The Morning herald., 1876-08-26
McMENAMIN.
Complete Vindication
Of the Councilman.
LIGHT ON THE SUBJECT.
The Difference Between
Now and Then.
SPLENDID REFORMS CREATED
How McMenanin Paid
Himself Money.
LIGHT ON THE SUBJECT.
SPLENDID REFORMS CREATED

It with argument. And SOUND argument ls
only to be arrived at by the use of truthful
ness in all statements. This we propose to
do in meeting the attack of an afternoon
paper upon the Chairman of the Street
Mr.. William McMenamin; and
in so doing, we shall show straight through
that nothing contained In said attack bears a
scintilla of evidence, much less truth, and
that 1t was written from rumor, or upon
such mere handful of information as has
led the editor into terrible perversion OF
the truth. A representative of the MORN
ING HERALD having been deputed to under
take the work of defending Mr. MeMena-
min against these charges, went at 1t at
once, and, not without considerable labor,
is willing to show whereby Mr.. McMena-
min has been greatly maligned, and all for
sensational effect.
The only way to convince people is to give
the facts, rock bottom facts, as they arc
called, those which give everything in
clear, terse manner, so that every one. even
the plainest, may understand what ne Is
reading. 4 . y
The paper making the charges commen'
ces by saying, rThough It has been. -genel
ally suspectedthat the management OF the
Street Department of our City Government,
was somewhat loose, since Mr.. McMena-
min became Chairman of the Street Com
mittee, the actual details are not easily got
at" In this,a confession is made that the
details are not>easily got at, and yet at the
same time the paper goes on to give, What
It leads the reader to believe, are solid facts,
and if it does not say so, puts them forth as
truthful ideas of what Mr.. McMenamin has
cost the city by his management of his par
ticular department. But the confession, OF
course, Internationally made by the editor,
occurring, as it very naturally does, from
his having written the preface himself, and
the reporters having wound 1t up, gives a
vein of inconsistency to the whole thing,
that the intelligent reader will not be slow
to discover.
SOME RECKLESS CHARG Es.
The same paper then gives an instance,
and saws: "It has been known for long
time that curbs have been set and cutters
paved along out Of the way streets, where
there was no immediate prospect of erecting
buildings, and where there was no demand
for thoroughfare or travel. The Ignoring &
of the ordinance requiring that all jobs, the
cost of which is expected to exceed YOU
shall be let out by contract, has been
charged, hut the proof has rarely been Of
fered." First, we would state that work
has not been done on single street, that
was not ordered by Council, and that that
body and not Mr.. McMenamin were the fit
persons to decide whether the work should
or should not be done, and that Council
would hardly act in such matter without
beinp petitioned by the residents along those
streets where the work was done. 1t was
unon such orders that all work upon streets
has been done, and the proof lies In tht
hooks of the clerk of the City Council,
which are open for inspection. Any stronger
proof we are unable to give.
In the latter part Of this same charge
the editor again contradicts hlmseit
anil it is hardly possible that he Wouic
do such thing knowingly, as ne virtuallJ
admits to his readers that he is about tt
submit statement that bears no proof, Du'
will act upon hearsay. The contradiction lies
in this charge 'sthe ignoring ofthe ordinance
recurring that all jobs, the cost Of which
ia expected to exceed fifty dollar'
shall be let out by contract
has been charged, but the proof has rarely
heen offered, Now we will leave 1t to an.
fair-minded person if the last of that charg'
does not rob the whole article Of any pre-
tensions to authenticity. 1t is an admission
that he ia writing of something that he ha
No nroof of.and In so doing, he has imposed
upon his readers. ....,
Now we will take up the next paragraph
which appears III this wonderful dlatrloe o
the afternoon paper. The edltor says Ar
other matter which has OF late become :
subject of remark Is the favor SHOWN par
ticular contractor in giving out the "oLh
This contractor is William b. DAVIS, Whe
has lust been awarded the contract ior paw
ing Walnut street. Il was chargeo now
ever that he had already done great dea
of work not given out by contract. 10 ge
the facts in this and few other matters o
Mr.. McMenamin's management represent
alive of the "Every Evening" was detallet
to investigate the subject, and the resul
proves that there has been remarkable iaVol
shown, and that the Fifty Dollars Contrac
ordinance has been utterly ignored"
There is nothing specific In this charge, o.
at least the first part, as the editor aomlt'
himself 1t is only the subject OF rematR ,tna'
particular favor is shown to Mr.. Davls'
as contractor, by Mr.. McMenamln. nov
we will give the author of'this remark" u
is man by the name of Simmons; the pup
lie has cause to know him as q contracto
under the s'regime" Of Mr.. Candy; Mr.
Simmons has repeatedly been bldder lol
work to do, hut it was proven tnat ne wa
not able to perform the work satisfactorily
and therefore, it was not given TO MN
hence arises the editors words, "a subject o
General remark" Mr.. Simmons was tn,
Contractor for paving Sixth, Madison ant
Robinson streets, at 16 cents per square
ward. when Mr.. Davis offered to do It by bit
for IA cents. This is the time that Mr.