The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1894-05-11

more. There were no regular deposits
made with the treasurer OF recsptsex-
cept for the opening and widening of
streets. upon which a check was neces-
EARLY kept by the commissioners.
To arrive at the facts OF tho business
OF this Office eur experts were obliged to
60 through the records of the city corn
Gil, the books Of the city clerk, to look
up stubs of various kinds. to examine
private books, sewer connection permlte.
etc.
Incidentally we're found printing bills
OF the Evening Express company Tor
$25 20 and of the Times Mirror COM
pany for $26.50 which had been paid
twice. These sums should be returned
to the treasury.
The result of our examinations con-
drmed fully the large shortage found by
Expert Davis when employed by the
city council. The shortage found by
Davis was $4085.35. The shortage found
by Expert Miller for the grand jury is
$4393.Sl. The difference is due to the
discovery OF additional testimony by
Expert Miller.
Hutchinson and Baldwin appeared be-
fore the council and claimed thst a por-
ton of the shortage shown by Davis re-
port could be explained, and Davis was
instructed to consult with them in the
matter, which resulted in a second re-
port by Davis in which he gave Hutch
inson credits reducing his shortage to
1926 II, which sum Hutchinson recently
paid into the treasury.
Among some of the remarkable credits
in the second report was one OF 500 so,
collected by the superintendent of streets
for certificates OF sale and deeds. aud re-
tanned by him. The city charter ex-
pressly forbids the retention of any fees
by city officer.
Councilman Nickel, Rhodes and CAT
fey, the committee, accepted this second
report, while only short time previous
they etated that such retention OF fees
by Watson was violation Of the city
charter. The most charitable construc-
ton to place upon the acceptance OF this
second report ia that they did not exam
inc it at ALL that neither the committee
nor the council made an examination OF
a report gotten up by the known aid OF
the officer charged with embezzlemeRt,
was plain neglect OF their duty to pro-
tect the interests OF the people and the
city.
The council in two different commune
cations instructed the city attorney to
bring suit against Hutchinson and his
bondsmen for the shortage in the street
superintendent's Office, the last time
without specifying the amount. Then,
if not before, it became the duty of this
officer to 60 carefully into these re-
ports; but he seems to have overlooked
all the iteins, even the one of 5000 al
ready mentioned, and has brought suit
for 1878. 40. This amount Deputy Bald
win claims to have LETT in the Office safe
on surrendering tbs Office; and Hutch
ineon has produced receipt signed by
Watson tor tools, implements, etc., OF
the department, which ends in this
way:
''Incidentals to be deposited, 1878. 40. !"
Watson denies that this cash was in
the safe, and that this amount was in
the receipt when he signed it, and
claims that separate receipts were given
for money. and cites thoee given the
same day for the cash ia the banks.
We call attention to this point on &C
count of the danger to the public inter-
eats created by the condition of this re-
ceipt. The Gaze should be 30 conducted
that the responsibility for the money
lost to the city shall be finally deter
mined and placed. No neglect should
allow Hutchinson to first throw the de-
falcation on Watson without such COM
plste examination 80 will prevent Wat
son, should he be subsequently sued,
from showing that when he signed the
receipt for property, no money was in
cluded. The state of California lest a
large sum of money under Treasurer
January. The states criminal case was
lost by the trial first of the principal,
who threw the responsibility on the dep.
uty, whereas the deputy's subsequent
trial placed the responsibility on the
principal.
According to our ex pert. Hutchinson
now owes the city $4,067.69 This is the
sum for which the bondsmen should be
sued, and the complaint in the city's
action should therefore be Immediately
amended.
Had Frank E. Lopez performed his
duties as city auditor and examined the
books of the street superintendent
Office during Hutchinson's term, as pro-
vided in the charter, this reckless con-
dition of things could never have ex-
listed.
Under our instructions competent en-
gineers have carefully examined q num-
Der OF streets In different parts OF the
city constructed under and approved by
these two street superintendents. In
no case have the streets been found con.
structed according to specifications. The
most striking defect is the shortage OF
gravel. amounting in every contract to
q considerable percentage of the cost.
The worst of these is the West First
street contract by Donegan under
Hutchinson. The work as whole 10
bad. For particulars in regard to this
street as well aa others we refer to the
following extracts from our experts
report:
BAD WORK.
1--WE find between Kuhrts aud Mozart
streets that the gravel on sidewalks is
80 cubic yards snort, which is Sc per
cent of total amount required by speci-
fcations. Gravel in street between
curbs is ISL cubic yards short. 15 per
cent of total required; 26l yards at 70
cents, S195.75."
"The crown of the street should be
level with curb. On this street it runs
from one to six inches low.
THE lower layer of gravel is river
gravel, full of boulders from three to six
inches in size. Specifications permit
nothing larger than two-inch cube.