to time? A.
I would not like to name them, because they would lose their use-
fulness to me; they are not paid for it.
Q. They are not paid for it? A. No, sir.
Senator FASSETT.- How could it affect their usefulness to have their
names known?
The WITNESS.—Well, they would simply not go with me any more.
It is a friendship to me that they do it.
Q. Is there any reason why, if they perform a public service which
is valuable, that they should not be paid for it? A. If there was any
provision to pay for it, it might be different.
Q. Have you a contingent fund in your office? A. Not for such
purposes.
Q. What purpose is your contingent fund for? A. In fact, I do not
know whether we have a contingent fund.
Senator FASSETT.— You do not know whether you have a contingent
fund? A. No.
Q. And now, after you have approved of the estimate, either on your
own unaided judgment, or on your judgment as aided by an expert,
what is the next step taken by the department toward meeting the
requisition of repairs? A. Well, after I have approved them, they are
submitted to all of the commissioners.
Commissioner PURROY.—I want to state, Mr. Chairman, that I had
been summoned to-day, as president of the board, before the board of
estimate and apportionment, in regard to the departmental estimate;
when your messenger came over, I immediately went before the board,
2712
[SENATE,
i
·
and asked to be excused, so that I might obey the summons; of course,
it is very important to me, I having been the commissioner longest in
the service, that I should know the course of examination; I am here
ready to be examined; I do not wish to shirk any responsible duty, at
all, but I want to say to Mr. Ivins, that I have set everything aside,
although not subpoenaed; I was not subpoenaed last night, and the
subpoena contained a mistake; it did not state to-day; but in spite of
all those facts, I appear here to-day; the only thing is, I would like, as
soon as I could, consistent with your own views, and consistent with
the views of the committee, to go back to the board of estimate and
apportionment.
Senator FASSETT.
How long will this witness take?
Mr. IVINS. We will not need Mr. Purroy for an hour or two.
Commissioner PURROY. - I prefer very much to listen to Mr. Ivins'
questions.
Senator FASSETT.
We will be very glad to have you here.
Mr. IVINS.- Mr. Purroy evidently wishes to be a bird, and to be in
two places at the same time.
Commissioner PURROY.-No; that theory was exploded by Sir Boyle
Roche a long while ago.
Mr. IVINS.- What is the last question?
[The stenographer read the last question and answer, as follows:]
"Q. Now, after you have approved of the estimate, either on your
own unaided judgment, or on your judgment as aided by an expert,
what is the next step taken by the department toward meeting the
requisition for repairs? A. Well, after I have approved them, they
are submitted to all of the commissioners."
Q. At the meeting of the committee which is simultaneous with the
meeting of the board? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is a special or particular resolution then passed, either by the
committee or the board, authorizing the expenditure? A. Well, it is
simply approved; a resolution is simply passed to approve the esti-
mate of the committee.
Q. Then it goes to what bureau? A. To our superintendent of
buildings, Mr. Lamb, not to a separate bureau.
Q. And from that time on, he has charge of it? A. Yes, sir; he is
a builder himself, an expert.
Q. Are the contracts for the performance of this work made in
writing? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And are kept on file in the office? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is so with regard to every matter of repairs to buildings,
is it? A. Yes, sir.
No. 80.]
2713
Q. Now, what course is pursued, touching repairs of engines and
the other machinery? A. Well, a similar course is pursued there, but,
of course, those estimates are not submitted to the superintendent of
buildings.
Q. To whom are they submitted? A. They are not submitted to
the superintendent of buildings.
Q. To whom are they submitted? A. To the chief of the depart-
ment; in fact, that matter is chiefly in the hands of the chief of the
department, because he is supposed to know best as to the neces-
sity and efficiency of engines.
Q. Is that equally true of the matter of all mechanical supplies and
appliances? A. Well, no; we have a supply clerk who buys a certain
kind of supplies.
Q. What kind of supplies does the supply clerk buy? A. If you
will ask Commissioner Robbins, when he comes up here, he can tell
you; he is chairman of that committee; he can give you better
information on that subject than I can.
Q. Just for the present purposes, I will ask you this question: The
supply clerk buys fodder, I suppose, and coal? A. No; he submits an
estimate or estimates, and those are advertised, and they are given out
at public meetings to bidders; estimates are provided for bidders.
Q. Are estimates invited for all supplies of fodder and fuel? A. I
think so; I am not quite certain, but I believe they are.
Q. Now, supplies of hose and material necessary to the mechanical
work of the department, other than fuel, are they in charge, in the
first instance, of this same clerk, the supply clerk? A. No; I believe
they are in charge of the chief.
Q. They are in charge of Chief Bonner? A. But, inasmuch as that
is not a matter of my committee, I could not give you any definite
information on that subject; I might be mistaken.
Q. Now, you said that part of your business was to care for the
relief fund? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you explain to the committee what the relief fund is? A.
Well, the relief fund is a fund which is rather for the relief of firemen,
after they are out of service, and for widows and orphans of firemen.
Q. Are you familiar with all of the provisions of law affecting
that fund and its administration? A. Well, yes, I am, but I haven't
it all in my head; I made a memorandum on that subject.
Q. Your duty consists, mainly, does it, in seeing that that fund
receives everything to which it is entitled, and that the sums disbursed
from the fund are only disbursed to those who are entitled to them?
A. Yes, sir.
[Senate, No. 80.]
340
2714
[SENATE,
AU
:
Q. So that in that regard you are simply the manager of a
trust account; is not that the fact? A. Yes, sir; I am responsible for
the management of it, too.
Q. In the first instance? A. And I am under bonds. for that
purpose.
Q. What is the amount of your bond? A. $20,000; double
security.
Q. And who are your sureties? A. A gentleman named George A.
Heinrich, and the other one I have really forgotten; that is, I should
not have forgotten it, but his name is not in my mind at present;
Heinrich's security alone is more than double.
Q. In what name is the relief fund deposited? A. In the name of
the trustees of the relief fund.
Q. And the entire board are the board of trustees? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When checks are drawn against the relief fund, by whom are
they signed? A. They are signed by me.
Q. Does one signature suffice to withdraw money? A. For ordinary
checks; yes.
Q. To whom is your bond given; the city or the board of trustees?
A. I could not answer that question; it was approved by the
comptroller.
Q. It was approved by the comptroller? A. Yes, sir; and he made
out the papers in the case.
Q. Do you hold yourself amenable under the law to the board of
trustees or to the city for the proper management of that fund? A.
Well, to either party.
Q. To either or both, I suppose? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have a bookkeeper? A. Yes, sir.
Q. He has especial charge of the books of that fund? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is his name? A. Savage.
Q. How long has he been in charge of those books? A. Well,
long before I came into the department.
Q. Has he any assistants? A. No; he has no assistants.
Q. How much is Mr. Savage paid? A. I believe his pay is $3,000.
Q. Is that a charge against the fund, or against the city treasury?
A. That is against the city treasury.
Q. And not against the fund? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know any reason why the city treasury should be under
the charge of employing a bookkeeper to keep the accounts of
that fund, rather than the fund itself? A. I do not know; but
a fund which is for widows and orphans mainly, I think it would
be somewhat of a hardship, because those men have rendered ser-
vices to the city.
No. 80.]
2715
Q. Do you check off the accounts of the fund as kept by Mr. Sav-
age? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How frequently do you look over and examine his books? A.
Well, about once a month; he reports to me once a month.
Q. What steps did you personally take in conjunction with Mr.
Savage, to see that the fund receives all the moneys to which it is
entitled? A. Well, we know the sources from which that fund is
derived, and the money is collected from those sources.
Q. I call your attention to the following statement on page 100 of
the report of the board for the three months of the year ending
December 31, 1889: "Money received for licenses and permits issued,
penalties collected, sale of explosives, etc, seized, etc., for 4,172 kerosene
oil licenses issued at $10, $41,720; for 19 powder licenses issued at
$2, $38; for 749 special permits issued at $2, $1,498; for 11 wholesale
fireworks permits issued at $20, $220; for 162 retail fireworks per-
mits issued at $5, $810; for 63 kindling fire in street permits issued at
50 cents, $31.50; for 32 powder licenses issued at $5, $160; for 3 per-
mits to keep and use explosives in main magazines, at $25, $75; for 78
permits to keep and use explosives in hand magazines, at $10, $780;
for 3 permits to keep and sell explosives, at $25, $75; for 7 permits to
transport explosives, at $1, $7; total for licenses and permits,
$45,414.50, to which is added $625 as the total for penalties and for
sale of powder siezed, being total received and turned over to the
relief fund from these sources, $46,039.50. Now, I call the attention
of the committee to this point, because the question will be raised
later, touching the whole question of licenses in the city here; our
taxes are not only those which are levied directly, which are collected
under the tax levy, but there are certain special classes of taxes by
licenses, some of which are collected through the mayor's office;
there is a class of licenses touching permits to use explosives, to use
oil, to use fireworks, and other matters of that kind, on which a license
tax is also collected; that is done through the fire department, and
the proceeds from those licenses are paid by provisions of law
into the relief fund of that department; in the other cases, some of
these license fees go into the sinking fund of the city, and some of
these license fees go into the general fund of the city, but these par-
ticular fees go into the relief fund of the fire department; now, Mr.
Eichkoff, will you tell the committee what steps you take as the per-
son in charge of the relief fund, to see that all persons who receive
licenses, actually pay the ten dollars fee required to be paid by law,
for such license? A. There is a special officer to attend to that part
of the business of the fire department.
+
2716
[SENATE,
Q. Who is he? A. That is the inspector of combustibles.
Q. Now, would it be possible for a person in this city to receive a
license to sell kerosene oil, and for that license nevertheless, not to
appear upon the books of your fund, and for the ten dollars not to
have been paid into your fund? A. I suppose it would be possible, if
our inspector was a dishonest man.
Q. If your inspector were a dishonest man he might grant a license,
you think, and take the ten dollars and put it in his pocket? A. But
he would run the risk of being detected.
Q. Of course, all dishonest men do that, do they not? A. Yes;
nevertheless there are many dishonest men.
Q. Are there any steps taken by your department to so limit and
control dishonesty, that it would be practically impossible to be dis-
honest in that regard? A. I do not believe it would be impossible,
but I believe it would be detected if it were repeatedly done.
Q. Are these licenses issued in blank to the head of that bureau
of combustibles? A. No.
Q. They are not issued in blank? A. No.
Q. Books, I suppose, containing the licenses, and with stubs, are
printed, are they not? A. Yes, sir; I think so.
Q. And the stub system prevails? A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever examined the stubs to see whether they are all
filled in? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you found them always all filled in? A. I have never
missed any..
Q. You have never missed any? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever found that any of the stubs have been marked
cancelled as for error? A. I do not remember having found any
such.
Q. You do not remember? A. It is possible, though, that there
are such.
Q. Have you ever caused an examination to be made to see whether
or not the licenses correspond with the stubs? A. I have not made
such examination.
Q. Do you know that in some of the departments a certain number
of licenses in blank, accompanied by the stubs, are issued to the
party who has to dispose of those licenses? A. In other departments
I do not know what systems they have.
Senator FASSETT.-Does the witness understand your question
about these licenses being issued in blank; they have to be given to
him in blank, do they not?
Mr. IVINS.-He understands that.
No. 80.]
2717
Q. They are issued to the chief of the bureau in blank, whereupon,
he, or one of his subordinates, fills out the license, and the stub is
filled out to correspond with the license, and then the license is
issued? A. Yes, sir.
Q. But do you keep any account with the head of that bureau of
the licenses issued to him in blank? A. I believe that our secretary—
in fact, I know our secretary keeps such an account.
Senator FASSETT.— That is, at any given time the number of fees
shown as paid in and the number of blank licenses left ought to check
up? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that you say is done? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is done by the secretary? A. That is done by the secretary.
Q. Then by that means you have a system which would render it
very difficult for the fund to be defrauded of any of these license
fees? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then the only other means by which the fund could lose its
revenue would be through the selling without licenses? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, will you tell us what steps are taken by the department to
detect and punish persons selling without licenses, so that the penalty
as prescribed by law may accrue to the credit of the fund in the first
instance, and so that in the second instance, the person must there-
after, if selling, sell with a license? A. There are officers who go
around to detect violations of that character.
