The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-07-24
CITY HALL COMMISSION,
A. J. O'Loghlen Says There Is
a Deficiency of About
$38O,OOO.
THE AUDITOR rs sKEPTIcAL.
Not Charge of Fraud, but of Care
lessness-Contract Fennell's
Mistake.

The City Hall Commissioners held an
interesting session yesterday. A. j..
O'Loghlen's startling statement concern
ing discrepancy of $380,0O0 in the new
hall construction accounts, and the dome
angel, constituted the principal topics of
discussion.
Auditor Broderick was inclined to treat
the communication from Mr.. O'Loghlen
lightly. He said that Mr.. O'Loghlen was
hunter of mares nests, that he had dis
covered one years ago in the municipal re-
ports and had been on the alert for some
thing of the kind ever since. He was of
opinion there was little in the accountants
discovery of discrepancy and that the
latter simply wanted job at the hands OF
the Commissioners.
The statement was placed on file and
Mr.. O'Loghlen will have an opportunity
next Tuesday to explain to the Commits
sioners just where this discrepancy exists
and how he made the discovery.
Martin Fennell having made mistake
of $1,000 in his bid on the brick and granite
work in the dome asked permission to
withdraw the same. After considerable
discussion the request was granted, and
Secretary Mccarthy was instructed to re-
advertise for bids.
On the suggestion of Attorney Creswell
the advertisement for bids was amended
SO as to provide for the forfeiture of the
certified check of any bidder who fails to
enter into a contract.
Thomas Price was employed to superin-
tend the casting of the dome statuary at a
compensation Of $3.50 The Mayor thought
$25 would be liberal remuneration for
the service to be performed, but he finally
consented to the sum named, and Mr..
Price will be employed to look after the
dome angel and test the quality OF the
metal to be used in its construction.
Contracts for work on the interior OF the
dome were awarded as follows: Contract
70, for steel work, to Fennell & Sons,
arching, to ]. H. Mckay for $2340; con-
tract 81, for terra Gotta and hollow-tile
work to Gladding, Mclean & Co. for $2625 /;
contract 81. for shelving in the law library,
to w. G. Hughes for 1894.
Mayor Sutro was compelled to give up
his fight against the dome angel. He was
convinced that he could not bring the
matter, and, though Directing to the
Wells statue as work of art, he was salts
| fed with the quality of the metal adopted.
Concerning the statement made by Mr..
O'Loghlen as to the $3.50, 900 discrepancy,
Secretary Mccarthy said 81 do not know
| on what he bases his charge. 1t may be 1t
dates back to the seventies. He was con-
nected with the earlier commissions and it
may be he has discovered some discrepancy
in the accounts of those commissions. /
do not think it possible his assertion can
refer to the work of the present commits
sion. Our figures are plain enough. Dur
ing the last year we have spent about
$172, 600, bringing the total cost of construc-
ton up to $5,220,S29 AZ. l cannot see
where there is any chance of such dis
crepancy unless it occurred among some Of
the earlier commissions"
! Mr.. O'Loghlen said he could not afford
to tip his hand to the Board of Commits
sioners by giving his private information
for publication.
II will say, however, that there is no
! charge of fraud or loss to the City. The
| City has had value received for its money,
presumably, but I think when the Com
| missioners give the public statement as
| to the cost of the building that IL should
be correct. Their figures are $3.50, 900 out
| of the way, and it is due the taxpayers the
discrepancy should be explained and
cleared up. do not charge fraud, but in
competency. The taxpayers should be
furnished a proper and correct account OF
the funds expended in the construction OF
the new hall, and I have the figures neces-
sary to the rendering of such an account"