The Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1877-1885, 1882-02-20
THE TESTIMONY.
Investigation Of the Street
Commissioners Conduct.
A Lively Session Last Satur-
day Night.

The investigation of charges preferred
against Street Commissioner Warren was
continued at the Council rooms last Sat
urday night and attracted large number
of spectators, including city officials and
the laboring classes generally.
The session was the most animated and
interesting that has yet occurred during
the present examination of that officials
conduct The street commissioner became
angry at the insinuations contained in
certain questions propoundedsto the wit
nesses and gave vent to his feelings in a
few remarks which characterized the in,
He contended that the charges made
against him for which he had prepared
himself were not the only sub
jects Of investigation, but that it was SO
general that he was unable to anticipate
the questions and thus prepare himself to
refute them.
This counter charge against the inves-
tigating committee gave the members an
opportunity to express their individual
opinions on the duties of such committee,
and this they did to the edification of
those who have been watching the affair
from its inception up to the present time.
SOME FEELING
was manifested on both sides, and for the
time being a very lively scene was ex-
pected. This did not prove the case, as
the members of the committee had brief
consultation after which they announced
that all questions asked witnesses would
be propouuded by members OF the COM
mittee. This was generally accepted as a
determination on the part Sf the com
mittee to adhere to evidence concerning
the charges originally contained in the
affldavits submitted to the council.
One of the witnesses testified that he
paid money IN Rock Island for the street
commissioner, but he was in the habit of
paying assessments elsewhere and eonse-
quently did not think much about it. The
only peculiar thing about the Rock Island
assessment was that Coyne collected it,
while In most Of places one of the labor
ers made the collection.
The testimony in detail was as fol
lows;
JOHN GRAHAM
of Lyon, the contractor He made out
the bills for Lyon against the city. This
was in the month of August. The bills
were made ont on the basis of the ''tickets"
or checks of the loads delivered The lat
ter end Of August, Lyon brought his books
and tickets from which the bills were to be
made out. There were 90 900 hauled be-
fore any tickets were given, after that tick
cts were given for every load There was
a ticket for every load charged against the
city. The total was 90, 500 brick for the
menth. He also made out other bills for
brick furnished the city. The last bill
made out was during the latter part of
December, He also made out brick fur
nished Deere as Co, at Moline. The books
had no charge against Warren for brick
furnished him. Witness stated that Lyon
wanted $40 per thousand for brick, and
Roach did not want to pay that sum,
Roach secured the brick for his well, and
witness presumed that they were purchased
through Warren. The brick were charged
against the city. Witness did not know the
late, nor on what check or ticket the brick
vas furnished. No bill was made out
against Roach or Warren Witness made
,ut the small amounts were usually paid |
or at the time Of delivery.
A. D. LANE.
worked in the city, and was employed by /
n arren at the sewer. He never worked I
or Warren individually, his time was al |
ways made out in correct manner. He I
,aid money while at work, to Coyne, who
vas acting as sidewalk commissioner.
Joyne stated that the money was to be
lsed 10 asarchase an instrument for War
en-. Ere Instrument was to cost $275.
1oyne stated that all the workmen would
five money, and SO the witness gave his
,art. Witness did not hear any thing about
he instrument until last fall. when Coyne
old him that the money had been used to
purchase watch. Coyne said that he
wanted to keep it a secret; witness had
aid such assessments to other cities while
t work He paid the So in the year 1880.
1t the time witness paid So, Dunn and
rooney, two other bricklayers, also gave
he same amount.
It was usually customary where such as
were made, In the witness ex-
erience, to have the money collected by
ne of the werkmen, and not by one of the
ity officials as was the case with Coyne.
Witness did not pay anything in the year
ISL. The subject of raising money was
lentioned in that year by one Of the work
len, but nothing ever came of it. The
honey mentioned was to be devoted to
Tarren's benefit Witness did not con-
der So as an unusual amount for brick
.yers to give for such purpose.
Witness then detailed what he knew of
ames Curryns discharge from the city's
mploy, which was caused by Curryn's re-
asal to draw centre in the arch of the
ever. There was considerable water in
he ditch at that time Witness thought
lat some of the laborers did not earn
leir pay. He did not remember their
ames. They were working under Warren
hen Warren was on hand he hurried upI
e workmen.
DAVID FLANAGAN
orked for Warren and Kane, and he did I.
It know whether he was working for the
e or net. Kane paid him for the work.
Q was paid at the rate of 5 so per day.
illness objected, because other men were :
ceiving $1.75 for the same service. The
itness never came to the City Clerk
ice fo1 his pay. The last day he worked
as the cath of November. +,
Mr. Warren objected to this testimony, ,
he did not think it wag at all pertinent
the matter under investigation.
It was stated that the prosecution ex-
cted to prove that Flannigan's name was ]
the pay roll, and on that account the