Q. Who is the chief of those officers? A. Mr. Seary.
Q. How long has he been in the bureau? A. I do not know how
long he has been there; a great deal longer than I have; I have been
there only one year and a half, Mr. Ivins.
Q. Now, when those violations of the law have been detected they
are turned over to your attorney for prosecution. A. Yes, sir.
Q. And do you take any steps to see with what thoroughness and
with what haste the attorney prosecutes those cases? A. I can not
say that I have paid any special attention to that part.
K
Q. Do you know whether any member of the board pays any
special attention to that? A. I do not; there may be, though; yes;
I believe one of the commissioners has taken special interest in some
violations, but naturally we have to rely upon the efficiency of our
attorney.
Mr. IvINS.— I call the attention of the witness and of the committee
to what appears to be the report of the attorney. At any rate it is
the report of the board concerning the bureau of the attorney, at
page 133 of the report for the year 1889. The attorney reports that:
"Of violations of the law relating to combustibles" etc.
"There were
2718
[SENATE,
received by him"
months?
was this during the year or during the three
Mr. FINDLEY.-During the year.
Mr. IVINS. There were received during the year ten for selling
kerosene oil without license and one for failure to provide telegraphic
communication, being eleven notifications for violations in all received
by him for disposition; ten of which were for selling kerosene oil
without a license and one was for a failure to provide telegraphic
communication; that these, with five cases that were pending, as
shown in the last report, made sixteen cases. He reports that of those,
three of the old cases, that is, fireworks, chemicals, matches, etc., kept
without permit, were called before the commencement of litigation and
recalled for reasons other than the removal of violations as they
necessarily must have been. After the commencement of the litiga-
tion, he reports that one of the violations complained of was removed
before trial in the case of fireworks, chemicals, matches, etc.; that one
judgment was got for hoistways found open after conclusion of busi-
ness; that three cases of selling kerosene oil were licensed and were
dismissed; that there were seven of such cases then pending; and I
find that of those sixteen cases there was only one judgment obtained
for the department; that eight were disposed of after commencement
of litigation, three disposed of before commencement of litigation, and
eight are still pending. Now, will you tell me what steps you or any
other commissioner takes to discover how and in what manner the
attorney performs his duties as touching the class of cases I have just
referred to ?
The WITNESS.-I do not especially know how he performs his duty;
but most people, when they are notified of the necessity of having a
license, obtain that license without being brought before him.
Q. Have you ever paid any attention to the manner in which the
detectives of the department do their duty, sufficiently to enable you to
judge whether or not the discovery of only ten violators of the law,
relative to selling kerosene oil without a license, is a proper per-
formance of their duty? A. I suppose there were more detected, but
I suppose they obtained licenses.
Q. Is there any reason, so far as you know, why a person detected
in actually selling without a license should not be complained of to
the bureau of the attorney? A. I know of no special reason; but the
attorney himself can give you better information than I can upon that
subject.
Q. We expect to call the attorney; but you are in charge of these
funds, and I want to find out exactly what your own knowledge
No. 80.]
2719
relative to those general matters are? A. I am in charge of the fund
when it comes to me.
Q. Do you think that the charge of the fund devolves upon you the
duty of seeing that everything connected with the collection of
moneys which belong to that fund is done? A. In a general way,
yes; but I could hardly be supposed to run after detectives and see
whether they perform their duties; I would have to be a detective -
myself, which I am not.
Q. Now, I just called your attention to the fact that a certain num-
ber of cases are placed in the hands of the attorney for disposition?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But, as you said, there are may discoveries made which are not
placed in the hands of the attorney? A. I suppose so.
Q. Now, I turn to page 99 of the report, which contains the report
of the bureau of combustibles and shows the operation of that bureau
under the law, requiring the storage of combustibles and explosive
materials; that report shows that there were pending since the last
report, 119 complaints of violations; that there have been received
since the last report, 830 complaints of violations; that the total to
be disposed of was consequently 949 complaints of violations; now, I
find that 435 persons complied with the law upon notice of the fact
that they were selling kerosene oil without a license? A. Yes; I
referred to that.
Q. Now, I find that only ten cases were referred to the attorney of
your department; do you know of any reason why all such cases
should not be referred to the attorney of your department and why
all violators of the law for selling without a license should not have
the penalty imposed npon them.
Mr. PURROY.- It states right there in the report.
Mr. IVINS.- Where?
Mr. PURROY. Four hundred and sixty-three complied with; thirty
were unfounded, and so on.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. That is the very point I am at; 463 complied with; now, because
they complied with the law, is that any reason why they should not
be fined for failure to comply with the law up to the time that you
discovered them in the breach of it? A. I believe that the attorney
could give you better information on that subject than I can.
Q. Is it the policy of the department that when you detect anybody
violating the law, if they promise not to do it again and take out the
license, you forgive them, as far as you are concerned?
2720
[SENATE,
Mr. PURROY.- No; when they promise and carry out the promise.
We do not take the promise.
The WITNESS.
When they pay for it.
&
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. That was included in the question? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. What particular regulations are there of the department, or
what general orders or special orders are there in the department
touching the manner in which actions shall be brought against
parties for failure to have complied with the law? A. Well, they are
referred to the attorney and the attorney has to judge whether under
the law he can attain the objects.
A
Q. Is there any special or general order or any resolution of the
board to the effect that it is the policy of the board that if persons
complied with the law they shall not be punished? A. We have
not passed any such resolution to my knowledge since I have been
there, but I suppose they exist; I wish to repeat that I have only
been there a year and a half, and there had been many things estab-
lished before I came into the board.
Q. Do you know what is done conformably with that policy, so as
to be sure that no man is absolved from his obligation to pay the
penalty, unless he is actually keeping his promise? A. I have no
means of knowing.
Q. Isn't it a fact that just as soon as a man takes a license he keeps
his promise by taking the license? A. He has to pay for it.
Q. He has to pay for it, of course? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then, if I have been a violator of the law by having sold oil with-
out a license, have been doing it for a year or two years, and am there-
after detected, and as soon as I am detected pay my ten dollars, it is
the policy of the department, is it, that that should end it? A. I do
not believe that there are as many cases as that which are not detected
soon after they have commenced.
