GOVERNOR SULZER’S IMPEACHMENT AND TAMMANY’S DEFEAT
1913-1914
The campaign of retaliation against Governor Sulzer soon came to a
climax.
On July 15, 1913, a committee called the Frawley Committee (headed
by Senator Frawley) was appointed to inquire into Governor Sulzer’s
receipts and expenditures of campaign funds. After taking testimony,
that committee submitted its report with the finding that, following
his campaign for Governor, Mr. Sulzer had omitted declaring in his
campaign statement $19,000 of contributions to his campaign fund and
had purchased, for his personal account, stocks with part of the moneys
thus received.
The evidence, according to the committee’s report, showed that a total
of $109,016 in cash or stock had been in Mr. Sulzer’s possession,
and that this sum came from campaign contributions. Mr. Sulzer had
used both cash and checks to purchase stocks; and as far as could be
brought out by the records and testimony, his Wall Street transactions
with three brokerage firms covered a total of $72,428.28, dating from
January 1, 1912. It appeared that the greater part of these payments
were made after he became a candidate for Governor and was elected to
that office. Mr. Murphy and other Tammany leaders pointed out that
while these very transactions had been going on, Mr. Sulzer had in his
public speeches pretended that he was a poor man.
Mr. Sulzer’s own version was that if he had made a mistake in signing
his campaign statement it was due to haste and carelessness and not to
intent to deceive. “But,” he added,
“this is not the only explanation of the failure to itemize
certain moneys which were received in the campaign. Some of
the moneys were not for campaign purposes at all, but were
loans. They were given to me by friends who knew I was heavily
in debt, and who loaned me the money to pay my debts or to use
as I saw fit. These friends wanted nothing, and in case of my
election I knew there was nothing they would ask me to do, or
that I could do for them. Politics had nothing to do with the
matter.
“All the moneys given to me, or sent to me for the campaign,
were turned over to the committee, to which reference has been
made, or were subsequently given to Mr. Murphy. Whether the
latter turned these moneys over to the State Committee or not
I cannot say, but an investigation of the report filed by that
committee negatives the assumption.”
On August 13, 1913, the Assembly, by a vote of 79 to 45, impeached
Governor Sulzer on eight articles. Trial by the High Court for the
Trial of Impeachments, consisting of the State Senate and the Judges of
the Court of Appeals, followed.
Governor Sulzer vigorously fought back, and public opinion was
greatly aroused over his charges that the affair was simply a case of
the Tammany “Organization” summarily disciplining him for refusing
to be its tool. He was convicted on three of the eight articles of
impeachment: (1) that he had filed with the Secretary of State a false
sworn statement of his campaign receipts and expenditures; (2) perjury
in swearing to the truth of the campaign accounting; (3) committing
a misdemeanor in suppressing evidence and preventing or seeking to
prevent witnesses from appearing before the legislative committee. On
October 17, 1913, Governor Sulzer was removed from office by a vote of
43 to 12 by the High Court for the Trial of Impeachments.
It should be noted that Chief Justice Edgar M. Cullen, of the Court
of Appeals, who presided at the trial, voted to acquit Mr. Sulzer on
every one of the articles. “Never before the present case,” said Chief
Justice Cullen, “has it been attempted to impeach a public officer for
acts committed when he was not an officer of the State.…” Chief Justice
Cullen held that Mr. Sulzer had committed no offense in failing to
state the amounts and sources of his campaign contributions, and that
there was no evidence of any deceit or fraud.
Governor Sulzer’s supporters set forth the following as the main actual
reasons why proceedings for his removal were pushed:
First: Mr. Sulzer’s persistent efforts to secure the enactment of the
Full Crew legislation to conserve human life on the railroads.
Second: Mr. Sulzer’s success in securing the enactment of the laws that
he recommended to compel honest dealings on the New York Stock Exchange.
Third: Mr. Sulzer’s refusal to approve the McKee Public Schools Bills
which would have given control of public schools to a religious
denomination.
Fourth: Mr. Sulzer’s successful efforts in causing the repeal of the
notorious charter of the Long Sault Development Company, by which the
State of New York received back its greatest water power and the most
valuable of its natural resources.
Fifth: Mr. Sulzer’s defiance of the bosses-big and little--and his
fight for honest and genuine direct primaries.
Sixth: Mr. Sulzer’s determined refusal to be a proxy Governor or “a
rubber stamp.”
