The Morning herald., 1876-08-26

under Mr.. Canby's administration as CHAIR
man of the Street Committe, that Mr.. Sim
mons received as high as fourteen cents a
square foot for curbing; including blocking
with stone. Mr.. Davis, the present con-
tractor, published an advertisement Offering
to do the same work for exactly nine cents
per foot. Mr.. David Coyle, who was then
Street Commissioner, said that Mr.. Davis
would not be allowed to do the work under
any circumstances. not even If the property
holders demanded it: and 1t is from this
source that the editor gets his "subject of
general remark" 1t IS from here that all
complaint of favor to Mr. Davis comes, and
further on we propose'to show by documents
which can be seen a. the Office of the Clerk
of Council, in the form Of bills, &C., rem
dered by Mr.. Davis, that Mr.. McMena-
min instead Of showing favor, has actually
refused to approve bills urtil reductions
were made by the contractor, Mr.. Davis,
upon certain items.
FIFTY DOLLAR CONTRACTS.
The editor further states In the
same paragraph that the "Fifty Dol
lar Contract ordinance" has been utterly
ignored. II the paragraph proceeding 1t he
says that such has been charged but the
proof has rarely been offered. Now here
are two statements in regard to the same
subject, contradicting each other. No mat
ter what the prejudices of his readers might
be, they would be wholly at sea under such
mental treatment as this, and certainly una
BILE to tell what was truthful and what was
not, as there are statements to lead which
ever way you choose to 60.
We have the following taken from bills
at the office of the Clerk of City Council to
show how far the "Fihy Dollar Contract
ordinance" has been ignored AS the arti-
Gle in the paper referred to charges that
this thing has been going on and is
still goiug on, we will take first
some bills submitted to Council very
recently :: A bill rendered August 8, 1876,
contains over seventy items, and in all this
it was shown that the contract price had
only been violated once, and then 1t was
only for three dollars overthe price. II was
for cutbing the east side Of Townsend street
between A. and B. streets. We find also 9
lbill renderedIto Council by Simmons, May
II, 1874, containing only thtfty,efght items
and in it the fifty dollar contract was vio-
lated as often as three times. And all this
under Mr.. Canby's administration, who
now yirtuously rises in Council to prefer
charge again6t Mr.. McMenamin, which he
when in SIMILAR position not only counte-
uanced and allowed, but approved with his
own signature. The reckless extravaganza
under Mr.. McMenamin's rule cannot be SO
great and unprecedented in the history OF
our municipal government, after this Is told
as to bring one who countcnanced 1t to ask
for explanations and to refuse to serve
on the committee. We also find bill OF
Mr.. Simmons rendered to Council, June,
1874, consisting of seventeen items, where
the Contract Ordinance was violated twice
and one of these violations was for $75. le
and another for $59.O4. And in Mr.. Nc
Meuamin's administration it is shown no
where that the ordinance was violated ovel
five dollars, while under Mr.. Canby't
administration contractor goes over sew
enty-dve dollars. This Virtuous indigna
tion over the violation of contracts, after al
this, comes with very bad grace from the
source that 1t does, and is forcibly re-
minder OF the saying CONSISTENCY thou ar
In bill rendered Council by Mr.. Davis,
july 6, 1876, consisting of teighty-eigh
items, the contract was only violated twice
This is the bill that Mr.. Candy had especia
reference to-. The violations of contract IL
this bill are told by Mr., Davis in the fac
that it occurred by miscalculation of tb'
distance ofcurbing to be laid. There is nj
violation shown in 1t of the standard twelv'
cents foot for curbing. It. was only .
miscalc,llatioa of the distance OF curbiug u
II bQ laid.
* If there is anything in these to show tina
J the "Fifty Dollar contract ordinance ha
Il been totally ignored, we would like ver.
much to know how 1t has been done. Ger
tainly there is nothing TO show 1t in any o
the bills rendered 10 Council by Mr.. Davis
and It is shown that the paper mentioned
before was nearer right when 1t said that ~
| has been charged. that the contract ha
been violated, but the proof has rarely beel
, offered" than when it says the Fifty Dolla
contract ordinance has been utterly ignored
Here we leave the editor of the paper, b.
, has had his say, and wo feel confiden
! that we have successfully contradicted ever
5 thing that he has said.
INTERVIEWING MR.. VINCENT.
The reporter or reporters give the resul
G Of an investigation at the City treasurer
: Office, where they captured Mr.. Vincent
, and that official, with his usual urbanit
8 and obliging DISPOSITION, rendered them a.
examination of his books as he had nothing
to conceal, aud they have succeeded in pre-
scutipg large array oftigures to the put
! lie, IL was a very ingenious idea to Civ
:. the expenditures for each month, which
would make the amount of work t.
be performed on the streets of Will
miugton appear great, even under al
, administration so economical that 1t woul'
: not justice to tho work. Figures presente'
in this way must necessarily appear larg
| ITO the mind that is not used to seeing. sucl
+ expenditures and knows nothing of the es
f Inmates upon street work. This is the wa.
the reporters have presented the figures
l They have given the aggregate amount TO
t each month, in the numerical greatness o
r the amount, hoping to plaNupon the feeling
t of the people.
This great bulk of figures does not Civ.
r the itemized work, showing where the worl