Q. I find that there were received in one year 519, and of those 463
complied? A. I suppose when these grocers commence they some-
times delay or neglect, and sometimes even may not know that they
have to take out a license.
Q. I find this also: The grand total to be disposed of was 949; the
grand total disposed of was 851, leaving ninety-eight pending; of the
851 disposed of, I find that only eleven were recommended for prose-
cution; now, who recommends the prosecution? A. The board does.
No. 80.]
2721
Q. As a board? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Upon resolution? A. Yes, sir.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q Do the minutes of the board show that? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Do the minutes state that? A. Yes; I think so.
Q. Who calls the attention of the board to the particular cases?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. PURROY.-Have you any objection to my setting you right in
regard to that?
Mr. IVINS.- None at all.
Mr. PURROY.— The recommendation is made to the board and the
board either approves or disapproves of the recommendation; the
board does not make the recommendation.
Mr. IvINS. That is the question I was just asking; who makes the
recommendation to the board?
The WITNESS.— The superintendent of combustibles.
Mr. PURROY.— And that total includes chimney fires and a number
of other things which, if you will look at them, you will find are of a
very different nature from those you refer to.
Mr. IVINS.—I understand that this is a total of the “violations under
the laws regulating the storage of combustibles and explosive
materials, etc."
The WITNESS.—I thought you were speaking all the time of kerosene
oil.
Mr. PURROY.—I was afraid all the time the commissioner misunder-
stood you.
The WITNESS.-There were a great many people whose chimneys
were on fire who had moved out when our superintendent came there.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. That is one reason why I did not ask you about those things.
A. Then I suppose you wanted to catch me; I hope you had no such
intentions.
Q. No; not at all; I say that is the reason I did not ask, because I
knew perfectly well that under those circumstances you had nothing
to do.
Mr. PURROY.- I knew you wanted to be fair Mr. Ivins, and I wanted
to call that fact out.
Q. We have 851 cases here disposed of, of which number disposed
of only eleven prosecutions were recommended; now, the great bulk
of these cases consist of selling kerosene oil without license, of
[Senate, No. 80.]
341
2722
[SENATE,
which 463 complied on notice, thirty were unfounded, making a total
of 503 disposed of, leaving sixteen now pending; ten prosecutions
were recommended out of that 103?
Mr. PURROY.— No; Mr. Ivins, if you look you will find that is a
mistake.
Mr. IVINS. Now tell me where that is a mistake ?
Mr. PURROY.-You cite all these violations and jumble them all
together; if you will look at that you will see that the ten prosecu-
tions recommended only related to the selling of kerosene oil without
a license.
Mr. IVINS. That is exactly what I said.
Mr. PURROY.-Well, excuse me then.
Mr. IVINS.-If you want to interrupt me and try to make me
rect, you must render your own hearing more accurate.
or-
Mr. PURROY.—I won't indulge in any personalities with you; I only
wanted to help you; I thought I was summoned here, and I have the
best of feeling in the matter; of course, if there is to be any temper
to be thrown into it, I will endeavor even then to preserve that good
feeling.
Mr. IVINS.-I have made no allusion to temper; I have never lost
my own; now, the facts are as I have stated before; that there were
519 cases of selling kerosene oil without a license; that of that 519
cases, 503 were disposed of, 463 complied on notice; thirty of the com-
plaints were found to be unfounded and ten prosecutions were recom-
mended; consequently, of the prosecutions recommended for all the
causes set out in this table, which was eleven, ten consisted of recom-
mended prosecutions for violations for selling kerosene oil without
license, and there was only one prosecution recommended for viola-
tions of all the other classes put together; that is the reason why I
confine my attention to the selling of kerosene oil without a license.
Mr. PURROY.- Would it be wrong to interrupt?
Mr. IvINS.— No; go ahead.
Mr. PURROY.—If you will notice there were eighty for chimney
fires where the penalties were collected by suit.
Mr. IVINS.-I am talking about prosecutions recommended.
Mr. PURROY.- How could they be collected unless the prosecution
was recommended? I already explained to you that they send in to
the board the recommendation, and the board approves or disapproves
of it, and there are eighty cases where they collected the penalty.
That would be by suit.
Senator FASSETT.— Is this a question of confusion in the way the
report is gotten out?
No. 80.]
2723
Mr. PURROY. Oh, no.
Mr. IVINS.- Now, may be Mr. Purroy will explain more fully what is
the difference between suit and prosecution, because there appears to
be a difference on the face of the report?
Mr. PURROY.—Any technicality I am ready to answer.
Mr. IVINS. Well, just answer that so as to elucidate this report.
Senator FASSETT.- It would be better, perhaps, to swear Mr. Purroy
right here and then use him as an annex witness.
CC
""
Mr. PURROY.- That is what I am anxious for.
Mr IVINS. Well, just as the committee please. It is immaterial to
me, only I do not want to have two witnesses on my hands at the
same time, because although I have had some experience I can not
handle two witnesses simultaneously.
Senator FASSETT.- We would prefer to have single-barreled testi-
mony here. Mr. Purroy, if you see that your department is being
embarrassed by any misunderstanding through counsel and witness,
if you will make a memorandum of those points, when we swear you
we will give you a chance to clear them all up.
Mr. PURROY.— Very well, I will remain silent then, no matter how
gross the mistake may be.
Senator FASSETT.-Very well then, I think that would be a good
plan, and then so much will be your triumph when you show how
gross the mistakes were.
Mr. PURROY. —Or my defeat.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Now, you report here also that special surveys are made to deter-
mine the fitness of premises for the storage of combustibles or explo-
sive materials, and that of those, 940 were made; will you explain to
the committee who makes those surveys, and under what regulation
if any they are made? A. They are made by the inspector of
combustibles.
Q. I find that you report that 6337 samples of kerosene oil were
collected and tested; who makes those collections and who makes
those tests? A. The collections are made by the superintendent, by
the inspector I should say, and his assistants.
Q. Do you know whether or not there is a rule of the board that
every person holding a kerosene oil license shall either periodically
or from time to time, give to the collector a sample of the oil sold by
him? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who is responsible for that being done? A. The inspector of
combustibles.
