“CHIEF” MURPHY’S LEADERSHIP--FURTHER DETAILS
1912-1913
Mayor Gaynor was by no means pliable to Tammany purposes; he both
asserted and exercised his independence of “Chief” Murphy. But although
great powers were centralized in his office, there were nevertheless
numbers of Tammany men in the various departments, bureaus and courts.
Of the 85,000 regular employees of New York City in 1912 (including
10,118 policemen and 4,346 firemen), many were Tammany men, the larger
number of them occupying subordinate positions. The entire city payroll
at this time aggregated about $89,000,000--an average outlay of
$7,500,000 a month for salaries and wages alone. The city budget for
1913 was $190,411,000.
Despite the appointment of successive Police Commissioners--there
had been eight within eleven years--to remedy matters in the Police
Department, the state of affairs in that department was still a
fruitful cause of scandal. This continuing scandal was brought to a
vivid climax by a murder the deliberate audacity of which horrified and
aroused the people of the city.
On April 15, 1912, Police Lieutenant Charles Becker went, at the head
of his “raiding squad,” to the gambling house of Herman Rosenthal on
West Forty-fifth street. On July 11, 1912, Rosenthal went to the West
Side Police Court to protest against the “oppression” of the police in
stationing a uniformed man constantly on duty in his house. Shortly
thereafter, Rosenthal made an affidavit, which was published in the
New York _World_ on July 14, 1912, swearing that Police Lieutenant
Becker had been his partner in the operation of the gambling house and
had made the raid for certain personal purposes hereafter explained.
If at this time a Tammany district attorney had been in office, the
results might not have been fatal to Rosenthal. But the district
attorney, Charles S. Whitman, was an official noted for his excellent
record. It was well realized that when he agreed to listen to
Rosenthal’s charges against Becker, he could not be “reached” by any
“influence” or intimidated by any threat. The alternative on the part
of somebody vitally interested was to slay Rosenthal on the principle
that “dead men tell no tales,” and thus prevent important disclosures
being made to the district attorney.
At 2 o’clock on the morning of July 16, 1912, Rosenthal was summoned
out from the doorway of the Hotel Metropole at Broadway and Forty-third
street, and shot to death by four “gunmen” from within an automobile,
which immediately after the shooting sped away with the murderers.
Arrests of suspects quickly followed. By July 29, 1912, District
Attorney Whitman held four men, all of whom had become informers. These
four were “Bald Jack” Rose, “Bridgie” Webber, Harry Vallon, and Sam
Schepps--two of whom, Rose and Vallon, had voluntarily surrendered.
On statements made by Rose and Vallon, the Grand Jury returned an
indictment against Becker charging murder in the first degree. A few
days later, Becker was re-indicted, and indictments were handed in
against the four “gunmen”--Louis Rosenberg, alias “Lefty Louie,” 23
years old; Harry Horowitz, alias “Gyp the Blood,” 26 years old; Jacob
Seidenshner, alias “Whitey Lewis,” 26 years old, and Frank Cirofici,
alias “Dago Frank,” 29 years old. These “gunmen” were variously
arrested at different places.
Stirred by this brutal murder, a mass meeting of citizens was held at
Cooper Union on August 14, 1912. Resolutions were adopted part of which
approved a proposal for an appropriation by the city of $25,000 for
an investigation into police conditions and a thorough inquiry into
the causes and possible remedies of systems of blackmail and graft. A
Citizens’ Committee was appointed by this mass meeting to report on
these conditions.
Of the police force this committee reported on February 26, 1913, that:
“The corruption is so ingrained that the man of ordinary decent
character entering the force and not possessed of extraordinary
moral fiber may easily succumb. About him are the evidences
of graft and the enjoyment of irregular incomes substantially
increasing the patrolman’s salary. Inadequate condemnation is
shown by his associates in the force for such practises; on the
contrary, there is much indirect pressure which induces him to
break his oath of office; the families of grafting policemen
live better than his own, and the urgencies of his family and
of his own social needs tempt him to thrive as do his corrupt
associates. Such a system makes for too many of the police an
organized school of crime. The improvement of recent years--and
there is some--is not great enough to satisfy an aroused public.
