Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-12-06

Mr Joseph NJ. Shelton was next called
by Nh. Mann. II tes fled that he Rad
heard Ir. Adams say That he couldn't
get any one 70 clean out the retort FOR
the material therein. and II was his i'm
preston that the remark was made In
meeting OF the Committee on Light
Mg Mann was again called to the
stand and asked as TO the bids for the
construction OF the water-gas plant. and
q to why after the bids were opened one
OF the bidders was permitted To make n
lower bid He knew nothing OF It, how
over. and the committee adjourned until
5 clock.
The Meeting nt Night.
Mir. John r. Grimes was the first wit
ness called at the night session, and
Mr.. Mcredith interrogated him also as 10
the bids for the wator-gas plant. and
the irregularity in which the bids therefor
were considered. He stated that he was
a member OF the ub-Committee on Gas.
and as such, when the bids were opened.
he, with the rest OF the committee. went
through the works with the bidders, and
examined into the merits of the various
plants proposed, and they were more
favorably Impressed with the Guldli
piilt. Before the bids were opened the
Guldlin people stated that owing to
could bid lower than the bid they had
submitted, and the day after the bids
were opened they wrote the committee
naming the reduced price. The contract
was awarded the Guldlin people Mr.
Grimes testified that he had not heard of
any bids at a lower price than that of
the Guldlln people.
THE COAL~TAR CONTRACT.
90 ls,. a
prosecuted further, and the question of
the sale of coal-tar and ammoniacal liauids
at greatly reduced price 10 the John
Armitage Company, when other people
were willing TO pay more money for II,
was gone into at some length.
Mr.. r. T. Campbell. who was president
Of the Council in 1890. was next put on
the stand. and interrogated as TO the
sale Of tar at the works He was asked
If he hadn't received a letter in August,
1890 from the Philadelphia firm Of Stall
warg q Sons. complaining as TO the sale
Of tar and replied in the affirmative. He
was asked If he had not denied having
received such letter, and replied that
he had not.
Mr.. w. $. Gum. who w~s a member of
the Council at the same time Mr.. Camp
bell was President. and was also chair
man Of the COmmi.eee on Light, asked If
he knew OF a t-t~ from StalWarg Sons
complaining that the contract for the re-
moval Of tar from the gas-works had
been given TO ATmitage & Sons at a price
very much less than anybody else had
bid lie said he had no recollection of
such a letter and couldn't recall any dis
pute which hal ever arisen I'm the Light
Committee as a result OF the controversy.
He was told that both Stalwarg Sons and
!. before n
mittce represented respectively by ID. c.
Richardson and n. NJ. Smith, Jr.. and
while he recalled Mr.. Richardson's having
been before the committee he had no re-
collection of what he came there for, as
five years had elapsed since that time.
THEIR LITTER OF COMPLAINT.
Mr.. Meredith produced a communica-
tion from Stalwsrg Sons complaining that
they had attempted to purchase the tar
produced at the gas-works here. and that
they had been told that the contract had
been given TO Armitage for o period of
seven years. When the contract expired
they submitted bids for purchasing the
tar. receiving no answer thereto. Although
they were willing to pay the market price
for the tar the contract was awarded TO
Armitage for 60 cents per barrel more
than so per cent. less than it was worth.
Mr.. Gum read the paper, but still
couldn't recall the controversy, and had
no recollection of having seen the letter
before.
Mr.. Meredith oross-questioned the wit
ness rather severely, but he reiterated his
assertion that he could not recall tee in
cldent. and was excused.
Mr.. $. ID. Crenshaw, manufacturer of
fertilizers. acids. and chemicals, testified
to having written, in November. 1889 to
Mr. Adams asking when the contract for
coal-tar with Armitage * Co. expired. He
received a reply that the contract would
expire July /. 1891. He understood that at
that time coal-tar was worth about 81 to
Sl25 per barrel, and that Armitage was
paying 60 cents per barrel.
HE LOST THE CONTRACT.
Mr.. Crenshaw was the first person who
held a contract for taking the ammonia
cal liquor from the works. He told in
detail Of how he secured the contract.
and how IL was taken from him and
given TO Mr.. Joe Davis. who finally
turned II over to Armitage. He could
tell Of nothing fraudulent in connection
with the transfer Of The contract. but
submitted figures TO show that during
She term OF his contract the city got about
2j per cent. more output from the coal
used than il did while Armitage had the
contract.
Mr.. r. w. spillman was next called
and corroborated all Mr. Crenshaw had
testified 10.
Superintendent Knowles was questioned
as to certain inquiries he had made as to
the prices of Coal-tar in 1890 1891. and 1892,
and he submitted letters from the super
intendents of the gas-wOrks in DanVille
and Saunton, saying that the prices paid
them for coal-tar during those years
ranged from 81 to $50 per barrel The
superintendent of the Charlottesville
gas-works was in the city yesterday, and
stated that the Armitage company were
now paying $50 per barrel for the tar
purchased from his works. while they are
paying but g. cents for tar taken from
Richmond's works.
Colonel smiths Report On the
Shortage.
This concluded the examination. and
Mr.. William +. Smith. the special ac-
countant, submitted his report, which is
as follows:
RICHMOND. December 9. 1895.
The Special Committee on Investigation
OF City Gas-Wofks:
Gentemen,-Baving concluded the eX-
animation of all books and papers found.
/ beg to report that L find the amount of
shortage of the gas-works 10 the city of
klcnInOnu iOr the ptflod extending from
July, 1886, TO June l, 1895. 10 be 50 $3.50
This amount has been arrived at by as
certaining the amount of sales of coke.
tar, sulphate, lime. etc. and q COM
parison of same with the amounts paid
into the City Tr asury as shown by the
Auditors reports for the same period
The absence of the usual cash account
made It necessary that the amounts
should be made up from stubs of ticket
books; and. as many OF the stubs have
been torn out and removed 1t is evident
that this amount would be increased If
these stubs were found.
This data shows;
Raf4fnte from Itly 1919 10