2724
[SENATE,
*Q. Is he responsible directly or indirectly through the acts of one
of his subordinates? A. I suppose he is responsible for the acts of
his subordinates.
Q. Is the inspector of combustibles an officer who is appointed
under the provisions of the civil service act? A. I do not know
whether they are; none have been appointed since I have been there
that I know of.
Q. Now, I call your attention to the statement on page 134 of cases
for violations of law relating to buildings; do the penalties collected
in cases for violations of law relating to buildings go to the
relief fund? A. No.
Q. They do not? A. No.
Q. Have you any particular duty as distinguished from that of any
of the other commissioners or the board, touching the matter of viola-
tions of the law relative to buildings? A. I have not.
Q. Now, I have asked you about the special matters of your com-
mittee and I have asked you about the relief fund; let us go back to
the first part of your testimony; the first thing you referred to in
describing the duties of the commissioners was, as you said, to watch
the bureaus? A. No; I beg your pardon, not to watch the bureaus.
Q. I understood you so; you meant to attend to the business of the
office? A. Yes, sir; to attend to the business of the office.
Ì
Q. You were using the word bureau as synonymous with office? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Then you said your duty was to investigate complaints? A
Well, that is no special duty of mine; that is a duty generally.
Q. Now, will you describe to the committee the method in which
the complaints are prepared, the method in which the complaints are
received, the method in which the complaints are brought and the
method in which the cases are disposed of on trial? A. Well, some
complaints are made personally or verbally, others in writing; those
complaints in writing are sent to the various bureaus which they con-
cern and the officers of such bureaus are asked to report upon those.
complaints.
Q. What are the bureaus of your department? A. The bureau of
buildings, the bureau of combustibles, the bureau of telegraphing
and the bureau of fire marshal, if you call that a bureau.
Q. You have a bureau of chief of department which is the great
bureau of the system haven't you? Oh, yes; that, of course.
Senator FASSETT. What is that?
Mr. IVINS.-The bureau of chief of department.
Mr. PURROY.-There is no bureau of telegraphing.
No. 80.]
2725
The WITNESS. It is an office.
Mr. PURROY.-Yes; but not a bureau.
The WITNESS.- Not a bureau.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. I find here that you have set out in your report that at head-
quarters there are officers and employes, including commissioners,
special and assistant special medical officers, bookkeepers and clerks,
typewriters, stenographers, janitor, elevator and attendant watchmen,
machinists, stokers and a scrub woman, twenty-eight; those officers
do not fall within the provisions of the civil service reform law, do
they? A. Are clerks enumerated there?
Q. Yes. A. Yes, sir.
Q. The clerks do? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. IvINS.— I find to quote from this report, that there are in the
bureau of chief of department 1,094 employes; in the bureau of the
inspector of combustibles ten; in the bureau of the fire marshal five; in
the bureau of inspection of buildings seventy-four; and then the attor-
ney to the department one; and, in order that it may be spread upon
the minutes properly in this connection, and the material brought
together, I find that the expenditures for headquarters, that is the
twenty-eight persons referred to, was for that year $50,007; the
expenditure of the bureau of chief of department was $1,338, 269; the
expenditure of the bureau of inspector of combustibles was $12,779;
the expenditure of the bureau of the fire marshal was $7,400; the
expenditure of the bureau of inspection of buildings was $99,419, and
the salary of the attorney was $4,000.
Q. When these complaints come to any of these heads of bureaus,
what is the next step taken after they are received by the head of the
bureau ? A. I suppose the head of the bureau institutes an
investigation.
Q. You suppose he does? A. It is for him to do his duty in that
respect.
Q. What specific duty is imposed upon the bureau of chief of
department, for instance, in that respect? A. He has many duties.
Q. Does he investigate all complaints? A. I have no doubt he
investigates those complaints.
Q. Is there any general regulation, resolution, general or special
order of the board which lays down the rules according to which, or
the manner in which he shall investigate these complaints? A. Yes,
sir; there are many rules of the board in existence, which are printed
in a book.
2726
[SENATE,
Q. Do you, as a commissioner, take any steps to see whether the
chief of that bureau actually investigates the complaints in the first
instance, in conformity with the regulations of the board? A. I have
no doubt he investigates them, because he reports them.
Q. Does he report all cases back to the board at once? A. Not at
once; he has to investigate the matter.
Q. I mean as soon as he has investigated, does he report back to
the board? A. I suppose so; yes.
Q. Suppose a complaint were to be made against a fireman of the
first, second or third grade for having been drunk when he ought to
have been on duty, that complaint would come into your department
either through the captain or the proper officer in the district, or it
might come from an outsider, wouldn't it? A. Yes, sir.
By Senator АHearn:
Q. In relation to that, are there not four or five chiefs of battalions,
are there not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do not the captains of the different companies, when there is a
complaint made against any of the men, submit their complaints first.
to the chief of battalion to be investigated? A. I believe the
captains make the charges themselves.
Q. They make the charges to the chief of battalion, do they not?
A. No.
Q. To the chief of the department? A. To the board.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. In order that we may get at that point somewhat better, let me
ask you to explain now the general organization of the bureau of the
chief of department? A. Do you mean the organization comprising
the whole uniformed force?
Q. Comprising the whole uniformed force; what is the organization
of the uniformed force, and of that part of the uniformed force which
is in the bureau of the chief of department? A. The uniformed force
consists of various companies.
Q. How many? A. I believe eighty-three; I have not all these
figures in my mind.
Q. Now, how are these companies proportioned through the city,
and what is the next order or class in the organization? A. They are
scattered over the city; they are nearer together in the more thickly
populated parts of the city.
Q. Now, let us go a step further; how many fire districts are there
in the city? A. That I can't tell.
No. 80.]
2727
Q. Did you have anything to do, as commissioner, with the determi-
nation of these fire districts? A. No, sir.
A. No.
Q. That was all done before you came into the board? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you have not yet found out how many there are?
Q. So you could not tell, if I were to ask you, where the sixth fire
district was, as distinguished from the eleventh, could you? A. No.