“But not resting with this general knowledge of the existence
of such matters, this Committee has made an intensive
examination of the conditions in a number of police precincts.
We know that the connection between members of the police force
and crime or commercialized vice is continuous, profitable
and so much a matter of course that explicit bargains do not
have to be made; naturally this “honor among thieves” is
occasionally violated, as is customary among thieves, both the
keeping and the breaking of faith being determined by these
policemen for their own profit.
“Well knowing this police ‘system,’ grand juries will not on
police testimony indict violators of the law, lest they [the
grand juries] be lending themselves to police persecution of a
selected criminal who had refused tribute, and so be helping
the police ‘system.’ For the same reason petit juries will
acquit, and judges will discharge, and crime increases and
goes unpunished, while honest policemen are discredited and
discouraged.
“Evil thus breeds new maggots of evil. The sums collected
by the police excite the greed of certain politicians; they
demand their shares, and in their turn they protect the
criminal breaches of the law and the police in corruption.
The presence of ‘politics’ brings strength and complexity to
the ‘system’ and makes it harder to break up. The city, we
believe, is convinced that it is time for more radical efforts
at improvement.”[1]
A Committee of the Board of Aldermen, appointed to inquire into
matters connected with the Police Department, held eighty public
sessions, took 4,800 pages of testimony and records, handed in certain
conclusions, and made recommendations for further laws. “We have
received shocking evidence of a widespread corrupt alliance between
the police and gamblers and disorderly house keepers,” this committee
reported in part.[2] During the same time, District Attorney Whitman
was vigorously prosecuting public offenders. In a single year four
police inspectors were convicted of conspiracy and were also under
indictment for bribery, one police captain was convicted of extortion,
one lieutenant was convicted of extortion, one patrolman of perjury,
and two patrolmen were convicted of extortion. In addition, there were
various indictments of patrolmen for extortion. Of the convicted, the
captain and one patrolman confessed; an attorney and a citizen indicted
for bribery in connection with police matters, also confessed.
To return to the trials for the murder of Rosenthal: At Becker’s trial
Rose testified that his connection with Becker had begun in 1911, after
a “raid” on a gambling house kept by him (Rose) on Second Avenue; that
the levying of tribute on “unraided” gamblers was systematized; that
Rosenthal was brought under this system of “protection”; that Rosenthal
and Becker had become partners; and that Rosenthal in March, 1912,
had refused to “give up” $500 for the defense of Becker’s press agent
who was charged with the killing of a negro in a “raid” on a crap
game. According further to Rose’s testimony, this refusal brought on
strained relations between Becker and Rosenthal; and that after the
“raid” on Rosenthal’s gambling house, on April 15, 1912, when Rosenthal
threatened “to squeal,” Becker began to plan for the “fixing” of
Rosenthal. In June, 1912--so Rose testified--when “Big Jack” Zelig, an
East Side gang leader, was in the City Prison, the plan was determined
upon of negotiating with him that, in exchange for his release, some of
his “gunmen” should “attend to” Rosenthal. The four “gunmen” arrested,
Rose swore, were the tools that committed the murder, and he (Rose) had
acted as Becker’s agent in arranging matters with them. The testimony
further showed that on the afternoon after the murder, the quartet of
“gunmen” had received $1,000 as payment, after which they quit the city.
On the testimony of Rose and others, Becker was convicted on October
24, 1913; the conviction of the four young “gunmen” soon followed. All
five were sentenced to death. By a decision of the Court of Appeals,
on February 24, 1914, Becker was allowed a new trial upon the ground
that by reason of hostile rulings his trial had not been fair, but the
conviction of the four “gunmen” was affirmed. They were electrocuted at
Sing Sing prison on April 13, 1914. Subsequently, after a second trial,
Becker was again convicted, and was duly electrocuted.
Another source of quick-ripening trouble to Tammany Hall, turning
large numbers of voters against its chief, Mr. Murphy, and against the
whole system of the “Organization,” was the summary manner in which it
impeached and disposed of Governor William Sulzer.
Mr. Sulzer had been a member of Tammany Hall for twenty-five years,
and had always been pushed into office by Tammany Hall since the time
when, as a young man, he had been one of Mr. Croker’s protégés. Elected
to the New York State Assembly, he had been made its Speaker at a
youthful age. Later he had been repeatedly sent to Congress by Tammany
Hall nominations, and it was primarily a Tammany backing that caused
his nomination and election as Governor, in 1912. Tammany believed
that it had every reason to feel sure that as Governor Mr. Sulzer
would continue pliable and docile to the “Organization’s” orders and
interests.
“Boss” Murphy, however, was soon disillusioned when Governor Sulzer
declined dictation.
According to Mr. Sulzer’s detailed story,[3] he (Sulzer), immediately
prior to going into office as Governor, spent an afternoon with Mr.
Murphy at his request in his private room at Delmonico’s.
“His attitude,” Mr. Sulzer related, “was very friendly and
confidential. He said he was my friend; that he knew of my financial
condition and wanted to help me out. As he went on, I was amazed at
his knowledge of my intimate personal affairs. To my astonishment, he
informed me that he knew I was heavily in debt. Then he offered me
enough money to pay my debts and have enough left to take things easy
while Governor. He said that this was really a party matter and that
the money he would give me was party money … and that nobody would
know anything about it; that I could pay what I owed and go to Albany
feeling easy financially. He then asked me how much I needed, to whom I
owed it, and other personal questions.
“As I did not want to be tied hard and fast as Governor in advance,
I declined Mr. Murphy’s offer, saying that I was paying off my debts
gradually; that my creditors were friends and would not press me;
that I was economical, that I would try to get along on my salary as
Governor.” Mr. Sulzer asserted that Mr. Murphy repeated the offer, and
that when he (Sulzer) again refused, Mr. Murphy said, “If you need
money at any time, let me know, and you can have what you want. We
cleaned up a lot of money on your campaign. I can afford to let you
have what you want and never miss it.”
Then, according further to Mr. Sulzer’s story, Mr. Murphy wanted
Governor Sulzer to meet him at the hotel in Albany where Murphy was
staying; Sulzer did not go. Subsequently, on the night of February 2,
1913, they met at Justice Edward E. McCall’s house in New York City,
where Murphy urged the appointment of his friend, John Galvin, to
succeed Mr. Willcox as a member of the Public Service Commission in
New York City. The Public Service Commission is a body invested with
enormous authority in the matter of granting of public franchises and
other comprehensive powers; it had been under anti-Tammany control, and
it was a body the domination of which was pressingly sought by Tammany;
there were vast subway franchises to be awarded, and the powers of that
body could be used with almost autocratic effect in certain ways over
the entire range of recognized public service corporations. Governor
Sulzer would not appoint Galvin, but finally compromised upon the
selection of Justice Edward E. McCall as Chairman of the Public Service
Commission.
“At this meeting and subsequently,” Mr. Sulzer declared, “Mr. Murphy
demanded from me pledges regarding legislation and especially
concerning appointments to the Public Service Commission, the Health
Department, the Labor Department, the State Hospital Commission, the
Department of State Prisons and the Department of Highways.” Murphy
insisted that various Tammany men whom he named should be appointed to
those offices. Mr. Murphy, however, favored the retention in office of
C. Gordon Reel, State Superintendent of Highways, saying that he was “a
good man.” “Mr. Murphy added,” Mr. Sulzer’s statement continued, “that
if I wished a new State Superintendent of Highways, ‘Jim’ Gaffney was
the best all-around man for the job.”
“When I took office as Governor of the State last January,” Mr. Sulzer
declared in a signed published statement,
“on the very first day my attention was abruptly called to the
fact that during the year just ended there had been spent in
the State $34,000,000 WITHOUT A SINGLE AUDIT.
“On the second day that I was in office a messenger presented
to me bills amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars,
pointing out to me where I was to sign my name. If I had
attached my signature to those bills they would have been
immediately paid, and yet the messenger thought that he was
telling me nothing unusual when he said that other Governors
had signed bills that way, and that one Governor had left a
rubber stamp outside his office with the messenger, so that he
would not be bothered.
“‘Leave those bills there,’ I said, ‘and I’ll look into them.
The rubber stamp period is over.’”
After Mr. Sulzer had become Governor he learned, as his statement read,
that the State Architect had expended more than $4,300,000 in the
previous year; that this was done practically on the certificate of
that official, and that there had been no proper audit; the vouchers
had been carried to the trustees of public buildings, composed of
the Governor, Lieutenant-Governor and Speaker of the Assembly by a
clerk and approved by the use of a regular office stamp. Governor
Sulzer also learned, he said, that the appropriation for 1912 had been
exceeded by nearly half a million dollars, and that there was no proper
supervision. Governor Sulzer appointed John A. Hennessy as Commissioner
to investigate reports of graft in these and other departments. At the
same time, he appointed George W. Blake as Commissioner to inquire into
prison management.
Mr. Hennessy’s report disclosed the most widespread graft. In
construction work on public buildings, large bills had been submitted
for inferior material; the payrolls on the electrical and other
contracts had been padded; regular State employees had been displaced
as inspectors and timekeepers by political henchmen from Tammany
District Leader James J. Hagan’s district in Manhattan, from which
the State Architect, his secretary, and the foreman on the general
work came. At Governor Sulzer’s request, Mr. Hennessy asked the State
Architect for his resignation, but Senator Frawley, another Tammany
district leader, intervened with a protest to Governor Sulzer against
any interference with the work on the State Capitol or other State
buildings.
“I sent for Hennessy,” Mr. Sulzer’s narrative went on, “who in my
presence related to Senator Frawley the main facts in the case, but
Frawley still persisted that nothing should be done with the State
Architect’s office, at least until there had been further consideration
of the case. I told Hennessy to return to the State Architect (Mr.
Hoofer) and insist upon his resignation. What happened between these
two men I can only tell from Hennessy’s recital to me. Hoofer told him
that he (Hoofer) was not a free agent, that he had no control over his
deputies, that he had no control over his secretary, nor did he have
any control over the men who checked up the work. He (Hoofer) said they
were all appointed through Tammany Hall.… Hoofer said he wanted to
consult somebody in New York. While I held the ’phone, I told Hennessy
to ask Hoofer the name of the man, and Hennessy responded that Hoofer
wanted an opportunity to see Charles F. Murphy and explain certain
things.”
Governor Sulzer allowed a few days’ delay. Shortly before the time
limit that Governor Sulzer had set for Hoofer’s resignation, “John H.
Delaney came to me,” Mr. Sulzer’s story went on, “and said that he had
been talking to ‘the Chief’ over the ’phone, and that Murphy wanted
Hoofer’s resignation to go over until such time as he could discuss the
case with me.” A little later “Senator Wagner, Senator Frawley and John
H. Delaney came into the Executive Chamber and informed me that Murphy
was insistent that nothing should be done in the case of Hoofer during
that week, and it was a subject that would have to be discussed with
the organization.” Upon Governor Sulzer’s demand that he resign or be
immediately removed, Mr. Hoofer wrote his resignation.
The next official removed by Governor Sulzer was C. Gordon Reel,
State Superintendent of Highways, following Commissioner Hennessy’s
investigation and the disclosures of extensive graft in highway
contracts in a large number of counties. The amount of this graft
has been variously estimated at from $5,000,000 to $9,000,000. That
the system of plundering the State in the building of roads was no
fiction was shown later in the large number of indictments (followed by
many convictions) handed down against politico-contractors and State
employes in New York State.
