The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1858-02-17
The Frauds the CITY Treasnsy-An Int
xts.ing History for Tax Payers.

~
tion 0; the committees Of the Boards of Alder
men and Councillnen, We have prepared The fol-
lowing summary Of them. 1t mus: be remarked
thai they ave sll based upon contracts for reeu-
iatine sa1 grading streets, which, through The
ledeerdemain of contractors, surveyors ana in
rpectcrs. have been sweiled 70 considerable
amount over and above what the original con
tracts provided for
Sin, tacro Is The case Of Cheniung Smith,
VINO Is charged with having paid John Fitz-
patrick. a. assignee Of Cherries Deylin, Si2,So0,
instead Of $500, thus defraudinS the treasury
of $4,000 Then comes the grading and regu-
lstiDg Of sifiyffth street between Sixth aud
Seventh avenues. where the eum Of SCOT 30
has been paid TO Contractor Farley for work not
specified in the contract, In the case of Fifty
sixth street, from Fourth to Fifth avenue, Mr.
Farley also received the sum Of $500 for an
item Of earth excavation not contained in the
copy Of the contract in the Street Department
but, strange to say, inserted in the copy in the
finance Department. In the case of Fifty
seventh street, between Third and Fifth
avenues, 10000 cubic feet of wall, cost
ing $4,000, not in the contract in the
Finance Department, Is charged for by
the contractor and en- over measurement
bas been returned by the Surveyor of 46,5iO
cubic yards Of earth filing, and 7,9i7 cubic
yards of rock blasting pretty heavy lien.
In the F;fty-second street case, {; wall is charged
for which is not included in the contract, on
which an over payment Of s4,25l 40 was made.
In FIFTY fifth street, between Third and Fifth
and Seventh and Eighth avenues. the Surveyor
returns az over measurement on the work done Of
3,97a cubic yards of earth filling at nine cents
q yard. and l35 feet Of culvert at $40 q foot
making n al an over charge Of some &&O57.
Il seems to De fayori!e plan with con-
tractors TO smuggle piece Of wall or culvert
into their work. They are, no doubt, the fatte.t
jobe, according to O statement Of Mr.. Flagg
before the committee. 1t appears that Mr..
Farley undertook contract to build wall on
Fifth ayenue. ct twenty cents cubic foot, in
the expectation that an ordinance could be
passed through the Common Council author
izing the wall to be inserted in the contract,
which, indeed, was done just as ne calculated
AT this price Mr.. Flags says he would he re-
ceiving S. 40 cubic yard for the wall whereas
forty cents q cubic yard is considered fair
price. In fact. Mr.. Flsgg informs us that a
that very time Farley himself was putting up
wall on Sixth avenue at the latter price.
This jeb on Fifth avenue would have cost
the property owners 81 300; but Mr.. Flagg
Represented 10 the Common Council that it
was 3 useless piece Of work, and at the
same time warned Farley not to 60 OH with it,
as he would neyer pay him. The work was &C
cordingly not done, and the tax payers of Fifth
avenue were spared.
Next comes the most monstrous job Of all
that Of grading Sixty sixth street through the
Central Park, at charge Of 49, 900. This work
was actually done since the ground has been
laid out for the Park. The only good thing
about this job is that ii If not yet paid for.
All these cases of alleged frauds have been
testified to by Mr.. Flagg before the Committee
of Coubcilmen; and besides these, he states that
suspicious, if not fraudulent entries to the
amount ofsome SIS 900 more remain on his books
still unexomined. In addition to the contracts
above enumerated there are several more I'M
dergoing investigation by the Standing Com.
mittee on Frauds of the Board Of Aldermen.
In Fifty fourth street, between Lexington and
Third avenues, an assessment Of eighty-one
dollars a lot was made for tagging. There
were three bidders for the contract-one at
twenty cents foot, one at sixty-thre cents
and one at seventy-Gye cents; but by some
hocus pocus, which Of course no one could ex-
plain, the highest bidder got the contract, the
lowest having declined and the middle one be-
ing jumped over altogether The contract was
then assigned 10 Mr.. Farley, and when the work
was done an over charge Of nine hundred
and seventy-fivc dollars appeared in the
Surveyors return-twelve lots being GER
tilted as done which were not touched at ALL
Then came up the Fifty second street case.
Here also there were three bidders for the con
tract-the lowest being the ubiquitous Mr. Far
lev, at 81, Isl: the next Mr.. McGranc. at -. SOP
so: and the highest Mr.. Cummings. at s79i2 90.
Farley Is awarded the contract: then declines
il: il j. given to McGrane and be immediately
assigns il to Farley, who does the work at the
higher nguiC-SJ,o'Z y" bul tnls Il not all.
In the original contract the charge for curb and
gutter is fifty cents foot but In the contract in
the Assessors Office, upon which the assessment
is made out, 1t is charged at 81 80. And when
the case comes on for examination the original
paper is found to have vanished mysteriously
from the Street Commissioners Office. Fortu-
nately however certified copy had been made
of it by the agent Of the property owners.
Then there is $500 feet Of wall charged for.
which il not specified in the contract at all.
The taxpayers in this case complain that they
have been defrauded out Of 1906 on the job.
At the last session Of this committee two new
cases of fraud were opened up. One was in tho
grading of Seventy-ninth street, from Eleventh
avenue to Broadway, where the property
o,.naro claim that tho contract bos No,