The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1843-01-25
the expenditure for cleaning streets including and since

| 1888, 1886 81 i7,247 02 5000 az
| 1899, las 500 90 so s35 Of o. ia O6
1910, li9 $50 50 1911 ~ lII2ls %
| lsii, 1898 05 80 s64 "a u5l9s 81
| 1912, 1871 ,957 80 4lSl9 26 s7lQ9 90
includes the unsettled account OF w Gage the late super
ntenden but does not contain the $4,000 delivered to the
Mayor by Mr. Ward and said to have been expended in
cleaning the streets Including that amount the gross
sum for cleaning streets, chargcable TO the Depart
ment therefor during Mr. Cages incumbency Is S75l9
a. for the first six months the year-against which is
be credited S27 379 49, leaving balance OF expenditure
in Mr. Gagessx months of S47,7ii 10 For the last six
months OF the year, under Mr. Ward the gross expendi
ure SOL Si7 a. from which to be deducted for
cepts Sl745l TO- leaving a balance OF expenditure Of
siss6 3D. and making the whole nett expenditure of the
In consequence of the greatly increased expenditure of
this department. the people have for years called loudly
for reform in its administration for alteration OF
the system, believing that material saving could there
by be effected in this branch oiour city expenditure For
past the idea OF contracting the cleaning OF the
streets has been avoraby regarded by the community,
and though both parties have be loud in their profess
sohs OF is,fehenment or some reason whch your Com
miee Will not attempt to assign those who have hitherto
had the control OF the city government have supposed
that their ascendancy was best maintained or the inter
ests OF the city were not best protected by allowing the
system to remain it With the exception of
ment in sil nthe Common Council to effect reform by
cleaning the by contract and which failed by
OF convenient division of opinion of the two Boards
upon the details OF the contract though both adopted its
made, until the action Of the present Common Council
upon the subject to tighten in this respect the burden
upon the CRY treasury reference to the proceedings
port made by the then committee cleaning streets OF
both Boards, of which Alderman Hatfield chairman,
and constituting document No. ~ of the Board of Alder
men OF that year, recommending the cleaning oil the
streets by contract for three years. adopted by that
Board without division ard that the only proposition
upon which any difference of opinion existed the di
vision of the contract into districts which rejected by
avoteof 10 to Proceedings Of me Board Of Aldermen,
Vol. 30, AL 1927 When the subject before the
Board of Assistant Aldermen the resolution rejected
by vote OF s. Proceedings The Board of assistants
Tol Is, p sl2, 2i3) The resolution which was thus
adDpted unanimously by the Board of Aldermen and
cted by equal division of The Board OF Assistants is in
"Resoiped That the cleaning of the streets of the city
of New York be gvt out by contract for threy ears
der the direction of the Committees the cleaning streets
Of both boards to the lowest bidder, the conditions
hereto annexed upon bonds with good security 10 b.
proved by the Finance Committees of both Boards being
given for the performance of the contract Such offer oil
the lowest bidder not to be accepted by the committee
unless they shall believe it TO be made in good faith, and
the said bidder person Of sufficient ability to perform
the said contract" Proceedings Of the Board Of 4sss.
| tdnts, pot II, D. 222.)
While thess proceedings were pending before the Com.
mon Council, the late Comptroller, Mr. Smith, OF whom
it may be nd without dsparagement, that his views OF
city economy bordered upon parsimony presented IN his
annual report estimate of the expenses which would
require be by taxation ls4i the 9Th page of
which he calls tor the ollowi sum" Cleaning streets
(by conracO Ss5 900 and the committee do not doubt
that in making this estimate he aided only by
past experience respect to the expenditures OF the city
for this object showing an average annual expenditure
for the preceding SIX years OF than $4,000 but by
the advice and operation of the experienced head OF
| that department. and of the committee cleaning
| Streets
must be borne in mind ALSO that in neither of the
pendtures which have been above particularly set brth
nor in the contract which then proposed nclu-
ded the expense OF sweeping the public markets, which,
will be by the Comptroller report ofthe last year.
