The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1889-05-08
OPENING THE DEFENCE.
Mr.. vredenberg Outlines the Case of the
Big Four.

Mr.. vredenbe rg Outlines the Case of the
Big Four.
When Counsellor Vredenburgh opened
the case for the defence yesterday after
noon he brought out these points,
"These four men Reynolds, Ke m,
Hilliard and Watt) simply did their duty
in the very acts they are charged with
conspiracy to defraud the city. The pay
roll of January, which Mr. Winfield talks
so much about, was certified to be correct
by the Chief Engineer, and it was passed
by the Board of Finance and signed by
the Mayor. 1t may be possible for some
thief to creep into the employ of the city
at any time like what was done at the
meadow shops of the Pennsylvania Rail
road Company, where $40, 900 were stolen. -
Counsel then referred to Dooley, Smith
and Larkins in no hattering manner, and
said
g Must the Board of Works follow
Dooley, Smith and Larkins around con-
stantly to see whether they do their work.
Certainly not; and right here. let me say
before we are through we will show you,
gentlemen of the jury, that the Board of
Works appealed to the Board of Finance
and Board of Health for aid to do what
was demanded of them.
1.-THE only actual trouble the Prosecutor
has discovered was the repairing of Myrtle
avenue sewer, which cdVeel III AHu through
an error, the bill for repairs was sent to
the Committee on Cleaning Sewers in
stead of the Committee on the Recon
struction of Sewers. Finance Commissioner
Warren discovered this error and re-
fused to pass the claim until he could
examine it, Before he could do this, the
four men here were indicted for having
signed the payroll. They should have
been indicted if they had not done so, for
the work was done, and the city has no
more right to rob its employees than an
individual has. The same thing happened
in the case of Amos Byrnes and John
Drum, whose names are scratched off the
payroll. They simply sent their claims to
the wrong committee.
And again, If any of the employees of the
Board of Works have been doing wrong,
the Board is not responsible for their
acts"
Mr.. Vredenburgh paid especial attention
to the street cleaning contract. He
claimed, in substance, that the Big Four
cleaning bid. Its lowness-$5 per mile
forbade the idea of his doing the work
properly. Sheeran and Swift had been
forced to throw up the contract because
they were not able to do the work for even
much more money than Mr.. Byrnes
charged The law does not require that
the contract should be awarded to the
bidder who offers the terms most adyan-
tageous to the city.
Eat the time you voted for the pay roll
of 81 ,069, did you know that there was
anything wrong with it?"
mo, sir"
"Are you able to investigate each mans
claim?"
mo, sir; we are governed by the certi-
ficate of the foreman, and if he does not
keep the correct time it is not our fault
son January 10, 1888, you voted for a
claim of $595 for cleaning sewers. Do you
believe it to be correctY"
"Somers and Van Keuren voted against
eyes, sir"
STREET CLEANING CLAIMS
Counsel offered claim not in the in
dictment-that of Garret Haley-in evil
dence, and said:-"Do you know ANYTHING
about paying his claims for 500 each?
''No, sir"
"Had there been difficulty in having
streets cleaned in previous years?''
eyes, sir When came into the Board,
claims came in for cleaning streets not
done by contract"
of Swift"
''Yes, sir; and Mr.. Cook, the bondsman,
had to finish the work up"
''Why are contracts for sweeping of
streets and removing garbage and ashes
given out together?"
Because the garbage man, for instance,
would throw his garbage in the street,
and the street cleaner might refuse to
carry it away if the contracts Were given
to separate contractors; but if one man
had both contracts for his own protection
he would be more careful"
ssWas it necessary to remove ashes and
garbage after December l without CON
tract?o
Eyes, sir"
"Who was the person employed9"
sMr. Cook, who had carts and horses
that had been used by Mr.. Swift.''
"How much did YOU pay hims"
'Seven dollars cart?"
''When you passed these disputed bills
did you intend to defraud the cityp''
'No, sir
"Did you ever conspire with Hilliard,
Watt and Kern about themgn
''No, sir; we simply talked them over
the same as any other claims"
CUE FROM THE MAYOR.
Witness said that at meeting to pur-