New-York tribune., 1884-01-10
vory or uR. THouPSoNS METHODS.

A reckless disregard OF official obligation has
characterized. to a remarkable degree, the ad-
ministration of Hubert o. Thompson as Com
missioner of Public Works. The facts printed
to-day. in addition to those published previ-
ously. show how shameessly he has perverted
great public Office to the uses of a political
clique. He has filed his department with
the active "workers" in his faction. and he
has enriched his personal associates by system
of "orders" in place of the contracts which the
law requires. In this way he casts aside the usual
forms. guarantees and safeguards that the law
has wisely provided. The extent to which TINS
practice has been carried may be understood
from the figures in the case Of Richard A. Gun
ningham. This friend of Mr.. Thompson has
been paid $223,sEi, on orders drawn by the
Commissioner of Public Works, on the appro-
priatiOn for cleaning and repairing sewers and
the fund for restoring payements.
The loose and wasteful methods under which
this large sum of money has been paid ont without
contract or public letting clearly explain why
the expenditures of the Public Works Depart
ment are increasing mt such an extraordinary
rate. In cleaning sewers Mr. Cunningham
makes out his bills to suit himself. Appar-
emily about the only restriction placed
upon him is that each bill must not
exceed $999. There is an inspector who roams
over the city from the Harlem River to the Bat
terry, and visits the places where MIR. Cunning
hams men are at work only long enough to
count them The book in which he makes his
original entry is not on file in any department; /;
Mr.. Cunningham's pay-rOls are destroyed at
short intervals, as he himself has testified and
the work that he Is supposed to have done Tor the
city is cOveredup in the ground. Hence Mr. Gun
ningham, who does business in his own name
for the benefit of his firm, Is apparently wen
fortified against investigating committees.
In the work of restoring pavements the sys-
tenn is even more reckless. On certain date
Mr.. Cunningham is given an order to restore
pavements "when and where directed" at en-
estimated cost of less than 81 900. Noparticular
placc is designated or price fixed in the order.
Under such an order NIr. Cunningham goes to
work restoring pavemeDts that have already
once been temporarily restored over street
openings. His charges vary from 81 90 toSl44
for each Openng-materials all furnished by
the city. He puts in bill every week or two,
as a result of one of these remarkable orders,
for S999 or something less One inspector at
tends to this work except on election times. In
the month of November last according to the
records of the Finance Department it took
eight inspectors to look after Nh. Cunningham's
pavement work although less was done than in
other months of the year when there was only
one inspector.
Certainly here is a plain betrayal of public
trust. The charter makes it a misdemeanor to
"evade" statute. If in giving out several orders
on the same day for the same work, amounting
to much more than $1,000, Mr.. Thompson has
not deliberately evaded the law, it is difficult
to discover what constitutes a criminal evasion
of a statute. And it will require even more
subtle reasoning than any he has yet been able
TO furnish to convince the public that, in adding
to the expenditures under particular fund by
largely increasing the number of inspectors
during election time, he has not been guilty of a
violation of his oath of office.