Q. You have referred to the fire companies; these companies are
brought together into a larger organization, are they not? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. And what is that larger organization? A. That is the battalion.
Q. That is a battalion? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many battalions are there? A. Twelve.
Q. Now, I have here a map which is printed at page 96 of your
report for the year 1889, which sets out twelve fire districts; are those
districts the battalion districts? A. Yes, sir; I believe so.
Q. You believe so? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You know what the battalion districts are? A. The battalion
districts comprise a number of engine-houses and hose and truck-
houses.
Q. Can you tell me, for instance, generally, without referring to the
books, in what part of the city the sixth battalion is located? A. Not
unless I look at that map.
Q. I won't ask you to look at that map, because if you did you would
be misled; you are in error with regard to the districts shown on this
map, and the battalion districts being the same; they are not;
consequently, this would only tend to mislead you. A. I am liable to
be in error as every human being is; these matters are specially the
business of the chief of the department.
Q. Can you tell me, generally speaking, in what part of the city the
eleventh battalion is now doing duty? A. I can not.
Q. Who is chief of the eleventh battalion ? A. I can not tell you
that either without looking at the record.
Q. Can you tell me who is chief of any battalion in the city, giving
the battalion of which he is chief? A. I could not even give you the
name; I could find the chiefs of battalions without looking into
any book.
Q. I could do that myself? A. If you know them all as I do, and
I know the houses where they are.
Q. Knowing the houses where they are, can you tell me where the
office or headquarters of the chief of the sixth battalion is? A. Not
by the figure.
2728
[SENATE,
Q. We have the companies and then we have battalions; can you
tell me how the battalions are organized, that is, how many companies,
either the engine companies or the hook and ladder companies, or both,
go to make a battalion? A. I could not definitely state that.
Q. The captain is the superior officer of a company? A. Yes, sir.
Who is the superior officer of a battalion? A. The chief of the
battalion.
Q. Who is the superior of the chief of a battalion next in order?
A. An assistant chief.
Q. How many assistant chiefs are there? A. Two.
Q. Are not such work divided between the assistant chiefs accord-
ing to localities; can you tell which battalions are under the superior
control of — who are the two assistant chiefs? A. One is McCabe and
the other Reilly.
Q. Can you tell which battalions are under the control of Assistant
Chief McCabe ? A. I can not.
Q. Do you know which battalions are under the control of Assistant
Chief Reilly? A. I do not.
Q. To whom do the assistant chiefs report? A. They report to the
chief.
Q. Then the organization of the force consists of a chief, two assist-
ant chiefs, twelve battalions, and a number of companies which num-
ber about eighty-one? A. Eighty-one.
Q. That includes companies of all kinds? A. Yes.
Q. Now, having got at the organization of the force, let us go back
to a case of specific complaint.
Senator FASSETT.- Do you say there are eighty-one companies?
Mr. IVINS.-Eighty-one companies; yes, sir.
Q. How many companies are there to a battalion? A. I believe it
varies; I am not certain.
Senator FASSETT.-It evidently does.
Q. How many men to a company? A. That varies also.
Q. Is there not an average of men to a company? A. I believe not;
it varies according to the importance of the station.
Q. Is not sixteen the average number of men to a company? A. It
may be the average; yes.
Q. Now, for an elucidation of this, I call your attention to that part
of your report which is contained in pages 12, 13 and 14; I find that
the engine company which has the highest number is company fifty-
A. Yes,
six; do you know how many engine companies there are?
sir; I have got it here; I find here engine sixty.
Q. Then that has been increased by adding four companies since
No. 80.]
2729
this report was published? A. Yes, sir; now, let me suggest to you,
Mr. Ivins, that this is somewhat a technical matter under the chief of
the department, and he can give you better and more thorough infor-
mation on that subject than I can, because it is under his immediate
charge.
Q. Still he is your inferior officer? A. Yes, sir.
Q. He is responsible to you and you are responsible for his acts, are
you not, as a commissioner? A. Not for his acts; no.
Q. For his failures? A. I do not know that we are for his failures.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. Is a commissioner responsible in any way for the administration
of the fire department? A. Well, yes.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Then, if you are responsible for the administration of the depart-
ment, you are responsible for the administration of the chief, are you
not? A. Yes; but if I was to be informed of all the duties I do not
see what we would need a chief for then.
Q. That is one of the things that this committee wants to find out;
since you have a chief, we want to find out why you need a commis-
sioner; I find that at the time of this report there was twenty hook
and ladder companies? A. Yes.
Q. That number has been increased, has it to make your figures
balance it must have been increased by at least one? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that right, that there has been one additional hook and ladder
company? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. IVINS. Now, I find from this report, if the committee please,
that in the great majority of cases of, officers and men included,
twelve persons. Some of the companies have sixteen persons and a
number of the companies have twenty persons, and I notice that in
the column of remarks in those cases in which there are twenty mem-
bers of the force, they are designated as double companies.
Q. Now, will you explain in what regard, if any, a double company
differs from the ordinary company of twelve men and officers? A.
There is an engine in one part of the house and a truck in the other.
Q. And in these cases which have but twelve men there is only an
engine? A. Or a truck.
Mr. IVINS.-Now, we will take up this afternoon the queston of the
course pursued in regard to a complaint against a member of the
uniformed force.
Senator FASSETT.- We will adjourn till quarter past 2. The com-
mittee thereupon stood in recess until 2.15 o'clock.
[Senate, No. 80.]
342
2730
[SENATE,
AFTER RECESS.
Mr. EICHKOFF, recalled, and examination resumed.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Mr. Eichkoff, before we went into the question of the general
organization of the chief of department, I had asked you as to the
manner in which complaints were preferred and the manner in which
complaints were tried; let us now take a supposititious case of a mem-
ber of the force who may have been charged with being intoxicated
when he should have been on duty; in what way would that complaint
reach the commissioners? A. It would be sent by the captain of the
company of which that fireman was a member.
Q. To whom would the captain of the company send it? A. He
would send it to the commissioners.
Q. Directly? A. I think he would.
Q. Would he not send it first to the chief of battalion? A. No; I
guess not.
