St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-08-04

has been raised in the contract and
Roach & Wilson's incomplete contract
and their certified bill name 1SI cents
as the price per cubic yard for the grad
ing of Twenty-eighth street. Bowen's
contract, and his certified bills as we'll,
name 1S14 cents as the price per cubic
yard for the grading of Lake street;
~ cents per cubic yard for the grading
OF Glrard avenue; 1917 cents per cubic
yard for the grading of Grand avenue,
and 1871 cents per cubic yard for the
grading of Harriet avenue. Compare
these prices with the report of the EN-
glneer, and examine the original
record. 1t is
A QUESTION OF vERACITY.
There is no chance for any mistake.
Either the committee falSifieS or the
aldermen have done so.
AS stated in the committees report,
the bid of Mr.. Filteau, as reported, says
nothing of the allowance to him of ~
cents in case he waited until July 1, 1883,
for his pay. But the contract provides for
the allowance and the certified bill con-
tains it. The rate per cent can be easily
computed. The work was to be COM
pleted on Sept. Is, 1887, and of course
no sum could become due before that
day. The entire claim is 81, 113.51. The
sum allowed as interest is $665.64. De
Quoting the interest from the amount of
the bill. a principal of S6,457.S7 remains.
interest upon this sum from Sept. 10,
1887, to July 1, 1888, at Is per cent per
annum is less sum than was in fact
allowed upon the bill. Why does AS
sistant Engineer Huntress say that the
rate was only per cent?
hot ifHrd l.
low interest at all? Even the council it
self could not lawfully do it, and the
aldermen knew it would not attempt to
do so. Does Mr.. Cooley mean to say
that the original bid provided for this
allowance? If so, why was not this i'm
portant fact reported to the council, SO
that the proper authorities and the tax
payers might be heard with reference to
1t? Does the alderman mean to insinu-
ate that the engineer would become a
party to secret, illegal and collusive
act of this nature? Such an eXplana-
ton only makes the matter worse.
Some of the contractors
SEEM TO MISCONSTRUE
the committees report. Those obtain
ing contracts from the city naturally OBJ
not to be criticised for that alone. They
owe no duty to the city such as the al
dermen do. 1t was not the intention OF
the committee to cast any reflections
upon Palmer & Co.. They could not
properly receive more than $1,000 under
their contract, as authorized by the
council. They admit, as they have to
do, that they received certified bill for
work done under the contract, amount
ing to S1.059.2S.
The communication from Anderson &
Douglass tends to cOrrObOrate the COM
mittee. 1t shows that streets can be
graded without expense to the city.
They claim to have lost money in their
work. This can hardly be true. They
didn't expects of course, to do this grading
without any expense to themselves.
Their expectation was to receive an
equivalent of benefit from the use of
the refuse earth, which no doubt they
did. They own low and marshy tract
of land at place where refuse dirt is
scarce. Until filled it has little value,
and they can afford to pay literally for
the privilege of removing adjacent
earth. Some of the citizens residing in
that vicinity can, if they will, state facts
in reference to this work done by An
derson 81 Douglass not at all creditable
to the aldermen. If they will do so we
have no doubt the statement will prove
lulCItSllllS W Glic tdh pdyClS.
AS A MATTER OF FACT
these gentlemen have graded no streets.
They have removed earth from the
streets, and the city has been compelled
to draw other earth long distance to
fill streets in the immediate vicinity.
Mr.. Filteau has charged the city in car
rying dirt for this purpose, as shown by
the engineers books, for haul of ,4337
feet, or nearly 80 rods.
Anderson & Douglass say they graded
ColfaX avenue between Twenty-fifth
and Twentv-siXth streets. MIR. Filteau
has bill certified by all the aldermen
and the city engineer for grading the
same avenue between the same streets.
The committee says of the work done
by Anderson & Douglass, and their pre-
tended contract with the city, that
neither was authorized by the council.
Therefore. there is no contract, and no
valid claim against the city. Further
more, the pretended contract is as yet
unperformed. The surface dirt, which
is the most valuable part, has much
of it been removed, and the street re-
mains in worse condition than it was
before they commenced their work.
In conclusion we will add that, with
taxpayers in general, we care nothing
for the personal differences of officials
and would be officials; but we 90 de-
mand that the public funds be legally
and economically expended. The al
dermen are our servants, not our masters.
We have the right to investigate their
official acts in our own way. We are
not obliged, and courtesy does not re-
quire, that the aldermen shall be in
vited to the deliberations of the commit
tee. There is manifest improperly
in calling them in
We learn that Aids. Stoneman and
Cooley violently oppose the reference of
the claims unlawfully incurred by them
to the city attorney. 1t is apparent
that they intend to secure an allowance
of the bills, if possible, with the over
charges and usurious allowances, regard
less of their illegality. We have faith
yet in the city council, and cannot but
believe that they will protect the rights
of outraged taxpayers, whose money is
being recklessly squandered. We deem
the matter of general concern. The
principle involved affects every citizen,
and we propose to see the matter
through to the end.
A RECEIVER ASKED FOR.
Alleged Insolvency of Jewelry