In the most important of the indictments found by the Suffolk County
Grand Jury on January 22, 1914, the Grand Jury charged “grand larceny”
and “conspiracy” in the construction of a so-called “cementitious
Hudson River gravel road” the specifications of which designated a
material absolutely controlled by Henry Steers, of the contracting firm
of Bradley, Gaffney & Steers, commonly known as “the Tammany Trust.”
During an investigation conducted by James W. Osborne, in behalf of New
York State, the testimony, on February 17, 1914, indicated that State
Superintendent of Highways Reel ordered the use of a patented road for
roadways and caused the specifications to be changed so as to favor
the Gaffney-Bradley-Steers Company which controlled this particular
patented pavement. And when Mr. Sulzer testified, on February 29, 1914,
before the Assembly “Graft Hunt” Investigating Committee, he said that
an average of 30 per cent. of the money paid for those State roads
(which had been investigated by Mr. Hennessy) went into the contract,
and that 70 per cent. went into the pockets of politicians and
contractors. Mr. Sulzer asserted that about $9,000,000 had been stolen
in 1912.
According to Mr. Sulzer, Mr. Reel’s appointment as State Commissioner
of Highways had been Mr. Murphy’s “personal selection.” When Governor
Sulzer’s attitude indicated Reel’s removal, Mr. Murphy (so Sulzer
stated) pressed forward the appointment of “Jim” Gaffney to succeed
Reel. “Mr. Murphy demanded the appointment of Gaffney, and still later
a prominent New Yorker came to me in the Executive Mansion bringing the
message from Mr. Murphy that it was ‘Gaffney or war.’ I declined to
appoint Gaffney.
“This is the Gaffney who, only a few months afterwards, on September 4,
1913, in undisputed testimony before the Supreme Court of New York, was
shown to have demanded and received $30,000 in money (refusing to take
a check) from one of the aqueduct contractors, nominally for ‘advice.’
This is the man who Mr. Murphy demanded should be put in a position
where he would superintend and control the spending of sixty-five
millions of the money of the State in road contracts.”
Mr. Sulzer here referred to the testimony of Harry B. Hanger, aqueduct
contractor, who swore that he paid Mr. Gaffney $30,000 for “expert
advice on the labor situation” on one contract, and $10,000 for the
same services on another contract. Mr. Gaffney later--on March 20,
1914--himself testified before the Special Grand Jury in New York City
as to this transaction.
It was the same Mr. Gaffney, too, whose name was involved in the award
of Contract No. 22 for the Catskill Aqueduct. This contract was awarded
on March 19, 1909, over two lower bidders to Patterson & Company, a
firm of no great capital or experience. James W. Patterson, Jr., head
of that firm, subsequently testified before the Grand Jury, in 1914,
to his making arrangements to pay 5 per cent. of the contract price
($824,942.50) as a “contribution to Tammany Hall.” John M. Murphy, a
Bronx contractor, testified that, as agent for James E. Gaffney, he had
arranged to sell the contract, and had received from Mr. Gaffney 10 per
cent., or $4,125, as his share of a certain $41,250, after threatening
“to kick over the whole deal” if Gaffney did not give the proper
“honorarium.”
It appeared from the testimony that $41,250 in bills had been deposited
in escrow to be handed over by James G. Shaw, the “stakeholder,” to a
some one designated as Gaffney, on the day after the award of Aqueduct
Contract No. 22. Questioned as to whom this $41,250 was given, Mr. Shaw
could not remember, which forgetfulness made the fastening of legal
proof impossible. The special Grand Jury investigating this matter
reported, however, in a presentment to Justice Vernon M. Davis, in
the Supreme Court, New York City, on April 21, 1914, that the Grand
Jurors were morally satisfied that a crime had been committed in the
sale of Contract No. 22 to Patterson & Company, and that this contract
could not have been sold and delivered, as it was, in the name of
James E. Gaffney, “without the collusion of a member of the Board (of
Water Supply) itself.” Inasmuch as five years had passed since the
transaction, the Statute of Limitations intervened to bar criminal
prosecution.
