New-York tribune., 1883-12-21
MR.. THoMpsoN's ATTEMPT AT ExPLASArIoN.

MR. THOMPsONS ATTEMPT AT EXPLASATION.
Controller Grants attention was attracted to this
contract by the first voucher that came before him
for payment. He Immediately requested Mr..
Thompson to explain the extraordinary variation
between the estimate and the return Mr. Thomp-
son said that when the contract was advertised it
was stated that if the Park Department did not do
certain work on the line of the avenue that 3.i00
yards less of filling and 3 400 yards more of dry
stone masonry would be required; and that as tho
Park Department did not do the work, that made q
difference in the estimate and return; further than
that he had no excuse to offer other than the diff
Guilty of making a correct estimate.
As Mr. Thonipson's explanation accounted for
only a small part of the extraordinary difference be-
tween the estimate and return this contract, and
there was apparent knowledge beforehand on the
part of the contractor that this would be the case,
the Controller declined to pay che voucher without
further examination. lie saw the need of organizing
the auditing bureau to be able To tell from his
own nspec tors and engineer whether not the city
was beng swinded. In this way he ascertained
that under the O'Grady contract tearing down
stone wall was rcckoned as rock excavation, aud so
certified by Commissioner Thompson and paid for
by the city. The examination is still III progress.
OTHER INSTANCES OF IRREGUIARITY.
On a small contract given out by Mr.. Thompson
for receiving basins In Seventy there was
paid J3 per cent more than the total bid of the
tractor Edward Bradbum. In this case the esti-
mate called for 30 cubic yards of rock excavation.
But the returns showed that 200 yards were taken
out, for which $3 a cubic yard was paid.
On another small contract gwen to Thomas Muir
ray for curbiDg and tagging on One-hundrcd-and-
thirteenth-st, ar per cent more was paid than tho
amount of the bid The estimate in this case called
for $500 feet of tagging. while $3.50 were paid
for by the city. How any difference could exist in
the return and estimate for tagging is difficult 70
understand as it is mere matter of correct meas
urement.
now MR.. THOMPSON CARES FOR THE SMITH FAMILY.
But the estimate and return on Mr. Murrays con-
tract were both the work of w. V. Smith. q sur
veyor who is in receipt of large income from Mr..
Thompson's department. He is the same surveyor
who laid street out five feet from the correct line
fhe Smith family are doing well in the Public
Works Department. They are IN receipt of hand
some incomes If not ALL at least some, of them arc
known to be near relatives Of Commissioner Thomp-
SON. Whenever the interests of the city conflict
with the personal interests of Mr.. Thompson or OF
his kinsnen or personal favorites, the city must
snfer A fair illustration of this is shown IN con.
necton with the appointment of his cousin, Douglas
Smith. to Il place of profit. In the early part OF
1851 Mr.. Smith was employed as an architect and
draughtsman at 10 salary of $166 month, which
was paid out 0. the Croton Water Main Fund. But
the improvements in the markets and the changes
in other buildings gave Mr.. Thompson chance 70
make q much better place for his cousin. Thia
young man resigned his place as architect on the
Croton water mains. and was appointed 10 take