Seventh: Mr. Sulzer’s absolute refusal to follow “boss” dictation
regarding legislation and appointments, and his blunt refusal to call
off Blake and Hennessy, and stop the investigations which were being
made, under his direction, to uncover fraud and expose graft in the
State Departments.
Eighth: Mr. Sulzer’s moral courage, in the performance of public duty,
wherein he insisted on the trial and punishment of Senator Stilwell for
extortion.
Ninth: Mr. Sulzer’s determination to set in motion the machinery of the
law, in various counties of the State, to indict the grafters and bring
them to justice.
There could be no questioning that the proceedings against Sulzer had
an effect upon the public mind the reverse of that expected by “Boss”
Murphy and his advisers.
The attempt of Tammany Hall’s leaders to pose in this case as the
conservers of political virtue met with a sardonic reception and
quickly reacted upon them in unmistakable terms. Public opinion in
general made no attempt to mitigate Mr. Sulzer’s acts, but, with a keen
perception of the fundamental facts, it saw that the real reason why
Governor Sulzer was so brutally punished was not because of those acts
but because he had finally broken away from Tammany dictation and had
sought to be somewhat of an independent Governor. Every intelligent
person knew that this was his crime in the view of the Tammany
organization, and, according to Tammany standards, the worst crime that
could be committed. That an organization which had been steeped in
corruption and graft should so ostentatiously pretend to be the exposer
and punisher of infractions in an official who had defied its power,
excited mockery, resentment and indignation. Public sympathy turned
toward the deposed Governor, and he was nominated for the Assembly by
the Progressives in an East Side district.
As we have seen, one of the chief issues upon which Gaynor had made
his Mayoralty campaign in 1909 was for municipally built and operated
subways.
After becoming Mayor, he underwent a decided change of mind. The
subway rights were awarded to the Interborough Rapid Transit Company
and the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company. The Final Report of the Joint
Legislative Committee appointed to investigate the Public Service
Commissions severely criticizes the policy and the terms under which
the contracts were made by the Public Service Commission and the Board
of Estimate. On the other hand, defenders of the Board of Estimate’s
action point out that the reasons why that Board changed from city to
company subways were that by the cooperation of the companies, the city
had the benefit of $150,000,000 more in funds than would have been
the case without that cooperation; that the new subway lines instead
of being independent, disconnected routes, unrelated to existing
transportation lines, would be built in appropriate extenso of subway
facilities already in operation; and that by this arrangement not
only would the service be harmonized and improved but the payment of
double fares would be done away with and an aggregate of vast sums thus
saved to the traveling public. The circular routes by which the city’s
transportation problems will be more effectively and constructively
solved were adopted despite Gaynor’s favoring the Interborough Rapid
Transit Company’s perpendicular routes plan.
One feature of the testimony later before the Joint Legislative
Committee especially attracting public attention was the imputation
that in the contract for the third-tracking of the Interborough
Rapid Transit Company’s elevated railroads, a fund of $2,000,000
was surreptitiously provided in the form of a commission to John F.
Stevens. Formerly Mr. Stevens had been associated in the construction
of the Panama Canal with Mr. Shonts who now was president of the
Interborough Rapid Transit Company. This company, in the third-tracking
work, wanted exemption from supervision by the Public Service
Commission. According to a memorandum preserved by George W. Young,
an Interborough director, this contract with Mr. Stevens was entered
into (so, it was asserted, Mr. Shonts told Mr. Lane, another director),
because “in connection with the securing of the contract which had been
closed between the City of Greater New York and the Interborough, Mr.
Shonts had found it necessary to make certain commitments and incur
certain obligations, and that it was by means of the Stevens contract
that he expected to meet and pay these commitments and obligations.”[1]
The Joint Legislative Committee thus comments on the testimony: “It
is perfectly clear that Mr. Shonts did tell Mr. Lane something about
commitments and obligations in respect to this strange proposition;
it is equally clear that he was not under any business commitment or
honorable obligation to Mr. Stevens. He made a request of the Public
Service [Commission] Chairman for an exception from the general
contract, relieving third tracking from official supervision, and
had told the reason for it in his desire to give the contract to Mr.
Stevens. He did obtain exemption from supervision, and that applied to
the contractor to whom finally the contract was awarded.”[2]
The chairman of the Public Service Commission here referred to was
Edward E. McCall. Whatever may be the shadowy implications conveyed in
this report, no statement is made that any corruption was used, nor is
any proof presented that any official was improperly influenced. The
salient fact was that McCall, in an era when corporation activities
were more and more rigorously scrutinized by official bodies, should
have reverted to by-gone standards and graciously allowed a removal
of that very supervision which it was expected the Public Service
Commission would insist upon exercising.
