The herald., 1893-09-29
those H|GH-PRICED CURTAINS
1 Matter of veracity Between
Two Well Known Firms.
iIiles & Sogno and Gardner & Oliver
Contradict Each Other.
|Ths Developments In tho Board Of Edu-
cation Middle Yesterday A situ-
alton which Needs Farther
Explaining.

A HERALD reporter attemptedto to trace
the identity Of the two business men
who are alleged approached Mesars.
Hiles & Sogno and offered to purchase
20 window curtains for the Hellman-
street school provided the dealers would
charge $ll2 and give q rebate OF $40.
thereby fleeing the city.
Messre. Hiles & Sogno were very reti-
\ cent yesterday and preferred to cay
nothing. When Mr.. Hiles was con-
ironted with the names, be unhesita-
tingly anewered in the Affirmative.
From another reliable source. 1t Was
said that Messrs. Gardner & Oliver, sta
tioners, on Spring street, were the men
who made the proposition to the cur
tain dealers.
The gentlemen referred to were seen
Immediately upon the receipt OF the
news.
Mr.. Oliver, junior member of the
firm, said the first thing he knew of the
matter, was when he saw it in the morn
ing papers. He had no connection with
the board OF education except to furnish
supplies occasionally. He denied that
he had ever approached anyone regard
ing tho purchase Of window shades. AS
To his partner, Mr.. Gardner. who was
absent at tho time, he said that be knew
not whether Mr.. Gardner had ever at
tempted to make any outside purchases
for the schools. In short, he had no
statement to make.
At this juncture Mr.. Platt, chairman
Of the supply committee OF the board,
came into the store, but whether his
visit had any bearing upon the question
could not be learned.
He greeted the questioner cordially,
after which he proceeded to denounce
the article in morning paper, which
stated that he had priced window cur
tains In the store OF Hiles & Sogno. He
was never In the store. MIR. Platt gave
O short history of the purchase OF all
window shades with which he had any
thing to do. He said that in Decemb ber
1892. the school board purchased Is
shades, for which 81. rs piece was paid
and that some others were purchased at
81 30 each.
'The bill was audited then," said Mr..
Platt, "and what reason has the auditor
for not doing 30 no now, when the bill Ia
much less? ?"
Mr.. Platt said that hereafter no pur.
chase OF supplies for any large amount
will be made until bids are accepted.
Mr.. Gardner then entered and was in
formed OF the charge. He denied hsv-
ing any thing to do with the matter. and
said he had no statement to make.
The gentlemen, Messrs. Gardner and
Oliver, stated that as soon as the etorv
was published yesterday morning, E. T.
Cook, another stationer, called on them
and inquired concerning the matter.
Ol the one hand, the prompt denial
OF the gentlemen has tendency to
question the truth Of the statement
that they offered to purchase the shades
and get q rebate OF $40. On the other
hand, the city auditor must be sure of
his ground. since he refused to approve
The demands of the board for the bill OF
SIG for the shadee.
1t was developed yesterday that two
fi'ms had offered to cell the shsdes at
sos or lese, while the supply committee
paid SIP for them.
The qusstion is, did Messrs. Gardner
& Oliver make the peculiar proposition
to the curtain dealers as tool of the
eupply committee? II not, why are
Msssrs. Hiles & Sogno 80 positive in
their declaration that such ia the case