In an inquiry later conducted by District Attorney Whitman, James C.
Stewart swore that one “Gaffney” asked him for a contribution of five
per cent. upon $3,000,000 worth of canal work that he (Stewart) was
seeking. Stewart refused to make the arrangement; his bid was much the
lowest, but he did not then get the contract. Precisely what “Gaffney”
it was who proposed the handing over of this $150,000, Stewart averred
that he could not tell; he had never seen him previously. When, on
January 30, 1914, District Attorney Whitman brought Stewart and James
E. Gaffney face to face, Stewart said that he could not identify Mr.
Gaffney as the man who demanded the $150,000.
During the course of this same inquiry Mr. Sulzer testified, on January
21, 1914, that on learning that Stewart was to be denied the contracts,
he telegraphed on December 18, 1912, to the Canal Board asking it to
defer action until he could consult with its members. Whereupon John
H. Delaney came to him and excitedly said, “My God, Congressman, what
have you done? It angered the Chief more than anything else I have ever
known. The Chief is wild.” The “Chief,” otherwise Charles F. Murphy,
demanded an interview with the Governor-elect at once.
In this interview, which was held at Delmonico’s, Mr. Sulzer quoted Mr.
Murphy as saying to him, “Why did you send that telegram to the Canal
Board? You have no right to butt in on things that don’t concern you.
I’m attending to that matter, and I want you to keep your hands off.
If you are going to begin this way, I can see now where you will end
as Governor. You do what you are told hereafter, and don’t take any
action on matters that don’t concern you without conferring with me.”
When Mr. Sulzer said he was going to be Governor, Mr. Murphy (so Sulzer
testified) replied: “So that is the way you understand it? Well, if you
go along that line, I can see where you will end up damned quick. You
are going to be Governor? Like hell you are!”
Mr. Sulzer further testified at this hearing that on the evening of
March 3, 1913, at a luncheon in Washington, he told Senator O’Gorman
that Mr. Murphy was putting the “screws” on him and bringing to
bear all the influence he could to have James E. Gaffney appointed
Commissioner of Highways, and that Senator O’Gorman had said:
“Governor, if you appoint Jim Gaffney Commissioner of Highways it will
be a disgrace to the State of New York and it will ruin your political
career as the Governor. Don’t you know that Gaffney is Murphy’s chief
bagman? Don’t you know he is the man Murphy sends out to hold up the
contractors? Don’t you know he is the man that held up my client, James
G. Stewart, for over a hundred thousand dollars, and he would have got
away with it if Stewart had not come to me, and if I had not gone to
Murphy and read the Riot Act, telling him that I would not stand for
that kind of politics; that he had to stop Gaffney, and that if he
didn’t stop Gaffney, so far as my client was concerned, I would expose
him.”
Subsequently Mr. Sulzer met Mr. Murphy several times, and was
importuned (so he testified) to appoint Mr. Gaffney. When Sulzer
replied that it was impossible, Mr. Murphy announced, “Well, it’s
Gaffney or war.” Mr. Sulzer’s testimony went on: “At this conversation,
one of the things Mr. Murphy said to me was, ‘If you don’t do this,
I will wreck your administration.’ It was not the first time he had
threatened me, and I answered, ‘I am the Governor, and I am going to
be the Governor.’ He said, ‘You may be the Governor, but I have got
the Legislature, and the Legislature controls the Governor, and if
you don’t do what I tell you to do, I will throw you out of office.’”
After Governor Sulzer had removed Reel, Mr. Murphy was still pressing
Gaffney’s appointment.
Of the inquiries into graft carried on by George W. Blake and John
W. Hennessy, Mr. Sulzer testified: “Their reports staggered me, and
believe me, it takes something to stagger me. There was graft, graft
everywhere, nor any man to stop it.” Mr. Sulzer testified that Mr.