Tammany Hall’s nominee in the municipal campaign of 1913 was this same
Edward E. McCall.
When an attorney, Mr. McCall had been connected with certain operations
of the New York Life Insurance Company, of which corporation his
brother, John A. McCall, was president. It appeared from the testimony
before the Legislative Insurance Investigating Committee, in 1905, that
Edward E. McCall had given notes, totalling about $10,000, to “Andy”
Hamilton, the chief legislative lobbyist at Albany of that company and
distributor of the “Yellow Dog Fund.”
Precisely why Edward E. McCall should have given those notes was
not explained. Hamilton received great sums in all for legislative
purposes; in the transferring of some of the sums Edward E. McCall
figured. Both Edward E. McCall and “Andy” Hamilton received “excessive
remuneration” from the New York Life Insurance Company, apparently for
legal services in a certain case, which sums, according to the report
of Charles E. Hughes, there was no adequate reason for paying. At the
same time that these sums were paid to them, both Edward E. McCall and
Hamilton were under a regular retainer as attorneys by the New York
Life Insurance Company, each of them receiving $10,000 a year.
Mr. McCall was put upon the Supreme Court Bench in 1902, by Tammany
backing, and remained there until his appointment, in 1913, by Governor
Sulzer as Chairman of the Public Service Commission, First District.
The greatest exertions were made by Tammany to sway the electorate
so as to swing the election in its favor. Tammany realized that the
Sulzer episode would be an important issue, but it did not anticipate
that the summary removal of Governor Sulzer, with all the attendant
circumstances, would make so unpleasant an impression, driving large
numbers of voters to the other side. Tammany thought that it had
put Sulzer on the defensive; it did not quite foresee the effect
of revelations which, before the campaign was over, placed Tammany
seriously on the defensive and its leaders under the necessity of
making explanations.
Moreover, in selecting its candidates and developing its campaign
tactics Tammany did not appreciate the very much altered attitude of a
large section of the public toward municipal politics. There had arisen
in New York City an increased public demand for proved administrative
capacity. The old days of public toleration of choosing politicians for
“good fellowship” or subservient qualities had about gone. The emphasis
was now placed by Tammany’s opponents upon the fact that cities should
be not merely governed, but well governed, by men of vision, ability
and integrity.
The candidate for Mayor of the Republicans and Fusionists was John
Purroy Mitchel, a young Independent Democrat, who was credited with
having made a notable record as Commissioner of Accounts. Later he had
been President of the Board of Aldermen, and then Collector of the
Port of New York. Nominated with him were William A. Prendergast, for
Comptroller, and George McAneny for President of the Board of Aldermen;
all were eulogized by their supporters with having served the city with
constructive ability and marked efficiency, and with having opposed and
exposed Tammany graft and extravagance.
The Socialist Party’s candidate for Mayor was Charles Edward Russell, a
writer of note and a man of high personal character.
Full of bitterness was this campaign. Perhaps the most effective
speakers against Tammany Hall were John A. Hennessy and former
Governor Sulzer. Mr. Hennessy in a public speech on October 23, 1913,
specifically charged that he held a note for $35,000 that had been
signed by a Justice of the Supreme Court who had been Mr. Murphy’s
alternative candidate for Mayor. “I do not say that the $35,000 was
ever paid to anybody. I don’t suspect him of any vices that would
induce him to borrow $35,000.… If he has had to pay $35,000 or more for
his [Supreme Court] nomination, why he simply followed a tradition in
the organization to which he belonged.”
Mr. Hennessy charged Mr. McCall with not answering the question of
where he got his campaign money, and asked Mr. McCall whether, in 1902
(when McCall was a candidate for the Supreme Court nomination) he,
McCall, had not met George W. Plunkett, a Tammany district leader--the
originator of the term “honest graft”--in a room in the Hoffman House,
and whether Anthony N. Brady was not in another room at the same
time. “I want to ask Judge McCall,” Mr. Hennessy continued, “whether
his sponsor, Charlie Murphy, had not seen Anthony Brady in respect
to McCall’s nomination in the Hoffman House, and I want to ask Judge
McCall if the gentleman who brought him and Plunkett together to
discuss that nomination, did not have something to do with Murphy and
Mr. Brady in respect of that nomination.” Mr. Hennessy charged that one
man that Mr. McCall paid was Plunkett, but he (Hennessy) did not know
whether he paid Murphy, or whether he paid the amount to somebody who
paid Murphy; he (Hennessy) did not undertake to assert that.
