Los Angeles herald., 1891-11-17

members OF that board approved the de-
mand of f. w. Chase for $958.75 for
labor which had been done at the insti-
CATION of the mayor and other park
commissioners, but the mayor did not
make any attempt to have the city at
torney draft contract, as the present
council did in our transaction; the
Chase demand was presented to the
council, September 20, 1890, and re-
turned to the park commission by the
council because no contract had been
drawn as required by the charter.
October 6, 1890, contract was pre-
sented tn the council for doing the above
work, and motion prevailed. to refer all
papers and communications, together
with the contract, to the mayor. Octo-
ber 18th Mayor Hazard wrote message
to the council asserting that this Chase
contract for 1858 was an honest one, not
withstanding the fact that it was made
long after the work was done. He
claimed that the park commissioners
had the right to make this contract
(after the work was done), by virtue of
an ordinance adopted by the council
April 8, 1889, empowering the park COM
missioners "to do such other work in
connection with the development of the
parks as they may deem advisable" If
the mayor could contend SO vigorously
that he and his associate park commits
sioners were right in approving con-
tract after the work was cone, where the
sum involved was $958, how can he now
consistently argue that this council has
not the right to pay this trivial sum of
$295, when the records show distinctly
that the council ordered the contract
drawn Tho M Enn"c tuan
that the council could not by ordinance
empower anybody to spend legally any
sum exceeding $500 without contract.
His honor and his associate commits
sioners were in hole, but the council
very wisely helped them out by approx
ing the contract and demand. Now the
mayor forgets the clemency which was
accorded to him, and strives to make it
appear that this council has been guilty
OF an unprecedented attempt to pay in
an illegal manner for work which was
not legally authorized.
Consistency is jewel with which the
mayor has not adorned the administra-
tion OF his Office in this matter. The
course his honor has taken savors too
much of Satan correcting sin. "Our
Harry" can put "Old Harry" to blush,
and make him hide his tail in shame.
II Mayor Hazard is determined to
exact the observance OF all the niceties
and punctilios of the charter, why did
he about January 31st, 1891, draw from
the emergency fund $25 on account of
his expenses to Sacramento, which was
evidently in direct violation of the or
dinance governing that fund? Is it pos
sible that a gentleman drawing the |
princely salary of $500 per month
for wearing the mayoralty hon
ors of this city must make raid also |
upon the emergency fund? Let me
quote from ordinance SIS: Sec. l.
There is hereby created fund to be
known as the emergency fund, the
money in which may be used in pay
ment Of such claims against the city of
Los Angeles as the emergencies of the
public service may from time to time
require, when the immediate payment
OF the same is of so urgent nature ais
to render it impracticable to obtain the
money therefor in the usual way, but in
no case shall any claim be paid out of
said fund that could be provided for in
the usual way"
Now am curious to know what claim
had been presented against the city of |
Los Angeles which required immediate |
vided for in the usual way, which rem
dered it necessary tor Mayor Hazard to
slip bis hand into the treasury through |
this little back door. / do not mean to |
insinuate dishonesty on the part Of the |
mayor. am willing to admit that in |
all probability he rendered good service |
to our city,in Sacramento. but he had no |
right to take money out of this fund for |
any portion OF his expenses, because it |
was not an emergency within the mean
ing of this ordinance. Mayor Hazard |
should have presented the bill for his |
expenses in the usual way, and not es-
tablished such dangerous precedent |
for other weak mortals to follow.
The mayors theory is very good, but |
If all officials followed his line of prac-
tice, we might be kept busy replenish-
ing the emergency fund but presume
he would have us understand that only
he must exercise the prerogative of di-
crossing from the strict letter of the
law.
The HERALD of this city has reported
that his honor says that this McLain
demand is parallel case to the one
wherein the council refused to approve
the demands of the attorneys hired by
the mayor in the case of DeGroot vs.
the city. He never requested this coun-
Gil to authorize him to engage legal
help. No action was ever taken by this |
council which could be construed as an
authorization for the employment of
attorneys to assist the mayor; therefore
it appears that his honor actually sought
to secure payment to these attorneys in
what he now describes as an illegal
manner, and because this council would
not sanction that illegal act be now
tries to make it appear that we have
been just about as guilty as himself.
We treated the mayor with studied
courtesy in this matter and gave it no
publicity; it did not get into the daily
papers. But now we must defend our
selves from his unjust attacks, and if
he gets scratched by the cat now let
out OF the bag, he must remember that
the provocation was instigated by him
self.
The bids for street sprinkling were:
Harry Nichols, wagons such as now in
use, $2.95 per day per cart; Studebaker
or Miller wagon, $3.15.
@. w. Shafer, districts L., H., I'LL,
$3.O5; w., $2.85, for ordinary wagons
Studebaker, $3.44.
A. H. Sanborn, Los Angeles sprink-
lsrs, $500.
E. z. Johnson, Studebaker or Mon
arch, $3.50.
G. M. Fuller, Studebaker or Miller
wagon, $3.50: or $1.75 per mile per day