Murphy had sought to hamper the graft exposure by causing to be cut
off--for the first time in the State’s history, he said--the Governor’s
contingent fund, and he described how it became necessary to raise
money by private subscription to enable the graft inquiry to be carried
on.
“I have been in office now for six months,” wrote Mr. Sulzer in a
signed article later, “and in that time I have learned enough to be
able to say without fear of contradiction that in the past three years
$50,000,000 of the people’s money has been wasted or stolen.”
In a talk, on March 18, 1913, with Mr. Murphy over appointments to
the Supreme Court of New York State, the Tammany chief--so Mr. Sulzer
related--“threatened me with public disgrace unless I agreed to his
program on legislative matters and appointments. It was at this
conference, too, that he talked about the things he ‘had on me,’ and
said that I had better listen to him and not to his enemies up the
State; that if I did what he told me I would have things easy and no
trouble, and that if I didn’t do what he wanted me to, I would have all
the trouble I wanted.…
“He was very insulting. Then I asked him what he could do to destroy
me. And he said: ‘Never mind; you will find out in good time. Stand
by the organization and you will be all right. If you go against the
organization, I will make your administration the laughing stock of the
State.’ It was at this time that he asked me to call off George Blake,
the commissioner who was investigating the prisons.… I told him that
Blake was an efficient man and that I was going to let him go on with
his work, and he said, ‘If you do you will be sorry for it. Mark what I
am telling you now!’
“I told him what I had heard about the vileness of things in the Sing
Sing and Auburn prisons. I said: ‘We certainly ought not to stand for
them. I want to get at the facts, and if there is anything wrong, stop
it; if there is any graft, eliminate it.’ Mr. Murphy told me that he
didn’t want anything done in connection with Sing Sing prison by Blake
or any other man; that the warden there, Mr. Kennedy, was a friend of
his and a good man, and he wanted him left alone. This, remember, was
the warden whom I afterward removed from his place on charges and who
was since indicted by the Westchester grand jury.” It may be noted here
that later there were a number of prosecutions in prison graft cases.
The graft in the prisons reached a total of many millions of dollars in
the one item alone of the substitution of bad food for the good food
paid for by the State. Extensive grafting was found in other respects.
Mr. Sulzer added that one of the agents through whom Mr. Murphy most
frequently communicated with him was Justice Edward E. McCall. “Judge
McCall usually spoke of Mr. Murphy as ‘the Chief,’ and would say to me
that ‘the Chief’ wished such and such a thing done, or demanded that I
follow such and such a course of action. Every Tammany member of either
house who approached me from day to day used the same language, saying
that ‘the Chief’ demanded this or demanded that, or that ‘the Chief’
had telephoned to put through such a piece of legislation, or kill some
other piece of legislation.”
Meanwhile, on March 10, 1913, reports of trouble between Governor
Sulzer and Mr. Murphy had become public; when on this date Sulzer
removed C. Gordon Reel as State Superintendent of Highways, it was
reported in the newspapers that Murphy had asked Governor Sulzer to
name James E. Gaffney, his partner in the contracting business, as
Reel’s successor. On the next day, Mr. Murphy hotly denied that he
had asked Gaffney’s appointment. From day to day further reports of
estrangement were published. In a speech before the Democratic editors
of the State, on March 25, Sulzer asserted: “No man, no party, no
organization can make me a rubber stamp. I am the Governor. Let no man
doubt that.”
It appeared that Mr. Murphy had the idea that Sulzer was at heart a
Progressive; it may be explained that the Progressive party had polled
a large vote and was recognized as a powerful political factor.
It was on the night of April 13, 1913, that Governor Sulzer, according
to his interview published later in the New York _Evening Mail_, held
his final interview with Mr. Murphy. “I asked him,” Mr. Sulzer said,
“not to interfere with the trial of Stilwell in the Senate. I said,
‘What are you going to do about him?’ ‘Stand by him, of course,’
replied Mr. Murphy. ‘Stilwell will be acquitted. It will only be a
three-day wonder. How do you expect a Senator to live on $1,500 a year?