The Anthony N. Brady here mentioned was a traction magnate, who,
beginning as a clerk in Albany, had by means of legislative
manipulation giving richly valuable railway and other franchises,
accumulated an estate of $90,000,000.
In several speeches Mr. Hennessy pointedly asserted that James Stewart,
a contractor, had paid $25,000 to a former friend of Charles F. Murphy,
and inquired whether J. Sergeant Cram (a prominent Tammany light) had
not received $5,000, and Norman E. Mack another $5,000.
At a public meeting on October 25, 1913, Mr. Sulzer declared that he
had sent to Charles F. Murphy $10,000 that Allan Ryan (Thomas F. Ryan’s
son), had contributed to his campaign fund, and that Mr. Murphy had
never accounted for it.
Mr. Sulzer named John H. Delaney (later State Commissioner of the
Department of Efficiency and Economy), as the messenger who had
carried the $10,000 in bills to Mr. Murphy. This money, Mr. Sulzer
asserted, had originally been handed to him (Sulzer) in his New York
office by Mr. McGlone, Allan Ryan’s secretary, and that he (Sulzer)
gave the $10,000 to Delaney, who took it uptown and gave it to Murphy.
“Late that afternoon,” Mr. Sulzer continued, “I saw Mr. Murphy at
Delmonico’s. During our conversation, I said, ‘Did John give you the
ten from Ryan?’ Mr. Murphy replied: ‘Yes, that’s all right, but it’s
only a drop in the bucket. You’ll have to do better than that.’ So far
as I know,” Mr. Sulzer continued, “and I am pretty well advised, Mr.
Murphy never accounted for that $10,000, any more than he accounted
for the Brady $25,000 which I refused and which he accepted from
Judge Beardsley [Brady’s legal representative]. At all events, I
think Mr. Murphy should tell the voters what he did with the money.”
Mr. Sulzer declared that he (Sulzer) was still in debt, and that
“I am a poorer man to-day than I was when I became a candidate for
Governor.” No one acquainted with Sulzer’s career could doubt that had
he been essentially corrupt, he could have become a millionaire from
huckstering of legislation when he was Speaker of the Assembly; there
was no bribing him, however, with money; he was, in fact, a poor man.
Mr. Sulzer then declared that Thomas F. Ryan was “Boss” Murphy’s master.
This, in fact, was the very point made by the Socialists: that the
political “bosses” were only the tools of the great financial and
industrial magnates; and that where the political “bosses” gathered
in their millions, the magnates accumulated their tens or hundreds of
millions of dollars as their individual fortunes. Why, queried the
Socialists, concentrate attention on the instruments? Why not, said
they, attack the power of the whole social, political and industrial
system of which the political “boss” was merely one expression? This
system, according to the Socialist party, was the capitalist system
for the overthrow of which they declared and agitated. They pointed
out that behind Mr. Murphy and Tammany Hall, as well as behind the
Republican organization where it was in power, were traction, railroad,
telephone, electric lighting, industrial and other financial interests
all selfishly utilizing the power embodied in political “bosses” for
their own ends and aggrandizement, and that these were the real powers
that could make and unmake political “bosses.”
Gaffney, Cram and Plunkett had all denied allegations aimed at them;
Murphy and McCall had remained silent. But on October 26, 1913, McCall
and Murphy both issued statements. Mr. McCall denied the charge that
he had paid $35,000 for the nomination for the Supreme Court in 1902.
Mr. Murphy made public an affidavit in which he (Murphy) denied that
McCall had ever paid him anything at any time, and branding the charge
as false. On the next day Mr. Murphy gave out a long statement making
a sweeping denial of Mr. Sulzer’s statements; he asserted that he had
received the $25,000 from Anthony N. Brady, but that he had returned
the money the next day; he also denied that he had ever received
$10,000 from Ryan.
Mr. Hennessy returned to the attack. On the same day he charged that
a seat in the United States Senate (to succeed Senator Root) had been
offered to Sulzer if he would yield to Mr. Murphy, and that it was Mr.
McCall who acted as the intermediary.
