The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-06-23

~ are uOuDle, ana IfeDle IHe dCIue1i
value of the articles furnished, and IN
many instances the furniture supplied
is inferior in quality and amount TO
the furniture charged for:
Third-That the prices charged
by Andrews & Co. for said fur
niture are so eXhorbitant as TO consul
tute a fraud upon the county.
Fourth-That said furniture was
! supplied TO Salt Lake county by A
H. Andrews & Co, under and in pur-
suance of a colluSive arrangement en-
tered into between Martin Hayken, as
agent for said company, and the three
selectmen of Salt Lake county, then
in office, by which arrangement no
| competition was allowed and no pub
lie action was taken by said selectmen
acting as members of the county court
Of Salt Lake county.
Fifth-That no contract was ever
regularly and legally made between A.
/ II. Andrews & Co. and the county
court of Salt Lake county for any
| furniture whatever.
Sixth-That the allowance of the
! claims of said A II. Andrews & Co.,
! by the county court of Salt Lake
! county, to the amount of $54, 973.S5 for
! the furniture supplied to Salt Lake
| county by said A. H. Andrews & Co.,
was in pursuance of the collusiVe ar
rangement aforesaid, and the same
constitutes a fraud upon Salt Lake
! county.
Seventh = That although having
promised to do so and having been
requested to do so by this court, the
said A. II. Andrews & Co. and their
| attorneys, servants and agents have
! failed, neglected and refused to appear
! before this court and offer any evil
dence explanatory of the excessive
and exhorbitant prices charged for the
furniture supplied to this county and
of the secret and collusive manner in
which the arrangements were made
under which the said furniture was
supplied.
Therefore be it resolved:
First-That it is the sense of this
court that the appropriations hereto
fore made by the county court of Salt
Lake county in favor of A H. An
drews & Co., to the amount of $54,-
1885, are illegal and void.
Second-That the warrants drawn in
pursuance of said appropriations, as
follows, tO-Wit:
Warrant dated June 10, 1894, No.
l2961, for $4,000; July 80, 1894, 14O19,
for $4,000; August 81, Nos. 1854, 1855
and No. 1856, for $4,000, $500 and $500
respectively; November 81. Nos. 17O22,
1923 and 1924, for $1,000, $4,000 and
$4,000; December % Nos. 1850 to
1864, inclusive, for $1,000 each for the
first four and $973S5 for the last men
toned, total, S54,973.S5 are Illegal and
void and do not constitute obligations
against Salt Lake county.
Third-That the county treasurer be,
and he is hereby authorized and di-
rected to refuse payment on each of
said warrants.
More Argument.
Continuing, the county attorney
said: L base these resolutions on the
evidence before you on, this subject.
This evidence consists of the testi-
mony of the experts who have been
examined before you and the testi-
mOny of the deputy county clerk, who
has told you that nothing can be
found on the records Of the county
court to indicate that a contract was
ever entered into by the county. It is
a most significant fact that the minute
book is CHere the county attorney hit
the pianissimO notes again perfect
blank on a contract for Over % 001.
The law requires this action on the
part of the county court. Every ac-
ton must go down in black and white
where every one can see it. If a reso-
luton had been placed on the records
al that time calling for the eXpendi-
ture of this amount of money a storm
Of protests would have been raised
and l believe the court would have
been enjoined from completing this
piece of work. But no one knew the
price until after all was completed.
This contract is not a contract at all;
it is simply an agreement between A.
II. Andrews * Co. and John P. Cahoon,
Herman Bamberger and Joseph r.
Norris, selectmen. Selectmen of what?
Salt Lake county was not considered
in this matter a all.
WhittemOre Reads Law.
Mr.. Whittemore then read the law
on the subject of making contracts in
the name of the county, and con-
tinued: There is nothing to show
that the county ever let this contract
or that an agent authorized by the
county did ii. 1 hold and maintain
the resolution should be adopted, and
contend that the circumstances Justify
the belief that fraud was committed. |
1t does not require proof Of actual /
bribery to prove fraud. If this court /
let's this matter go by then you your
selves are subject to criticism, which |
should not be allowed. 1t is one of
the most Infamous rObberies ever per- /
petrated. It is the leader of all public |
robberies of the kind I have ever
heard of. Your action should be taken (
as speedily as possible. Some of these |
warrants are in the hands of people !
who have bought them of Andrews & /
Co, and it is due them that this be |
done in order that they may get re-
lief in the courts and be protected
At the conclusion Of this address
Mr.. Whittemore took his seat, and the /
fun began right here. 1t was at this /
point Judge McNally was heard from /
Judge McNaIIy Talks.
The only thing we have to be
guided by in this matter said he, lis
the evidence which has been adduced. |
What evidence have we that collu-
sion has prevailed? None. 1t requires
two parties to constitute collision.
My idea is that in this matter all we
have is the evidence of one side of the
case. We have not heard of
there is no record on the min
utes. That may be an act of negli-
gence. 1t does not necessarily mean col
fusion. We do not know how the
contract was made. The resolution
ties the principle of reputation.
That is a hard position 10 take and
would not advise it at this time. l
for one will not vote for the resolu-
ton"
This Was Unexpected.
Geddes looked at Christopherson and
Roberts and Christopherson looked at
Geddes and then at each other. This
was an unexpected turn in matters
which they were at a loss to compre-
bend. The county attorney too was
unable to understand what it was all
i I'd 49,: