The Portland daily press., 1883-08-15

'Vsoie otftOff ottHSo Ufucf6u Uy tt6 Guy COUn-
cit.' Ofcourse an expenditure for EXTERN
mating caterpillars was not mentioned be-
cause when the appropriation was made the
caterpillars had not appeared; but any sum
for any purpose is chargeable to this appro-
priation which the City Council chooses to
order to be expended from it. "Looker On''
will look in vain to discover any mention
here of expenditure for repairing school
houses; but he knows that will be the larg-
est item of expenditure from the contingent
fund this year except the item for the Fourth
of July.
But the bulk of this latest effort of 'sLook-
er On is devoted to giving to the public
defence by the Mayor himself of his action
in the matter of the Chestnut street school
house job. One paragraph has unique in
terest for the taxpayers. 1t is so monstrous-
ly absurd that the Mayor, if he really uttered
any such folly, might be suspected of inten-
tionally insulting the intelligence of the peo-
pie. 1t is not agree able to believe that
Portland has Mayor so stupid as to talk in
this way while supposing he is talking good
sense and sound reason. That we may not
be uspected of doing either him or ''Looker
On injustice, we give the passage verbatim
as it appears in the Argus.
interviewing Mayor Deering, the writer finds that
Councilman Prince has been constantly looking af-
ter the buildings under his charge, and the Mayor
states he believes Mr. Prince has saved the city at
least 81 900 already, in overlooking the rebuilding
of the Chestnut street schoolhouse; and while not
desiring to do injustice to any member of the com
mttee, says he is always 10 oking after work under
his charge-and has gwen the work at Chestnut
street his time and thought to such extent as to
make great saving to the CITY,
This may make Mr.. Prince feel good if be
believes people will be unable to detect the
imposition of such statement; but those
who pay the taxes may well pray to be de-
livered from such saving. What are the
facts? A schoolhouse needed certain re-
pairs. The sum of 81, 700 was appropriated
for that purpose. Plans and specifications
were prepared and proposals for doing the
work were advertised for according to law.
The lowest sum named for the work by ac-
ceptable and responsible bidders was 81, ,420.
By contracting with these men the whole
work would have been completed for that
sum. They would have given bonds to do
it. If they lost money the city would have
lost nothing. The architect employed in the
business went carefully over the bids and
reported that they were extremely low. His
estimate, "Looker On" informs us, was
$S, 900 as the reasonable cost of the work.
Whatever this job costs over and above
$7,420 is not saving but loss to the city. 1t
has cost already the amount of the original
appropriation $4,7O0 aud $1,000 additional
has been appropriated from the contingent
fund making $1,000, and it was announced
at the last meeting that probaly $500 more
would be required. That would make $S,-
700. If the job is completed for this sum
the loss to the city treasury by the neglect to
make a contract on the terms offered will be
81 ,2S0. The chances are that it will be
good deal more.
Therefore when the Mayor says that Mr..
Princes attention to the work has saved the
city $4,000, it means only that it has preyen-
ted the city losing on account of his action
$4,000 more than will be lost. Perhaps we
ought to be deeply grateful for that; but
there would be more occasion for gratitude
if the work had been accomplished for
$7420 as it might have been, instead of cost
ing $500 or more, as it will 1t was Mr..
Prince who told the City Council that the
work could be done by the day within, or
nearly within, the original appropriation of
$4700, and by such representations per-
suaded the Council to sanction his and the
Mayors plan. Now the Mayor thinks he is
entitled to credit because the work will cost
only about $4,000 when if Mr.. Prince had let
the workmen have their way it would have
cost great deal more.
The Mayor further attempts to screen his
action from just censure by talk about the
necessity Of the changes which have been
made in the school house and their advan-
tage. There is no issue of that SORT No
body has opposed making the necessary al
terations. Everybody omits that they were
desirable. What is objected to is that they
should be made at an extravagant and un-
necessary cost, and that the ordinances of
the city framed to secure economy of ad-
ministration should have been disregarded
and defied. These offenses are entirely in
dependent of considerations of the desirable
ness of the improvement, and the Mayor
cannot shelter his conduct by professions of
great interest in providing school accommo-
dations. These could have been provided in
equal measure at less cost and in strict con-
formity with authorized methods of proceed
ing in such cases.
The duty of the committee on public build
ings when they discovered that the estimates
for doing the work exceeded the appropria-
ton for the purpose was plainly prescribed
by the city ordinances, as follows:
Whenever any committee or board is authorized
to make any contract by the city council, to
pend any money appropriated by the city council
for any purpose, and the estimate for such con-
tract or expenditures shall exceed in amount the
appropriation specifically made for the object there
of Such committee or board
shall report to the city council the fact of such de-
hciency OF the appropriation, statement of the
cause OF causes thereof, and an estimate of the
amount necessary to be added to such appropria-
tion, and the committee or board shall not con-
clude such contract or make further expenditure
in the premises until they shall be authorized so to
do by the city council-Revised Ordinances 1882
pages 137-l38.
Whenever any building for the use of the city
shall be erected, altered repaired the expense OF
which may exceed the sum of five hundred dsllars,
IL shall be the duty Of the committee that may have
sharge OF the same to prepare cause 10 be pre-
pared the requisite plans and specifications of the
work to be done-Revised Ordinances page 1853.
The amount of expenditures. for the foregoing
purposes in any one year, shall never exceed the
appropriations made by the city council for the
same, and no expenditure exceeding two hundred
dollars shall ever be made in the alteration and
pair of any building, without an express vote of the
council authorizing the same.-Reyised Ordinances
page 354.
The first section quoted above is from the
ordinance on "Contracts and Expendi-
tures," the other two sections are from the
ordinance on ''Public buildings" The joint
rules of the city council recognize and con-
firm these ordinances.
In all contracts and expenditures to be made un-