St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-04-09
FOUND WOOD CHUCKS.
That's Why McCardy Says He
Declined the SeeGer Con-
tract.
He Figures Seeger Could Do
No Work, Yet Make
Money.

Comptroller McCardy appeared be-
fore Judge Brill in special term yester-
day, and filed his answer to the petition
of Robert Seeger for an alternative
writ of mandamus, directing the comp
trolIer to countersign the contract for
furnishing and lighting the gasoline
lamps in the city for a period of five
years. After the answer was filed, the
hearing on the application for man.
damus was continued until special term
on next Saturday.
The answer of the comptroller admits
that the contract was approved by the
common council and signed by Seeger,
F. G. IngersolI as acting mayor and
Corporation Attorney Lawler, together
with a duly attested addenda of the city
clerk, but Mr.. McCardY claims that he
has ''a horse' on the common council,
and that they had no authority to make
such contract as was presented for his
signature. He then proceeds to admit
that he is willing to obey the mandate
of the court in the premises, but in
forms the court that he has discovered
certain ''Woodchucks" which he digs
out, and asks the court to hold a post
mortem and declare that the contract
should be decapitated for the purpose
of eXtinguishing any possibility Of life,
and then given formal interment.
One of the "woodchucks" pointed out
is that the common council has no right
to make contract of this kind that
shall extend for longer period
than a year, or in any event
beyond the life of the present council.
He further asserts that the Bell magma
charta prohibits the council contracting
for an expenditure of more than the tax
levy for a single year devoted to any
one purpose. ParticulariZing, the comp
troIler says that the contract with Mr.,
SeegeI would involve an expense of
$40, 100 III one year and $245,500 in five
years. while the tax levied for the year
1898 and applicable to the purpose OF
lighting the streets is not more than
Sl65, 900, a portion of whic ch has been
| obligated by other lighting contracts
previously passed. The contract with
the st. Paul Gas Light company IS then
alluded to to show that the contract
with that company involves an eXpend-
| iture of $4,000 per year, and that the
amounts to $3.50, 200.
Nor is this all, says Mr.. McCardy's
answer. Attention is drawn to the fact
| that the Seeger contract provides for
| paving S1.23 per lamp each month, or
| S14.76 per year for lighting each lamp.
| The contract also provides a penalty Of
four cents per night for each lamp that
is not lighted. In case lamp is not
lighted a single night in the year the
fines would amount to only S14.6O per
| year. This would give profit OF 16
cents per lamp each year, or so cents for
the five years for each lamp not touched.
| Figuring up the 1926 lamps in the city,
the comptroller comes to the conclusion
| that Mr.. Seeger might refuse to touch
lamp and still draw $3.50 for doing
nothing.
Objection is also made to the bond
| given by Mr.. Seeger. 1t should have
been in the penalty of S245, 800 instead
| of S25,0 200. 1t is also claimed that the
sureties, Joseph Jockey and John A.
| Seeger, were hot lawfully obligated.
Mr.. McCardy also asserts that the
lowest bid was not taken, and gives
figures to show that the George Bolan
bid was $3.50 cheaper for the five
years. Attention is called to the state
ment made by Timothy Reardon in open
council. that he had been informed that
BOlan had been offered a large sum to
withdraw his bid. The answer con-
cludes with the statement that the con-
tract was illegal, and that bids must
be again advertised for lighting the
gasoline lamps.