St. Paul daily globe., 1886-04-04

NOW pay Toll SHOWS InaI the city pa q ~
day for Mr.. Garland's labor. Who V the
fifty cents day? Surely the foreu an did
not. And if he did. S. G. Cutter. who had
employed him, was responsible for it.
Now as to others. John Elmgreen, an
other carpenter OH the ''boodle" job, made
the following affidavit yesterday:
State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin,
ss.: John Elmareu, being duly sworn, dc
poses and says that he is carpenter and re-
sides at No. zoos Twenty-second avenue south
in the city OF Minneapolis, county and state
aforesaid; that during the summer Of 1885 he
was employed by 5. G. Cutter to work for
him as carpenter on the repairs at the city
ball; that said Cutter agreed TO pay him 50
day; that he worked about six weeks under
the direction of said Cutter and of one Boy
ington, who claimed TO be- the foreman of
said work; that he received 81 a day and no
more.
JOHN ELMGREN.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this Sd
day of April, 1886, r. II Day, notary
public, Hennepin county, Minnesota.
Is not this plain enough to convince any
doubling Thomas? The doodle" alder
man actually employed John Elmgreen at
80 day to work on the job and as chair
man of the committee on public grounds
and buildings, audited John Elmgreen's pay
roll at $500 a day. Who got this extra
so cents day? Certainly not S. S. BOyiag-
ton, the foreman. And if he did Aid. Cut
ter was directly responsible for 1t.
Nor is this all. The doodle" alderman
in his card assaillng ID. ID. Smith, gentle
man who had the moral courage to aid in
exposing the doodle" alderman, alleged
that he Gutter had
EMPLOYED NoMAN
on the building. had neither received nor
paid dollar for work done. and more of
the like. What about John Ludlum? That
gentleman affirms that he was en-
ployed by S. G. Cutter to ''brick
up" the boilers in the basement of
the city hall, and that when the work had
been completed S. c, Cutter paid him for
the job at his house. Another pointer which
indicates the predicament in which
doodle" alderman finds himself: Yester-
day Boyington. Cutters foreman. called
on l.. Yadd. another carpenter who had
been employed on the job, and requested
him tn refuse to give any information.
Mr.. Yudd replied that he would not lie
about the matter. Shortly after he stated
that he had been employed by S. c. Cutter
on the city-hall job. and that he had been
paid 50 day and no more. How does this
compare with the pay roll? The pay roll
shows that the city paid $3.50 day for l..
Yudd's labor. Who received the extra so
cents day? Can there be any question?
And now about the job Itself. Nearly
S33. 900 was expended by the city under
the supervision of S. G. Cutter as the up
right and frugal mayor, who would not ac-
cept the nomination because it would not
be manly" nor honest" said in his won
derful Peterson hall speech. And after it
is done, what is it? UnQuestionably an in
feriOr job. The workmanship and finish is
far from being first-class. 1t looks cheap
and shabby throughout. Competent con-
tractors have inspected the work and say
that it should not have cost over S12, ZOO.
There is no means of making an argu-
ment more plain, and no means of making
it better understood. than by comparison.
The elegant new Window block cost about
the amount paid for repairing the city hall.
Think of it. The elegant Window block,
than which there is not handsomer struc-
ture in the city, built for S33. 900. and that
means from the ground up. That paws for
the architectural work. the materials en-
tire, the stone. brick and car
penter work and the painting and
finishing. The interior of the block
is as much finer than the city hall as the
Boston block is finer than the old antiuuated
business blocks built here twenty years
ago. If any voter of the Fifth ward doubts
the comparison, let him investigate before
casting his ballot on Tuesday
Now. in the face of this arrav of facts,
can the conscientious taxpayers and voters
of the Fifth ward use their franchise for S.
c. CUTTER Place in juxtaposition with the
doodle" alderman AIonzo Phillips. the OPP
position candidate. Mr.. Phillips has never
been partisan and consequently is not OBJ
jectionable to liberal Republicans. He is
an honest upright citizen and taxpayer.
and worthy the confidence and trust of
every resident of the ward. Reflect before
voting for man who will do his utmost to
bankrupt the city treasury to advance his
personal interests.