Q. Is it not the rule of the department that complaints shall reach
the commissioners through the hands of the chief of battalion and
the assistant chiefs and the chief? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then, through them to the commissioners? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, suppose one of the chiefs of battalion thought fit not to
forward that complaint, would it be in his power to confer with the
captain and have the complaints suppressed? A. I do not know
whether that would be in his power or not; I believe not.
Q. Do you think that the chief of battalion has any power in the
premises at all? A. I do not believe he has the power to suppress
any complaint.
Q. What power has he in the matter of complaints? A. Well, if
there should be a charge against a captain, for instance, he would
make the complaint.
Q. If the charge be against the captain it is then preferred by the
chief of battalion? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that preferred directly to the commissioners or indirectly
through the chief of the bureau? A. Through the chief.
Q. Well, what power has the chief in such a case to suppress a
complaint made by a chief of battalion against a captain? A. I do
not know whether — he might not suppress it, but I don't believe he
would.
Q. Could he if he wanted to? A. Oh, it would become known.
Q. It would become known? A. Yes.
Q. Well, is there any constraint npon the chief to prevent his sup-
pressing a complaint, except the general fact that his failure to for-
No. 80.]
2731
ward it might become known? A. It would be a severe error on his
part, or worse, to do so.
Q. Have you ever heard of a case in which the chief of battalion has
said to a captain that a certain complaint had better be withdrawn?
A. I have not.
Q. Or not forwarded? A. I have not.
Q. Have you ever heard of a case in which the chief has said to the
chief of battalion that a certain complaint against a captain had
better be withdrawn or not be made known? A. I have never heard
of such a case.
Q. Now, after the complaint comes to the commissioners what course
do they pursue? A. The man against whom the charges are made is
tried.
Q. Well, in what form does the complaint reach the man against
whom the charges are made before he is tried? A. Oh, a copy is
sent to him.
Q. How long is he given to answer? A. Well, that varies; if his
time was not sufficient and he would state so at the time when he was
subpoenaed to appear, he would certainly have more time.
Q. Is there any regulation as to time? A. I do not know whether
there is a regulation covering that point; may be, though; there has
been no new regulation made in that respect since I am there.
Q. What part does the attorney to the board take in the trials of
complaints against officers and men of the uniformed force? A. In
severe complaints, or serious complaints, he takes the part of an
ordinary attorney, assisting the investigation; assisting the
commissioners.
Q. Whom does he assist, the commissioners or the men? A. The
commissioners.
Q. Does he act as a judge advocate and assist both parties, or does
he act as counsel for the board and assist them alone? A. He acts as
counsel for the board.
Q. How are those trials held; by whom? A. By the commissioners.
Q. Sitting in full board? A. Most of the time in full board, but
there is occasions when only two are present.
Q. Are the trials ever held with only one commissioner sitting? A.
I know of only one instance, but that was not a trial of a fireman but
of an inspector of buildings, and I simply took the testimony in that
case and submitted it to the board.
Q. Who was that inspector? A. I don't remember his name; we
are not obliged to give the inspectors a public trial, but we --
Q. You remember taking the testimony but you don't remember
whose case it was? A. No; it was a good while ago.
2732
[SENATE,
Q. Did you have the assistance of counsel to the board in taking
the testimony in that case? A. I believe not.
Q. Can you recollect now in about how many cases you have sat as
a commissioner where complaints have been made against either the
uniformed force or the ununiformed employes? A. I do not now
remember the time, but with a very few exceptions once a week since
I was appointed.
Q. Is there any fixed hour for the trial day? A. The usual hour is
11 o'clock in the morning.
Q. What is the trial day? A. Wednesday; usually Wednesday, and
that
Q. That is the same day that the board has its meetings? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. And all trials are set down for that day? A. Not all of them,
but the majority of them.
Q. Well, all trials that are held are set down for Wednesday? A.
Yes; that is the regular trial day.
Q. And you say the sessions of the board last from one to three
hours? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that includes the time which they spend in the trial of these
cases, does it? A. Oh, no; no; sometimes we have a meeting after the
trials have been concluded, to consider the various cases in order to
pass judgment.
Q. Well, is that time so spent included in the one to three hours
that you refer to? A. No; that is in addition.
Q. Well, do you know of many cases in which the time has been
expended beyond three hours in virtue of the necessities for con-
sidering the evidence in cases where complaints have been preferred?
A. No; but sometimes we hold a meeting the following day, on the
cases which we have tried on Wednesday.
Q. Have such meetings been frequent? A. Yes, sir.
Q. As often as once a week? A. No.
Q. As often as once a month? A. Probably, yes.
Q. Now, will you explain to the committee the manner in which
applications for appointment to the uniformed force are examined and
appointed? A. How they are appointed?
Q. Yes. A. Well, in the course of the year applications are made
by men who desire to become firemen; these applications are kept on
record; then the men are sent to the surgeon of the board to be
examined as to their physical ability.
Q. Who is the surgeon? A. Dr. Ives; and two assistants.
Q. Who are the assistants? A. I can't name the names.
No. 80.]
2733
Q. After having been examined what happens to the man? A.
Then later his name is sent to the civil service board, and after that
when a number of vacancies exist when such a number of vacancies
exist as to make it necessary to fill the vacancies, a requisition is made
upon the civil service board for the number of men that have passed
to cover the number of vacancies existing.
Q. Has the fire department any representative among the civil
service examiners? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who? A. Chief Bonner.
Q. Do you know what you certify to the civil service board when
you certify that a man has passed the surgeons and that you desire
him to be examined? A. I don't understand.
Q. When you certify to the civil service board that a man has
passed the surgeons and that you desire that he should be examined,
do you know what you certify to the civil service board? A. Yes.
Q. What do you certify to them? A. That he is physically com-
petent; that his character, I believe, has been investigated; at least, I
know we have investigated his character, his antecedents, and so on
as to his age, etc.
By Senator АHEARN:
Q. The chief of the department, commissioner, investigates the
character of the man before his name is submitted to the civil service
board, doesn't he? A. Yes.
Q. The chief of the department investigates the man's character ?
A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. You investigate the question of character in the first instance,
do you not? A. The chief of department directs it to be done.
Q. It is done, however by him for account of the board? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And nobody gets certified to the civil service examiners for
examination unless upon the investigation into the character of the
applicant and a report made that his character is— A. - Good.