In a public speech on the following day, October 28, 1913, Mr. Hennessy
demanded the tracing of Mr. Brady’s $25,000, and suggested that it
might be well to examine the executors of Brady’s estate and find out
whether Brady had deposited $25,000 two days after Judge Beardsley
had handed that money to Mr. Murphy. “I knew Mr. Brady very well,”
Mr. Hennessy went on. “I have known Mr. Brady since he was selling
groceries in Albany twenty-five or twenty-six years ago, … and I know
that he never carried around $25,000 in bills every day in his pocket;
so if he got this $25,000 in bills from Mr. Murphy, he undoubtedly
deposited it somewhere.” Mr. Hennessy chided Mr. Murphy with having
been told by his district leaders to answer him, after he (Murphy) had
declared that he would not notice the charges, and said that Mr. Murphy
was “shoving it off on a dead man.”
When, on October 29, 1913, former Judge Beardsley, counsel for the
Brady estate, issued a statement asserting that the $25,000 was
returned to Brady, Mr. Hennessy in a public speech demanded proof and
charged that an alibi was being proved over the body of a dead man.
Mr. Hennessy made the charge that in the campaign of 1910 Mr. Murphy
had collected fully $150,000 for which he had not accounted in the
statement filed with the Secretary of State. “Most of this money,” Mr.
Hennessy declared, “came from contractors who were clubbed into giving
it.”
So this exciting campaign drew to a close amid sensational charges,
counter charges, denials and reiterations.
Over in Queen’s Borough, the Democratic “boss” of that section,
“Joe” Cassidy, was in serious difficulties; he had long, with some
intermissions, ruled that part of the city; and although he was not a
Tammany man, nor did Tammany rule Queens, in the strict sense of the
meaning, yet he was an ally of Tammany and had always “consulted” Mr.
Murphy.
Local “Boss” Cassidy and one of his lieutenants were under indictment
for conspiring in selling a nomination in 1911, to the Supreme Court
Bench to William Willett, Jr., and Willett was indicted for being a
party to the conspiracy. During his trial later, Cassidy admitted that
he was “boss,” but asserted his honesty. Questioned as to why he did
not deposit a certain sum in bank, he replied, “I was used to carrying
money in my pocket. I was lonesome without a roll in my pocket.” It
may be said here that Willett was convicted, and likewise were Cassidy
and one of his lieutenants by a jury on February 2, 1914; Cassidy and
Willett were each sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of not less
than a year in prison and a fine of $1,000, and Cassidy’s lieutenant
“go-between,” Louis T. Walter, received a sentence of three months and
a fine of $1,000. After serving a year in prison Cassidy was released
and later (January 19, 1917) was restored to citizenship by Governor
Whitman.
Intelligent people contemplated with wonderment the antiquated tactics
that Tammany Hall was blindly following. Although the discussion of
pressing economic problems was vitally concerning great masses of
people, Tammany Hall seemed unaware of their existence. The rapid
development of the trusts, the concentration of capitalist power and
wealth, the tense unrest among different classes of people, were
reflected in various political and industrial movements, but in Tammany
Hall no attention was given to them. Oblivious to the great industrial
changes and popular agitations and thought, Tammany still adhered to
its old semi-feudalistic methods of “carrying its vote”; it concerned
itself only with matters of offices, jobs, contracts and interested
legislation; it depended upon immense campaign funds and the personal
following of its leaders in marshaling the army of voters all of whom
by jobs or other such self interest sought to perpetuate its power.
New York City had also grown too vast for the Tammany district leaders
to control as they did in the decades when it was smaller and compact.
Great numbers of people had moved from Manhattan to other boroughs;
and this constant process of migration had much weakened the power of
Tammany organization leaders in keeping in touch with the voters. The
Jewish vote had grown to enormous proportions, and so had the Italian,
but the Jewish vote was generally a vote racially independent of
Tammany and not particularly sympathetic to the character, racial and
religious, of its leaders.
Tammany Hall was overwhelmingly defeated. Mr. Mitchel’s plurality was
124,262. The vote resulted: Mitchel, 358,181; McCall, 233,919; Russell,
32,057. All of the anti-Tammany candidates for city offices were
elected by varying pluralities. Mr. Sulzer was triumphantly elected to
the Assembly. However, Tammany men could glean some slight consolation
in this hour of disaster; Lieutenant Governor Martin Glynn, who had
succeeded Sulzer as Governor, could be generally depended upon to
appoint some Tammany men to various appointive offices; when his list
of appointments was handed down they were not altogether disappointed.
Tammany was especially jubilant in getting control of the Public
Service Commission, not to mention a firmer hold in various State
departments.
The results of the municipal election cut Tammany off from city, county
and national patronage; in such an extremity Mr. Murphy had little
to offer famishing followers except soothing words which counted for
nothing where practical results were demanded.