amounted to $4,000 and which Tor several past has
rarely fallen below that sum- And further that by the
roposed contract further and very material ing will
essarily be effected IN dispensing with number OF
ward officers whose salaries have been embraced in
any the items of annual expenditure above forth
With all these facts before the Committee, showing an
average annual expenditure OF about sl5 600 Tor the
Torrance OF the work which to be embraced the
contract committed TO them, with the fact that the able
and experienced financial officer as referred to upon his
Official responsibility called for of SS5 600 upon
contract embracing less work by $4,000 than the present
with the additional fact that the proposals which
laid before tn by well versed in the subject, aud
anxious to obtain the contrac CT and who it be fairly
inferred from motives interest estimated low they
could afford, ranged from about the amount allowed
the present contractors up to $4,000 and even beyond
that sum, tie question submitted the consideration
the committee involving great discretion, vi lille
they willing to admit carried with great RESPONSE
bility. But when in addition TO this is remembered
that at former board acting directly upon this subject
and without dissenting voice. adopted as has been seen,
in express terms the principle that the offer OF the low
est bidder should not be accepted by the committee unless
they should believe it made ingood faith, and this the
bidder person of sufficient ability perform the
contract" and when moreover il is taken into view that
proposition to instruct the commit in the present case
to give the contract to the lowest bidder, distinctly
presented to the board and rejected by them the line OF
duty which they were pursue was too plain to be mis-
taken. Were they to shut their eyes TO the fact known
TO every in the least degree conversant with the
subject of estimates and proposals for contracts that they
constantly made at wholly inadequate TO their
ulfilmen and when accepted resulting in ruin to
both OF the contracting partes7 Were they overlook
the TACT that a. contracts Of this description, the peck
cts OF their fellow citizens havc been drained for
allowances upon hard contracts, sometimes, they have
to fear reward for partizan services, and
casonally perhaps from a less worthy motive
Were they to attention to the fact that those who
have abored effect retrenchmen in thu burdens upon
citizens, by the measure In question: have been met
every step by partisan avowai of reputation Were
they short to place the execution OF the contract in
the hands of men who bill for il at rate which showed
| that they either could did
tend 10 perform it II there be any thing IN the argu.
men assumed against the action OF the Committee they
bound to lock all these considerations and to
execute the contract with Bartlett smith, at S24 935,
offer absurd upon its face that if they had accepted it,
they could not have hoped to escape the and
dgnaton OF every sensible man. IL they justified
in rejecting this proposal they also justified upon the
principal that they bound to take into consideration
the whole subject matter OF the contract and to act in
reference to IT, according TO the dictates OF sound dis
erection. This discretion was given to them by the Com
Council by their action in refusing to restrict them
TO the lowest bidder and If they had refused to be gov.
erned by it, they would have sgnally failed in the per
iormance of the high trust committed TO their hands
Were they not then equally bound to exercise the
discretion in regard other proposals. higher in amount
though equally inadequate to the object which was
their duty attain II they had right to reject the
proposal OF Mr.. Smith, they conceive that they had
equally right to reject that of the Messrs. Cumming if
they beev ed it not TO be made in good faith OF which
they only enabled to in ige by the gross AM mani
fest dproporton between the work TO be done and the
sum asked for its performance This disproportIon is
abundantly shown by the facts to which the Committee
have already called the attention OF the Board. Nor sthe
orce oil TINS sument answered Dy the iact tnat those
parties may possibly been enabled perform their
contract by the only means by which 1t could be per-
formed reduction of the amount to be paid for labor.
The Committee trust that the day is far distant, when i
will he adopted part OF the policy OF city, to effect
even retrenchmont in is expenditures by grinding the
faces of the poor and they only the Board
that il such be its policy il must be carried out by
| other hand than theirs.
In conclusion the Committee will only observe, that
they have not only performed their duty without any
feeling other than that oil common interest WIN me
whole community, but that they have done SO with the
best lights they had before them with strong ana earn
desire TO ensure of important REFORM
and place the hands of the city the certain means OF
citing that reform This they proposed TO do, not by
N. CITY succession of law suits against surees
but by the execution Of contract which they had the
hest reason 10 believe could and would be- performed
They conscieniousy believe that its entire failure
would have been the consequence Of other course
than which they have pursued and relying upon the
purity their motives and the candid and