That is only chicken feed.’ … Before we parted that night, I warned Mr.
Murphy that he would wreck the party and accomplish his own destruction
if he persisted in shielding grafters and violating platform pledges.
His angry retort was that I was an ingrate, and that he would disgrace
and destroy me.”
In fact, as Mr. Murphy predicted, Senator Stephen J. Stilwell was
voted not guilty of official misconduct, by a vote of 28 to 21 in the
Senate, after an investigation by the judiciary committee of charges
of bribery made against him by George H. Kendall, president of the New
York Bank Note Company. But subsequently Stilwell was indicted in New
York County, convicted of bribery upon substantially the same evidence
as that upon which a majority of his colleagues in the State Senate had
acquitted him, and he was sentenced to a two-year term in prison.
Replying later to Mr. Sulzer’s charges, Mr. Murphy definitely denied
that he had ever recommended the appointment of James E. Gaffney
as Highways Commissioner; that he ever mentioned Gaffney’s name to
Governor Sulzer for any office; he emphatically denied that he ever
made the threats that Sulzer attributed to him or that he ever sent for
Mr. Sulzer to come and see him. Mr. Murphy asserted that he never saw
Sulzer alone after he became Governor “because I knew he’d do just what
he has done--perjure himself.”
In April, 1913, Governor Sulzer pushed his Direct Primary Bill, and
Tammany members of the Legislature decided in retaliation to defeat
all bills favored by him and to “hold up” all of his appointments. On
April 24, 1913, Tammany legislators were stirred to anger by his veto
of a direct primary bill that they had concocted; a few days later they
overwhelmingly voted down his direct primary bill. More retaliation
followed on both sides.
It was during this time--in May, 1913--that the New York _World_
published specific charges that in return for a promise made two years
previously to get a lucrative post for J. A. Connolly, a personal
friend, Justice Cohalan, Murphy’s legal and political adviser, had
taken a note from Connolly for $4,000. This promise, it was charged,
had not been kept. There were, it was also charged, back of this note a
series of transactions in the years 1904 to 1906 between Connolly and
Cohalan involving the payment of various sums amounting to $3,940.55;
Connolly claimed that Cohalan had demanded and obtained from him 55 per
cent. of the net profits on all city work that was given to Connolly’s
firm by means of Cohalan’s influence. Connolly further claimed that
the payments to Cohalan were calculated on this basis, and that their
friendship ceased when Cohalan demanded $1,500 more than Connolly
reckoned was due him. Threatened with an action at law, Cohalan
surrendered the $4,000 note to Connolly’s attorney.
These charges were investigated by the Grievance Committee of the
Bar Association; the report of that committee confirmed every charge
made. Refusing to recognize the jurisdiction of the Bar Association,
Justice Cohalan requested Governor Sulzer to have the charges passed
upon by the Legislature; this Governor Sulzer did in a special message
embodying the report of the Grievance Committee of the Bar Association.
The Legislature ordered a trial before the Joint Judiciary Committee.
Justice Cohalan admitted on the witness stand that he had made a great
mistake in his dealings with Connolly, and that the money he had
paid to Connolly was blackmail given in the hope of hushing up the
affair for the good of his party. William D. Guthrie, representing the
Bar Association, reviewed the case in detail, and demanded Justice
Cohalan’s removal. The Joint Judiciary Committee’s report recommended
that the case against Justice Cohalan be dismissed, which report was
upheld by a majority vote of the Legislature. Opponents of Tammany
pointed out that this was a characteristic action from a Legislature
dominated by Tammany influences.
FOOTNOTES
[1] _Report of the Citizens’ Committee Appointed at the Cooper Union
Meeting, August 12, 1912_, pp. 6-7.
[2] _Preliminary Legislative Report of Special Committee of Board of
Aldermen_, p. 6.
[3] An extended interview published in the New York _Evening Mail_,
October 20 and 21, 1913.