Q. Good, such as to qualify him to be a proper member of the
force? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in that way, before the question comes before the civil
service examiners at all, is it not a fact that the board of fire com-
missioners, through its subordinates, has a virtual veto upon the name
of any applicant in case they see fit to report that his character is not
satisfactory? A. It can not be a veto; I do not know what it might be
called; the department has something to say about it, but a veto
2734
[SENATE,
would, in my opinion, be an after action; action after the action of the
civil service commission.
1
Q. You have no veto after the action of the civil service com-
mission? A. No, sir.
Q. Because you have certified, in the first instance, that the person
is qualified, so far as the physical ability and character are concerned?
A. Yes, sir.
the
Q. But if your subordinates were to report adversely on
question, either of physical ability or character, then it would be
impossible for him to get into your department, would it not? A. I
suppose it would, because it would be not proper that he should be in
the department.
Q. And those two investigations which are preliminary to any work
on the part of the civil service board are made by your board quite
unhampered? A. The civil service commission prescribes certain.
rules as to age and height of a man, etc.
Q. Now, I find by reference to the report, page 15, that by general
orders No. 4, May twenty-ninth, Deputy Chief of Department McCabe
was assigned to the district lying on the north of Twenty-third street,
with headquarters at number 165 West Twenty-ninth street, and that
thereafter he would command the seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth,
eleventh and twelfth battalions and have entire control of the working
force of fires within the district except when the chief of department
is present; can you tell us now why that general order was made and
why chief of department McCabe was assigned to that district? A. It
was done by the chief of the department.
Q. On his recommendation; I find that Deputy Chief of Department
Reilly was assigned to the district lying south of Twenty-third street;
was that done on the same recommendation? A. Yes, sir.
Q. At the time that was done did the chief of department give any
reasons why these particular assignments should be made? A. I
believe not.
Q. You voted for that general order, did you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you voted for it simply on the recommendation of the chief?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Made no further inquiry? A. No; he is supposed to know more
about those matters than I do, and I would hesitate very much to
counteract any recommendation of the chief in that respect.
Q. Do you know to what particular districts these two deputy
chiefs of department were assigned prior to the passage of general
orders No. 4? A. I do not, because I was not in the department,
except, perhaps, a week or two.
No. 80.]
2735
Q. Now, I find that section three of general orders No. 4 prescribes
that at the expiration of a period of three months, commencing on
receipt of this order, they (referring to the two deputy chiefs of
department), will each exchange commands and headquarters without
transfer of public property of any kind, and so continue in each
quarter, each one performing the duty of the other while so located;
did you vote for that as part of general orders No. 4? A. I suppose
I did.
Q. Now, will you tell us just what that means, and why that was
done, as part of the policy of the board? A. Well, I suppose the
chief gave his reasons at that time; I do not remember them,
especially now, what they were.
Q. Well, what do you understand that to mean? A. Oh, it means
that they should be transferred from one
Q. Does it mean that they shall change off every three months?
A. I think so.
Q. Change with each other? A. Yes.
Q. Why should they change with each other every three months,
instead of every year, or every three months, or not at all? A. I can
not say.
Q. Well, you regard that as a very important part of these general
orders, do you not? A. Well, I regard it as one of the recommenda-
tions which the chief makes, and I would hesitate very much to vote
against any recommendation of the kind which the chief makes as to
the handling and position of the uniformed force.
Q. Well, this changes the command, so far as the deputy chiefs are
concerned, every three months, does it not? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know of any reason why the command should be changed
every three months? A. No; I do not.
Q. Did you ask the deputy chief to give you any reasons for the
suggestion on his part of the passage of these general orders? A. I
have no doubt that I did, but I don't remember.
Q. In these same general orders No. 4 I find that it is provided
that the duties of the instructor at the school of instruction shall be
performed by the deputy chief of department, whose headquarters are
at 165 West Twenty-ninth street, at the time the instruction was in
progress; can you tell us what the school of instruction is, and why
the deputy chief, who happens to be located at 165 West Twenty-
ninth street, should be the instructor? A. I suppose he has special
facilities and knowledge.
Q. What is the school of instruction? A. Well, the instruction of
members of the fire department in their duties.
2736
[SENATE,
Q. In their duties? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In what duties? A. Their duties as firemen.
Q. Generally? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is it not a school of physical training for the purpose of equip-
ping them? A. Well, that is part of their fire department.
Q. Now, does the school of instruction cover anything more than
that? A. Yes; it does.
Q. Is it a school in the fire department in which the firemen are
instructed as to what the general duties of a fireman are? A. Yes.
Q. Well, do you know of any reason why that should not all be
done and discovered before the man is appointed as a fireman? A
He is not appointed before that is done; he is not appointed before
that is done, not finally appointed.
By Senator FASSETT:
Q. The school of instruction is a school for applicants? A. Yes-
no; after they have passed a civil service examination, and they are
temporarily appointed, but not finally until we receive the report as
to their fitness.
By Mr. IVINS:
Q. Who is the instructor at the school of instruction at the present
time? A. I do not remember.
Q. Do not remember which of the deputy chiefs is now instructor?
A. No.
Q. Does the work of the school of instruction ever come under your
particular eye? A. No-part of it, when the exercises are had in the
rear of the building, of the headquarters building.
Q. I find in these same general orders, which you say were recom-
mended for passage by the chief, that section 7 provides that it is
made the duty of the deputy chiefs of department to make occasional
inspections of battalions in their respective districts; do you know
whether inspections are made at any regular times, methodically and
systematically? A. I do not know, but I have no doubt they do.
Q. Do you know whether the inspections are only occasional? A.
No; they were not, according to instructions; I have no doubt their
failure to do so would be reported to the board.
Q. Do you know whether there is any regular calendar made for
inspections at given times in addition to the occasional inspections?
A. I do not; the chief will tell you that; most of these matters are
details of which the chief has cognizance, and I am not the chief of
the department; I am not supposed to run to the fires, nor to go into
a burning house and climb ladders, anything of that kind.

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
13.
3 9015 01074 1869
Reviewed by Preservation 1987
ཁ་་ག---ས་ག་