Resolution?

    The August 19 issue of the Suffolk Times reported: "Ferry boat Poggatticut will make special accommodations on Saturday evening, for those who wish to attend the Block Party at Greenport, running between Main Street dock and the Shelter Island Heights dock every half hour. It will make its last trip at twelve in order to accommodate all who wish to remain at the Block Party."
    The lease sent to Mr. Raymond by Mr. Tasker on August 24 was not the lease they had both agreed to on August 21 and 22. Mr. Otis and Mr. Raymond compared the lease Mr. Tasker had sent to the one he and Mr. Raymond had agreed to on August 22. "We found the joker immediately," he related later in a letter written on November 12 to C. D. Wood. "Which discouraged us both in trying to do business with such an outfit. Mr. Otis suggested that I try to shame Tasker, by simply returning leases and state he had no doubt by inadvertence not kept to agreed text.  Mr. Otis said reputable lawyers hated such a claim. That when a form was agreed on, it was custom to so draw and then write separately any alterations desired. Mr. Tasker simply tried to put over the words 'leased to others' instead of 'used by others' for ferry purposes. Plan evasion and intentional. He knew that unleased ferry service was going on at that precise moment."
    Mr Raymond responded to Mr. Tasker on August 26:
    It was agreed between us that the wording of the last two lines page one should be:
    “other than that same shall not be used for ferry services between Greenport and Shelter Island”
    The injection of the words “to be leased to others” exactly nullifies the sense and purpose and I feel sure their use was due to inadvertence on your part.
    The whole principal in equity is we are agreeing in i.e. The Ferry Company is in the unusual position of willingness to execute a lease extending its service at loss, with knowledge it is doing so, as [a] matter of good will toward the Town. The Town in spirit of cooperation and self interest, is bound to protect that loss from being too burdensome, from immediate side by side competition.
    If it is the purpose of drawing us into a contract obligation, and yet leave the Town free to set up opportunity to complete, it should be disclosed. Agreement not to lease sets up that situation.

Clam digging in Dering Harbor.
    In notes about these negotiations, Mr. Raymond wrote: "At the precise moment he made this alteration unleased competition was plying in competition with the Ferry Company under no obligation of any kind to the Town. We wish [to] further state it is not that this particular competitor the protective demand was aimed, it was the principal of our being bound and at risk of it growing to the possible wrecking of the Ferry Company ...  [We] cannot be made subject to jokers of this kind."
    On August 26, Mr. Tasker wrote that he was submitting the agreement to the Town Board. "Most of the changes that I made in the originally submitted draft were made to meet your suggestions and have not yet been considered by the Town officials. I quote the last paragraph of your letter, 'It is the purpose of drawing us into a contract obligation, and yet leave the Town free to set up opportunity to others to complete, it should be disclosed. Agreeing not to lease sets up that situation.' I take exception to that paragraph."
    Mr. Raymond noted that "Mr. Tasker agreed to submit to the Town Board the draft as we had agreed. I have never known if it was considered by the Town as so drafted. Mr. Tasker does not deny alteration of agreed phraseology."
    The following day, Mr. Raymond wrote to Mr. Tasker: "I have placed all our cards on the table and am simply inviting frankness in return so we may better reach a common understanding. If the Town really desires to passively encourage competition alongside of us, then I must ask our stockholders in general, if they desire that the Ferry Company agree to go to the Town under that circumstance and risk. I would not alone care to assume responsibility of so involving the Ferry Company."
    In his notes, Mr Raymond stated that his mind was moving "along the line of disgust."He could not understand why the Town could not see his point of view.
    Why bother to try to obtain equity and fairness under the spirit apparently opposed to us, better to suggest dropping all issues of protection, reduce the risk that lack of protection would entail, which to my mind surrounded the NIGHT service, as the greater portion. We were taking a FULL loss on the night service, supply boats at cost of repair and depreciation, and gas and all upkeep, while Mr. Griffing took all receipts. I could see we could afford to waive the protection in the day period, as we would be running the large boat to the Town most of the year, and a small boat not carrying cars would not affect it much. But, at night, if competition reached a point where it were no longer profitable to Mr. Griffing, he would throw up his end or ask for direct compensation and then our loss would be of real moment, bad as it is now. We simply could not risk being bound for five years to that service.


Conklin's Dock with boats rigged and waiting for those who would rent them for a day's sail.
    So he decided to give the Town an alternative proposal. On August 30, he wrote to Mr. Tasker and offered two choices. If the Town was not willing to restrict competitive ferry use at the Town Dock, then he requested that all references to night service obligations on the Ferry Company be stricken from the lease. Only daytime service would be an obligation of the Ferry Company. Under this new proposed agreement, the Ferry Company would provide daytime service with the Poggatticut from the Town slip from October 1 to mid-May with no guaranteed nighttime service by a launch. In his November letter to Mr. Wood, he explained, "Night service was serious. If Moses [Griffing] found competition too strong he would of course throw up present arrangement, then we would have to engage a man at $125 to $150 per month to carry out [the] contract, and run a dead boat service plus gas and depreciation. We decided in sheet disgust to send a final proposal giving [the] Town an alternative. If it would not protect us by refusing to allow the other side of the dock to be used for ferry service, we would execute a lease cutting out all protection and cut out any obligation to run a night service."
    On September 7 at the regular monthly meeting of the Town Board, they agreed, "Whereas the agreement authorized by this board at its last meeting not being entirely satisfactory, after a conference with the committee and counsel an amended agreement having been submitted by counsel it is resolved that the Supervisor and Town Clerk be authorized to sign the amended agreement and resolved that the committee submit the same to the President of the Ferry Co." This agreement was the one that Mr. Raymond and Mr. Tasker had agreed to in their meetings on August 21 and 22, but Mr. Tasker had changed so that it was not acceptable to Mr. Raymond.
    Mr. Raymond received and returned the agreement authorized by the Town unsigned.  The question of equity had not been resolved.
    Although the Ferry Company was prepared to use the Town Slip for the Poggatticut on October 1, they did not do so. There was no lease.

Home   Next