Morning journal and courier., 1889-11-27

I~N~ oY~vw~ co per be and they are hereby appointed conn., mitte with power to appoint one attorney as counsel to defend the interests of the town in the matter of consolidation before the General Assembly, and the votes of February 1e, 1889, "That the committee on counsel secure the services of Attorney Case on the best terms possible" and "that if Attorney Case needed the services of junior counsel, that he be empowered to employ him." The total amount of these payments was $1 ,55O Five hundred and fifty dollars was regularly paid to Attorney Case, who represented the town before the On March g two checks of $100 each were receipted for by Attorneys Deming and Hotchkiss, and on March 24 two more checks for $150 each were receipted for by the same attorneys. The charge upon each of the four aforementioned receipts being ''to ex- pense of opposing consolidation" The com- mittee find that the town agent and ma jority of the board of selectmen paid this $500 to Attorneys Deming and Hotchkiss with the understanding that it should be equally divided between MT. Alexander Troup, editor of the Union, and MT. William G. Pratt, editor of the JOURNAL AND COURIER, to secure their more active assist- ance in opposing the consolidation bill. They find that no part of this $500 was retained
 by either of the attorneys. The evidence does not enable the committee to make an absolute finding as to the persons to whom the money was finally paid.
 As matter of justice, it should be said that MT. John B. Darlington, managing
 proprietor of the JOURNAL AND COURIER, ap.
 peared before the committee and denied all knowledge of any payment direct or indirect from the town to his company or any one
 connected with his paper in this matter. Mr.
 Pratt failed to appear when called on to tes- tify. MT. Troup appeared and testified that he knew of no payments in this matter to himself or his paper from the town.
 On March 24th a payment of $5OO was made to Attorney L. M. Hubbard for coun- sel fees in opposing consolidation. The committee find that the intimations that MT. Hubbard used any of this money to improp~ erly influence members of the legislature are without foundation, and that it was all re- tained by him for his own services. The employment of Mir. Hubbard was not sanc- tioned by any regular vote of the selectmen. He was retained and paid by the town agent on @ written request hurried1Y~ circulated by Mir. Cooper and signed by five selectmen which was as follows:
 NEW HAVEN, Conn.,, March 8, 1889. "We. the undersigned members Of the 1eard @ of demand that additional counsel shall be retained to assist William 0. Case in attending to matters now pending before the general assembly, the same being of vital importance to the town of New
 Haven, do hereby authorize and instruct Iher1n s, bard at an expense not to exceed nVe nunoreo | dollars.
 | W. F. STERNBERe, ERNEST KLENKE,
 The question of the consolidation of the
 governments of the town and city was one ot
 much public interest, and became public
 issue. It was liable to involve an expression
 of public opinion at the polls. Under these
 conditions the committee hold that the ques
 tion was taken wholly out of the jurisdiction | of the board of selectmen as the agents ,o1 | the town. It was one which the people alone
 had the right to decide. Any effort, there. | fore, upon the part of the board of selectmen | to prejudge the cases or to bring their official l influence. or the public funds al
 their disposal to bear either in favor | of or in opposition to consolidation, | was, in the opinion of this committee, an abuse of official power not justified by any relation which the board sustained to the | town. h our opinion, the board could only l have been justified in paying the peoples | money in opposing consolidation after call | ing special town meeting and being ex- l pressly authorized to make such expenditure | by the vote of majority of attending free II. but it appears from evidence that these ap- propriations were actually concealed from the public by suppressing the rec | ords of large part of the proceed | ings in this matter, and by taking care that | no reports of these expenditures should reach the public. In marked contrast to all this, was the city board of common council, which laid upon the table all propositions l for the city to aid in behalf of consolidation. r sr,, h1r for no hoord nf | to know that majority of the votes of the | town would sustain their action in the prem | ises, and in our opinion an unwarrantable l presumption upon their part that they were | serving the interests of the town by their ac. l tion in this behalf
 AS part of the testimony upon this sub- | ject has already been published in @ some. l what garbled form, and may have left i'm. pressions different from those which an ex animation of all the evidence would war; | rant, 1t has seemed to the committee that | they could best discharge their duty to the
 public by printing the entire testimony con-
 cerning this matter. They have therefore
 added it as an appendix to this report" l MIR. COOPER CRITICIZED. | "Another set of vouchers covered some oi the towns purchases of horses from one oi
 it's own officers. On April 27, 1887, Select man Cooper sold to the town 'one brown | mare' for $275. And on June 15, of the
 same year, 'one pair of grey horses' for $500 l and tone chestnut mare' for $226. The seller | and one other selectman approved these bills
 they being the majority of the finance com-
 mittee. On August 8, 1888, the son and | 'one pair of black horses' for $500. This bill was approved by the entire finance commit. | tee, of whom Selectman Cooper was one. Selectman Cooper testified that he had al. ways been in the horse business and had been connected with four different stables in New Haven, that he had always been on the ''horse committee'' when @ member of the
 board, that he always calculated to make e profit on sales to the town, and that these | transactions had been generally known to and acquiesced in by the board. In view oi | the well-known principle that public off. cer ought not to sell or buy from the govern ment which he is serving, a principle em. bodied in our city charter and in all good municipal legislation, and closely related to | the we'll known rule forbidding contracts be | tween trustee and cestui que trust, the com l mittee will find these transactions to have | been irregular and unwarranted."
 THE BOARD OF sELEcrMEN CRITICISED.
 After stating the responsibilities and du
 ties of seleotmen, their position as guardians
 of the public interests, etc., the committed
 state while they would not sweepinglv con demn the officials, as many honored and eff fcient men have from time to time served or
 the board, yet an examination of town af'
 fairs for the last ten years discloses much
 which is the proper subject of criticism. The | board has failed, the committee say, to exer.
 else careful and effective supervision ovel
 the subordinate officers and agents of the
 town wholly under the selectmen's control The duties of the almshouse superintendent
 are not properly limited or defined. Toe
 much latitude is given him. His duties
 should be defined and prescribed. The
 board has shirked duty that properly be
 longed to themselves. Beside this they have
 for years imposed upon him the onerous du'
 ties of superintendent of roads and bridges
 which belong clearly to the town agent. The
 committee adds:
 THE OFFICE or TOWN AGENT.
 "A criticism of the same character may b,
 made as to the administration of the office O
 town agent. The methods of bookkeeping
 of issuing orders to the outside poor. ant work .tickata to lahorara haa been left to th,