The mutterings against Mr. Murphy in certain quarters grew to open
rebellion; no longer was he fulsomely praised as a sagacious political
strategist; he was now derisively called a stupid blunderer for his
successive actions and particularly for his campaign of reprisal
against Sulzer--a campaign producing so inflaming an effect against
Tammany.
A resolution introduced in the Democratic Club, on February 2, 1914,
demanded that he retire from “all participation in the party’s
affairs,” to which Mr. Murphy defiantly replied in an interview, “I
am the leader of Tammany Hall. You can add that I am going to remain
the leader of Tammany Hall no matter what some others might think they
have to say about it.” Believing that at least thirty-two of the
thirty-four Tammany district leaders would vote to continue him in
power, “Boss” Murphy made this announcement with apparent confidence.
Indeed, it was reported that the Executive Committee of Tammany Hall
had voted to retain his leadership.
A few days later some extracts from a letter written by Richard Croker
to John Fox were made public. “Murphy was a big handicap to McCall,”
Mr. Croker wrote. “The Hall will never win under Murphy’s management. I
hope some good man will get in and drive all them grafters contractors
out.” On March 10, 1914, at a meeting of the Democratic Club, Charles
F. Murphy, James E. Gaffney, Thomas F. Foley, George W. Plunkett and
Thomas Darlington were rudely read out of that club on the nominal
ground of non-payment of dues, whereupon Thomas F. Smith, Secretary of
Tammany Hall, styled that action “a joke” and declared that “the club
has cut no figure locally since 1896.”
Mr. Murphy remained “the Chief” of Tammany Hall.
The various official inquiries into the system of graft in State
contracts conducted by Special Commissioner James W. Osborne and
other officials continued after the election. In January, 1914, Bart
Dunn, an associate Tammany leader of the Eighteenth Assembly District
and a close friend of Charles F. Murphy, was convicted of conspiracy
in highways construction graft, and sentenced to ten months in the
penitentiary and to pay a fine of $500; he took an appeal and was let
out on bail. Subsequently, however, he was compelled to serve six
months in prison.
On February 15, 1914, after he had been summoned to testify again in
an investigation by District Attorney Whitman, State Treasurer John J.
Kennedy committed suicide. As State Treasurer, Kennedy was ex-officio
a member of the State Canal Board which had control of contracts now
under investigation; his son was, in conjunction with others, one of
whom was under indictment, in the business of bonding contractors on
canal and other State work. It was believed that worry arising from the
forthcoming examination as to his son’s transactions, was the cause of
Kennedy’s suicide.
At a hearing conducted by the District Attorney’s office, in New York
City, on February 26, 1914, Mr. Sulzer again related, this time in
testimony, the story of the $25,000 campaign contribution by Anthony N.
Brady and that of $10,000 by Allan Ryan, both of which contributions
were made in 1912. “Once,” Mr. Sulzer testified, “in a talk with
Murphy, he told me that Ryan had given a check for $25,000 in 1912.
Murphy said that he would report that, but not the $10,000. He said
he would find a dummy for that. He also found dummies for Brady’s
$25,000.” Mr. Sulzer explained that a certain $25,000 that Mr. Murphy
had returned to Brady was not the $25,000 that Brady had contributed to
the campaign of 1912. Brady, so Mr. Sulzer testified, had sued Murphy
for $40,000 and Murphy had settled the suit for $25,000; the records
would disclose this suit, Mr. Sulzer said.
Thus far some of the smaller grafters have been convicted and sentenced
to jail, but the really powerful politicians involved have not
suffered. After two months’ consideration of the charges of graft and
official misconduct brought against C. Gordon Reel, State Engineer John
A. Bensel, Duncan W. Peck, State Superintendent of Public Works--the
three officials forming the highways Commission under the régime of
which, it was charged, the large grafting had been going on--the Albany
County Grand Jury, on April 28, 1914, reported that no indictments had
been found against any of these men, nor against Charles A. Foley,
Deputy Superintendent of Highways. According to facts disclosed by
Mr. Osborne’s investigation, many of the 318 repair contracts let by
Foley and passed by Reel, Bensel and Peck, were awarded only after
contractors had contributed to the Democratic campaign fund. Numerous
of the roads covered by these contracts were so badly constructed
that they went to pieces within a year; and the State, so Mr. Osborne
charged, thereby lost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
FOOTNOTES
[1] _Final Report of the Joint Legislative Committee Appointed to
Investigate the Public Service Commissions_, March, 1917, p. 67.
[2] _Ibid._, p. 68.