Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1875-12-24

| uIODAbs, u AuDuIy 6lBu INyhus
Nays-Councilmen Elder, luther,
Green, Doherty, Fisher, Carpenter,
Cochran, Grant and President Zsnt.
President ISN'T IN cas,ing ths tie vo.e
said that he thought any mayor capable
Of administering the sffairs Of city of
fifty thousand population should receive
q EalaIY Of $4,000 per s1rum. HsAc he
voted against the amendment,
The majority report, fixing the jEa!9ry
OF mayor at $4,000 per annun, was then
adopte1.
Tne committee to whom was referred
toe coal account Of messrs. Jones u
Brown, recommended that they be al
lowed sixty instead OF eighty cents Der
barrel for sill coal supplied slLcs the first
of May. This report was adopted
The committee to investigate tle city
eneineet's department, having failed to
hold any meeting, and never having
made any report, was continued, With
Councilman Tuther as chairman.
The council took g recess Of three
quarters Of an hour to give the mayor
atty investigating COMMITTEES time to
write their report.
Upon resssembling,
THE COMMITTEES REPORT
was made, as follows:
Your committee appointed to investi,
gate the paving scrip accounts Of the
city, and the charges preferred against
| Mayor League by Andrew Davis, would
report that they find, from the books
| containing the record of the scrip which
hes been countersigued ard issued.
| S29I ,27S, and find the amount of can
csled AID redeemed certificates to be
! $3.50 364 90, showing a deficiency OF
| 1913 81, or, rather, that Sgl3 81 more
scrip has tesn issued than there are
vouchers or certificates to authorize.
The books show that the city paid for
| S605, 900 Of scrip originally. We find
the scrip not countefsigned to be $685.
! 644; counteTsigned, but not issued, $l9,-
! 039 so; scrip in envelopes, countersigned
| and awaiting exchange, $3.50 so; scrip
| countersigned and issued, 1920, ,364 SO;
| showing a difference OF $l6SS Al to
! shis item of Sl6S8, we find the dSfcieDt
| scrip, so far as we have been able to
| learn, to be in the last or highest num-
bers-that is to say, instead of 5000 fifty
dollar notes we find 1854 fitty-dul.ar
notes, and instead Of 5000 twenty. dollar
notes We find 1854 swenty-dOllsr notes;
instead Of 20 900 ten-dollar notes we find
| 1910 ten-doliar notes; instead OF q, go
| fiye-dollar notes we find 1884 fiye-dol-
lar notes; instead Of 20 coo two-dollar-
and-fifty cent notes we find is, 1856 two
dollar-snd-fify cent notes; making
total shortage Of 1910. On tha other
hand, however, we find 6222 one.dollar
notes instead Of 5000 Ope-dollar notes,
making a surplus Of 1922. The real
shortage, therefore, is Sl68S, which,
added to the above 1913 81 makes the
total deficiency S260l 81. 1t is proper
to state that while the books shoW that
S606, 600 OF the scrip was paid for, yet,
inasmuch as we find on the one hand q
shortage iD,numheIs OF 1872, so far es the
fifty, twenty, ten; five and two-dOllar-
snd.fifty scent notes are concerned, on
the other hand We find surplus Of 222
in mum Der of the one-dOllar notes, we
think 1t may have been that mistake
occurred in lithogrsphing the scrip. AS
to how this is we cannot report, but can
only report the facts. II $500. 900 OF
scrip was Autographed and received by
the mayer, then there is an cUal de.
ficiency Of S25Sl 81. II, on tae other
hand, only S604, 3I2 was lithographed
and received, then there Is an actual
deficiency of 1918 81. The com mittee,
upon diligent inquiry, could not sscer-
tain the actual sIps uat Of scrip received,
and their report is based upon the
amount paid for as shown by the comp
troller. We will state further that we
liud the amount of scrip countersigned
corresponds with the amount Of scrip
which hes been issued. That is TO say,
there has been countersigned 1910, ,668,
snd the scrip not cOuntereigned, $685.
GA; total, S604, ,312.
AS to charges ms sde by Andrew Da-
Wis: We summoned him to appear be-
fore ue, bat he excused himself on &C.
count OF sickness, whereUpon we sp-
pointed sub. committee to visit him at
his residences. AS to The first charge
that $1,000 or $1,000 Of paving scrip had
been stoIea, we find the amount TO be
about as hsreinbefoFe stated, and IN
many instances find scrip paid twice for
the same certificate.
AS to the second charge, that the |
mayor made no effort to recover the |
missing scrip, we find lie was informed |
months ago by Mr.. Davis, also by the |
general council, Of the fact, and by call. |
ing the mayors attention to some cir |
cles on margin Of ths books, he readily |
admitted they wsra marks of Mr.. Davis, |
indicating, Ss be said, some lrRegulAri- |
ties OF Robert, meaning Robert Losgus, |
his former clerk, and mss never made |
any attempt to arrest OF punish the gull |
ty party, 80 far ss we know.
As to charge third, being guilty of
forgery, we have been unable to 1nd |
SDy evidence Of thst fact.
AS to charge fourth, that he was In |
formed of every piece Of scrip stolen, |
and giveni the numbers by Mr, Davis, |
we are Satisfied, frJm marks on margin |
OF books, and the admission Of the |
mayor why they were made, the |
charges are correct.
As t. charge fifth, being informed Of
every piece of scrip stolen, and giving |
the numbers by Mr.. Davis, we are sat-
isfied from marks on margin OF books |
and the admission of the mayor why |
they were made, the charges are correct. |
And that he has never given to the |
public or general council the numb bers
Of the fraudulent issue, although hav-
ing knowledge of the facts as we be-
lieve. -
As to charge sixth, that the mayor
has changed the entries in the finance
books of the city to the amount OF
$50, 600, we find no evidence thereof.
AS to charge seventh, that he has used
his official position for his personal ben-
eft instead of the public, the commit
tee have no report to make. Respect.
fully submitted,
c. W.'METCALF,
JAMES CARPEHTER,
J. w. MODRES.
J, T. HILLSMAN,
VIM. L. VANUE,
7. A. RYAN.
December %, Is75
The report WAS received.
MAYOR LoAGUE's STATEMENT.
Thereupon Mayor League sald that he
wished to say few words to the coun-
10 hn 20 |