Wilmington daily commercial., 1872-03-15
THE CONTRACT SYSTEM.
THE PRESENT PRACTICES MAINTAINED
LIVELY DEBATE IN CITY COUNCIL.
DIRECT CHARGES OF FRAUD.

/ persons, and all the available space outside tho
railing was filed.
The subject was called up by Mr.. Finegan, who
sustained the ordinance in lengthy speech.
He said that as he was the author of the ordi-
nance it was incumbent upon him to state the
motive which had prompted it. He was not
moved by any partisan considerations, nor did
he intend to reflect upon any member of Council
His sole object'was the public good aud he be-
iieyed and knew it would meet the public approx
al. All law precedent and custom were in favor of
the ordinance. Congressman and Senators were
| not allowed to become contractors for public
i work, any more than were our representatives
/ in the Legislatures; our county sherins as well
rs trustees were not allowed 90 purchase prop
erty at sales which they made our judges
\ could not preside over cases in which they had
| an interest the trustees Of the poor were not
permitted to furnish supplies to the alms-house
all precedent was in favor Of the ordinance, and
il must therefore, be something good. Reform
| was agitating the country, from one end to the
| other and why not begin in this body. In point
OF population. Wilmington is smaller compared
\ with other cities, but the proportion of
| rings is in accord with the amount of money
| disbursed. The idea of representa-
| tive sent here to look after the interests of the
| community and then to become n contractor
| with the city government is opposed TO law and
| custom. Replying to the objection that, if the
ordinance is adopted, it will prohibit some of our
| best business men from becoming cOuucilmen
he said that persons outside of the body now
| did not put in proposals, because they knew it
was OF no use. He was daily beseged by per-
sons with this complaint. During the last fiscal
| year some S50,000 or $50, 600 had been given out
in contracts to councilmen, but not 800 had
| been given to outsiders. The subject was not
personal matter with him lie desired ii to stand
| upon its own merits. But such was not the case
with others. Members he said, had called upon
other members and besought them, ,persOnally,to
| vote against the ordinance. Such being the
| case, it was time for cOuncilmen to begin to
look after the interests of the city. The city is
| increasing in population and IN its dsburse.
ments of the public MONIES and now is the time
to establish needful and proper checks He be-
| lieyed aud knew its effects would be good and
| illustrated it's benefit by the expulsion of Huhn
| from the Philadelphia council. Had there been
| no law prohibiting cOuncilmen from becoming
| hureties for city officers, Mr.. HUM could not
have been removed. No matter how long man
| might outrage the body, he could not be removed
| without such an ordinance. referring to the
attacks which had been made upon him by
some OF the newspapers, he said they
only wanted the pap from the Treasury and
were not manly enough to take either side. He
| thought II an anomaly that newspaper publish
| er should say of his forthcoming enterprise,
that it would be pledged TO r FORM" and then
that he should withhold its approval from the
| first reformatory measure introduced, and de-
clared it should go the "way of all flesh" and be
| "buried In the tomb of the Capulets." In con-
! cu-iou, he referred 10 his argument concerning
the inability, with the ordinance, to secure Coun-
| cilmen, and said that of the II members OF the
body only were contractors, and that if these
were to resign there would be 20 TO take their
| places.
Mr. Lichtenstein regarded the ordinance as
unjust, detrimental to the public good, and in
| direct violation to the charter Of the city These
| three propositions lie proceeded to sustain In
written argument lst, IL is unjust because it
inHinuates that members are not living,up to the
| high moral standard which they have pledged
themselves in the sight of God to observe. If
not, why this ordinance and he proceeded to
argue that law exists only because Of the exist
| ence of crimes, and this ordinance insinuates
| that fraud and corruption exist in this Council.
| He had seen nothing which induced him to doubt
| the integrity or honor of any member, and he
had occupied a seat in the body during some very
| trying periods. II the case different with
| the member from the Third Ward. it would have
| been manly to have made direct charge and
| demanded an investigation. II the ordinance
| passed. it will bring the blush of shame upon
| the body, and he would never lend his voice to
| such a disfranchising ordinance. 70 pass 1t,
| Will be to deprive the Il members OF at least a
| portion of the rights of citizenship. He then
| argued that because fraud existed in other cities
| it was no reason why it should exist here. He
was unable to trace any contracts to councilmen
| in New York city, but believed the frauds oc-
| CURED through the cOnnivance of outside par
| ties. All that is wanted in our city to prevent
fraud is to rigidly comply with the contract ord-
nance. II the ordinance was adopted
| it would not close tho door to fraud,
| but the members might still work through
| outsiders End, That the ordinance is detIimen-
| tai to the public good he endeayored to show
| from various contracts which had been given to
| cOuncilmen. The contract OF MIR. Dillon was
| about 81 900 lower than that of any person not
member Of council. and had there been or
| dinance such az the one proposed the work would
have cost the city about $1,000 more than it did.
3rd. The ordinance is illegal by title and sections
| and ig in direct contact with the clArtar of the
| city. 1t is impossible to unseat a member ex-
cept with the consent the Legislature, and if
| passed the ordinance will be fruitless. We now
| have the spectacle of a member who has not
| been in his seat for months and it is impos-
sibe to remove him from his seat or even from
a committee This safeguard he thought to be
| wise, for il members could unseat a fellow MEM
| ber it might be dangerous to the rights of the
minority
Mr.. Quinn said he was not a contractor and
| would not give cents to secure one. He had
no laud in the ring but he knew there had been
| some gerrymanderug going on and he dehed its
| contradiction. He insiauced the furnishing of
| tho iron crossings. aud said that member of
| Council had put in two bids for the one contract.
| When these bids were being opened, the member
| who had put them in, (tinlself a member of the
| Committee az charge Of the trOrk) held back the
lowest one until the others were opened, and thus
secured the contract. Furthermore it was an
argument with the Republicans before the cleo
| tion that Mr. Dillons contract had been obtained
the files of the COMMERCIAL. To vote for the
ordinance would not lower him or his integrity /;
ON the contrary, it would raise him above suspi-
cion. 1t was an easy matter, he said for a body
of q members to give the advantage to one OF
its own number, without any hagrant violation
of business propriety.
Mr.. Quinn here moved for \ postponement
until the next meeting, but strong opposition
being urged against it he withdrew the motion.
The debate was then resumed, and Mr.. Fine
gan remarked that the speech of MIR. Lichten-
stein was no reply to him because it had been
prepared before Council convened. lie said that
Mr.. l., had promised to support the ordinance
when first introduced and he was surprised to
find him now on the other side. MIR. l.. denied
the charge but Mr.. +. insisted and related the
circumstances connected with the promise.
MIR. Taylor said that when the ordinance was
first introduced he intended to oppose it, but he
was now converted to belief in its propriety-
a change wrought by the attempt of a city jour
nal to burlesque it.
]. G. Baker disclaimed all personal interest in
the matter. He reviewed the manner Of letting
out contracts, believed it proof against fraud,
and saw no reason why the 81 members Of Ooun-
Gil should be dsfranchised and sink their cit
izenshp in this respect. AS the existence OF
rings" has been charged the onus was upon
: the opposition to prove their existence.
| Mr. Febger said that it was well known in
Council that he had introduced a similar ordi-
A.. L. N