The morning call., 1894-01-23
THE TALK OF CORRUPTION.
Superintendent ACkerson the
Center of Charges.
A PUBLIC OR Personal ROW i?
Some Contractors Defend the Street
Department and Assign Interest
for the Attack.

As usual in such cases there appear to
be two sides TO the story of the serious
charges brought by j. F. McCrossOn
against Deputy Street Superintendent
George Z. Ackerson. McCrosson's story
is that Ackerson, who is a brother of the
Street Superintendent, approached Nc
Crosson with an offer to have a claim of
S497 passed on receipt of a sum Of money.
Ackerson deni es the accusation and says it
is inspired by j. II. Bingham In order TO
get out of q losing contract.
The charge has created considerable talk
among street contractors. All yesterday
there were Tumors of new charges to be
pr eferred against members Of the frater-
nifty. but the contractors did not seem
much worried. On the other hand, CON-
petent authorities admit that such things
as bribery of the Street Department have
been In the past. and they are not back
ward in laying the blame of the possibility
Of such corruption TO the defects of the
system governing street work.
Street Superintendent AckerSOn's denial
OF the accusation brought against his
brother was supplemented by the state
ments of several contractors.
Edwin Il. Thomson of Thomson &
Williams said: II have never found any
thing against the present administratio ion
of the Street Department, except that
some time ago the Superintendent kept
back an assessment on some work which
we did on Guerrero street, near Nineteeth.
for three months, waiting for the street railroad
company TO do its part of the street work.
That Is all right now. however, and the WORK
was approved as in accordance with the spe-
clfcations.
This charge Of McCrosson's, take it, is a
personal matter. j. 81. Bingham is behind Nc
CrOsson. Bingham fell into disfaVOr on the
n ma nE md IyrRsaE affFa.r a
his bids would not be accepted on that account
he put in bid for repairing bitumlniZed pave
ments under McCrosson's name.
Bingham has found ont that his bid was
ridiculous. lie contracted to keep ia repair
$500, 600 square feet of accepted pavement for
twenty months for $500. whereas / wouldn't
contract to do the same for $4,000. Now be
Is trying TO argue that he is not compelled to
keep the streets IN repair because they were not
properly constructed IN The first place. To
prove this be brings this charge as tending to
show that the Street Department will pass in.
ferior work for money consideration.
Another motive he has is 10 lutimidate the
Street De artment His contract to repair tn
streets Stipulates that the Street Superlnteu-
dent must approve his claims before they are
paid or rather approve the work done Acker-
son refused to pass one OF his claims, and this
charge was brought to show him that if any
trouble were caused 1t might react on the
Street Department. It was "A move 10 okIng 10
the future as Well as 10 The past. Tina is how
the matter appears TO me.
al o-day." continued Mr.. ThOmason II saw
that this charge was not circumstance TO all
that he intended TO bring. He said be would
have every contractor on his list brought up
before the Grand Jury aud make him show by
his books that he had corrupted the Street De-
partment In order TO have work passed. l told
him that such proceeding would be foolish
as, TO begin with, no contractor would allow
his books TO sh ow that be had employed money
in bribery, and secondly, it was the privilege of
every contractor to decline TO answer questions
bearing upon his private business.
Il understand" concluded Mr., IhOmasOD,
"that Mr.. Bingham has been taking certain
members OF the Street Committee around Ia
order TO show them the bad condition of GER
tain streets among those covered by his con-
tract aDd trying to Impress upon them that the
original construction was so bad that he is not
bound TO keep them in repair. fear his argu-
ment IS too weak TO admit OF the breach of
deliberate contract. In my opinion the whole
matter is nothing but an attempt to creep out
OF an lDJudlctOuS contract"
Edward Malley OF Warren & Malley said that
be had always found the Street Department 8
at present administered very fairy. Superin-
tendent Ackerson had always treated him well.
AT the office OF The Jordan Asphatum Com
paDy II was stated that it was understood that
j. II. Bingham intended to prefer charges
against several contractors for bribing the
Street Department. Ii was believed, however
that the whole matter was simply an endeaYor
TO evade contract which was proving Onerous.
James h. Bingham. the man said TO be the
power behind the McCrosson throne. is well
known In contracting circles. At one time he
acted as foreman for Thomson & Williams
froleum and Asphalt Company, in the Croker
Building, as well with Messrs. McCrosson
Macdonald & bowling, on Montgomery street.
George 81. Wolfe OF the Building News and
Review said there could be no doubt that
amount OF corruption was being carried on be-
tween contractors and municipal authorities
1t was common talk, although difficult to prove
c. E. Grunsky, one of the late engineers In
charge to devise system OF sewerage for San
Francisco. cOrrobOrated The statement that
contractors had 70 face the possible venality
OF the Street Department. "In consequence of
this they scamp their work, provide poor
material and in ether ways furnish margin
on their contract price TO meet possible de-
mandS from the municipal authorities. The
Woeful defects n the supervisory system of
stTeetwork is the prime cause. Tbs work is
passed upon by layman politician, utterly
without engineering knowledge, whose pay Of
s. day ultimately comes from the contractor.
II be IS SQUARED then any kind OF work can
be done with impunity.
''In all other large cites,' concluded Mr..
Grunsky. 1.-The CITY work must be passed by
civil engineers and specialists, whose SALARY
and professional pride preclude the possibility
OF their Deing successfully approached by the
corrupt cOnLTacors''