New-York daily tribune., 1865-09-28
Defense Of Controller Ercnmnn.


70 His Ercelleney REUBEN E. FESToS Gorcrnor Of tie
State Of N,to York:
have the honor to acknowledge the receipt
Of your Exceencys communication of the oth August
last incosng copies of charges and specifications
porting be verified by Mr. James Gregory, who does
not pretend TO any particular personal knowl
edge of what is stated in tncm, but makes his affidavit
that they true to the best OF his knowledge, ard
he verify believes them to be true
L respectfully protest against any interference by
your Excelency with me, because under the Constit
tion and laws of this State there is no warrant or
authority for such. investigation of the charges
before you is proposed and the charges are rot
presented verified legally justly TO call on me
for defense.
At the same time as desire that yonr Excelency
and the people of this city should know bow ignoranty
malicously have been accused. proceed to answer
the charges and specifications as II they were entitled
to response.
The substance of them is. that IN the matter Of
awarding the contract for cleaning the streets of New
York for ten years the Commissioners Of whom was
one acted in violation Of law, and corruptly-giving
the contract to persons whose bid was not the lowest
omttng insert in the contract provisions essential
to the public interests and inserting others injurious to
such interests TO the great detrim' n. of the public.
may be proper to see In the first place What We had
the power TO do and what was done.
/ The act of May !. 1865 (Laws OF 1865 page ,326,
section d. provided that the cleaning OF the streets OF
NewYork should be done by contract, to be made oy
the Mayor. Recorder, Controller, City Inspector and
Counsel to the Corporation or majority OF them after
for proposals of not less than ten days
to within ten days after the passage Of the
act.
The law not only did not require these Commissioners
to give the contract TO the lowest bidder, bat plainly
prohibited their doing as the Legislature wisely con.
clnded that il more important TO secure the work
being done than to ascertain how cheap,y some one
might offer TO do II.
The Commissioners were directed to give the con.
tract "the person persons whose proposals shall
in the judemeat Of said C0namissioners or m4oriy f
them secnre le most eectirs serice and shall be most
rdnta1eons the public interests - and they invested
with authority 10 reject all the proposals under any ad
- mn fy of
sails not for the public interests and then to adver
tse anew.
The law did not specify what provisions should
be inserted in the contract TO the details Of per-
tormanee.
The Commissioners were trusted to provide as in tho
exercise of their judgment they might deem best to se
IL is charged that having advertised for proposals tor
the d of May ls65 the Commissioners did not accept
any of them.
The fact s that after the form Of contract had been
prepared and the advertisement issued their attention
was drawn to an intelligent article in The NtE-YoTk
Ersaing Post obectng TO certain features OF the
contract such as that it conferred too much power
the City Inspector. and suggesting various amend
ments
The suggestions Of this communication were fully
discussed, and it was agreed on all hands that new
contract and specifications should be Drawn and the
bids rctlrned unopened.
This was DONE and, on motion Of his Homer the
Recorder. the advertisement contained an invita-
ton TO the citizens generally 10 make suggestions rs 10
what should be required under the contract from the
contractors.
The new contract and specifications were prepared
with reference the various suggestions brought 10
the notice Of the Commissioners. and were IN tDen
Judgment drawn so as fully TO protect the Interests o.
The nubc deal fairly with the contractors, and IN
sura what the law intended the Commissioners to effect
The third specification Of the first charge alleges that
the Commissioners coriuptly made changes IN the con
tract intended TO advance and promote the interests
of the contractor The first one mentioned Is, that
thev substituted themselves for the Mayor Aldermen
and Commonalty with the corrupt attempt modify a
i.ffap bv xyl IL
for ali damages sustained through the contractors de-
iault. y,
TO do this the Commissioners are said to have limited
any recovery of damages to what the sad Commis-
soners might sustain be put to- which, being merely
personal would amount to nothing,
This is utterly false. IL any honest and Intelligent
person had read the first three lines Of the contract he
could not have made this accusation.
The contract was made June 9. 1865 between tho
Mayor Aldermen and Commonaty, &c. (who are the
first parties named in i and the Commissioners ofthc
first part and the contractors Of the second part "a
copy of il Is anneXed)
An damages are expressly in and by the contract
served TO the Corporation of the City Of New-iork
Tie contractors bind themselves in terms TO indemnify
the said parties of the first part" which, as already
shown includes the Corporation.
There other sagaclous criticisms on the contract
such us that the Commissioners did not add provision
continuing their" "own powers and duties 10 their
successors in oifce-a species OF continuance dicu'
to accomplish.
Every one ought TO know that such provision was
neeessary the succession follows as aegal consequence
Ii il did not. they cou.d not confer II.
1t is also charged that with the corrupt intent oil re-
leasing the contractors from the obligation TO sweep
" during tho cold weather." the Commissioners pro-
yided that they need have the streets Swept when
prevented BY frost or snow" The absurd spectacle
OF a body of men sweeping" the New,iork streets
during a snow storm when they were blocked up oy
snow frost and ice was not q result which the Ooh'
missioners would impose as duty on contractors. -.
/ will not waste time on other equally trlylI efi-
cisms which the specifications contain.
Whenever that instrument is fairly presented Tor as
cusson IL will doubt be sustained as good Jns',
safe contract and which, If carried out III soou
faith will accomplish for the city all that tho law IN
tended the Commissioners to secure.
pass from these frivolous suggestions IN the cnaige
10 the complaint which great stress Is 'aA'' '~
the alleged improper award OF the contract an,
1t was not given to the "New-York SanrafJ ~ tbs
Chemical Compost Manufacturing Company ws, aUs 70
very simple reason that this company haa no p0"''
make a contract for cleaning streets. -. ,,ov5.
IL is a corporation formed under the s,'.'r nssnnfe
inc for the Organization of Corporaons ,o sb sI
tnrine Mining or Chemical purposes ga H. D., ~" N
p. 65s) -. g.. ,hs authority OF tbiss
company. ,,,os of association to pro-
vis for cleaning and sweeping the s'roe'S MI"
eompost from the sweepings q. ao so, no corpcra,-
--s See Eighth Page.