St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-07-22
MFR. sTARKEY INVESTIGATED
Evidence For and Against an Of.
Eicsal ssEsaa,rsr In, sIrna.nuIa

evidence For ana Against an Of
ficial ssEseimg Hnfluemced.o
AT the meeting of the board of public
works last night the assessments for the
Irvinej park drive were completed, and the
secretary was ordered to give notice of con-
firmation. The rest of the session was
devoted to an investigation of the charges
of the propretorS of the st. Paul Cement
Pipe works against A. II. Starkey, first as
sistant engineer. The sewer pipe company
have been kicking for a good while against
the alleged course of Mr.. Starkey in using
his official position in the interests of
the manufactures of a rival sewer
pipe and have charged that undue
influences had got their work
in on him, at their expense. They pre-
ferred charges against him, and an investi-
CATION was set for last evening. Two kinds
of sewer pipe are used in the construction
of the sewers of the city-cement pipe sup
piled by the St Paul firm, and vitrified
pipe, manufactured elsewhere. According
to the governing ordinance contractors may
use either at their own option, and it was
in governing this option that Mr.. Starkey
was alleged to have gone wrong. Henry
Johns conducted the examination in the i'll
terestS of the complainantS and City Attor-
ICY itl IIlc uolCuSC. ~ SEWER con-
tractor who has been putting in sewer Oh
Bradley street and who was using the
cement pipe testified that a few weeks ago
Starkey had advised him to get a guarantee
from the company if he used the cement pipe.
as that pipe had failed in number of cases
and he would be held responsible if a fail
ure occurred in his contract. A short time
after he received a letter from Starkey
advising the same thing. This note, Mr..
Rundlett testified later, was written by his
advice and this action was alleged by the
company to be pre- judicial to their interests
and in support of
THEIR CHARGES
William Jones of the Cement company tes-
titled that number of contractors had told
him that there were influences at the city
hall working against his pipe. When
pressed for names he gave John W. Do
herty as one who had told him that he con-
sidered it to his own interest to use the Wit
ritied pipe. He then admitted that Doherty
was the heaviest purchaser Of his pipe in
the city.
Mr.. Starkey testified at some length and
read his answer to the charges. He denied
having ever used his influence against the
cement pipe, but stated that it had failed
in number of places, among them the fol-
lowing: On Williams street, gu feet col
lapsed: near Fourth and Rosabel, cracked
over 200 feet; Robert. between Sixth and
Seventh, 80 feet cracked month after put
in. His testimony was quite preudicial
to the cement pipe and he said that
unless it was properly tested as to its man.
ufacture, and properly seasoned, it was
largely an experiment to put it in. The
only instance he knew Of the other pipe
failing was on Bradley street, and that was
owing to the use of condemned pipe. More
vitriied pipe was condemned than the
other. but that was due to
breakage in transportation. The theory
seemed to be uppermost in the
testimony and discussion that cement pipe
if properly manufactured, tested and laid
was equal to or superior to the vitrified
pipe. The case was taken under advise
ment by the board.