Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-12-08
THE INQUIRY ENDED
Committee Of Investigation Conclude
lis Examination Of Cas- Works.
the ARuIrAGE TAR NATTER.
stciwagon's sons Petition M" the
o0er Of nm Advance In trtcc-
Counciimen Having 'h'e'
citv Work or Contracts.


20 what Will be the report OF the spe-
clal committee appointed to make Sc
cond Investigation into the affairs OF the
CITY Gas-works The disclosures maze
before that body have caused consider
able surprise and have aroused renewed
interest In the matter The committee
will not be called together again for
couple OF weeks. in order that the men,
beers may have an abundance of time IN
which TO consider the facts which have
been presented to them. II Is pretty
well understood that nothing can be done
by the committee further than to mar
rate 10 the Council the facts brought out
during the inquiry. and possibly make
some recommendations with reference TO
contracts with the department, in which
one or more members Of the Committee
on Light were interested.
Section sos OF the Code OF Virginia has
reference TO this character OF trahsae-
tons II reads as follows;
TT shall not be lawful for any member
OF the Council or Board of Aldermen, OF
any other officer or agent or any com
missioner appointed for the opening OF
streets. or any member OF a committee
constituted or appointed for the manage
n,cnt. regulation, or control or corporate
property, OF any city, 60 be contractor
with the said corporation or us agents.
n, with such committee for any
work or labor ordered TO be done, OF
goods. wares and merchandise, or
supplies of any kind. ordered by the said
corporation. or such committee, 10 ne
purchased. or in any manner, directly
or indirectly, TO be interested in the pro-
fits of any such contract. Every such
contract shall be void, and the officer,
agent. or member Of such committee max
ing such contract shall report TO the
Commonwealth the full amount stipu-
lated for thereby. No officer or a CITY,
who. alone or with others. Is charged
with duty Of auditing. settling, or pro-
viding by levy or otherwise for the pay
ment of claims against such city shall by
contract. directly or indirectly, become
the owner Of or interested in any claim
against such city. Every such contract
shall be void: and, II such claim be PAID
the amount paid. with interest, may be
recovered back by the city within two
years after payment, by action or motion
in the Circuit. or Corporation. or Hust-
ings Court, having jurisdiction over SAID
city
INIENJ Of I1tE4 VI > l@Oo''s
That the loss to the city has been very
heavy because of the mismanagement
of the works during the past several
years, there is no doubt; but what the
exact amount is no human being can tell.
The Dispatch on yesterday gave what Is
generally regarded as a fair estimate or
the extent to which the city has suffered.
The loss is said TO be represented in five
different items-the amount collected from
sales OF coke, etc, and not reported;
the destructiveness of the property; the
loss by unnecessary hands, and by the
manner TN which the tar and ammoniacal-
lsnuor contracts have been awarded.
From the records these contracts ap-
near to have been regularly awarded by
the Committee on Light and the only
matters of criticism are the length OF
time for which they were let, the eX-
tremely low figures at which they were
given, and the fact that in some instances
persons who would have submitted pro-
posals were not given the privilege OF
so doing.
The first tar contract was awarded
while Mr.. John II. Knowles was Super
intendent to Messrs. Armitage e. Sons.
On May 6. 1866. the contract with this
concern was renewed for a period Of
FIVE years at Go cents per barrel, bids
hayng been duly advertised for over the
signature of the Superintendent. Mr..
John Armitage on July 9. 1889. applied for
an extension of that contract Tor
period of ten years, on the ground
that he desired TO put In some improved
machinery and could only afford to do
20 in the event he was given the contract
for long time. as requested.
This matter was tabled. and the SUI
perintendent was instructed TO consult
the City Attorney In regard 10 II. At a
meeting of the Committee on Light held
November 25 1889. this question was again
brought up, and on motion of Mr.. Gum.
the contract for the tar was awarded
70 Mr.. John Armitage for seven years.
at the old price-6j cents per barrel. The
records of the committee do not show
that proposals were advertised or asked
for IN this instance. and IT is to this
action on the part OF the committee
that so much OF the time Of the Special
Investigation Committee was directed on
Thursday evening.
STELWAGON'S PETITION.
Nothing then transpired in this matter
until June 5th. when. as has been stated,
the committee considered a petition from
Joseph Stelwagon's Son, Philadelphia,
Pa, signed by ID. c. Richardson as coun-
rel. complaining OF the manner I'm which
the contract had been let and Offering
at that time TO take all tar produced at
the City Gas-Works during the following
seven years at % per barrel. at which
figure the city would have made $4,000
more on the tar than under the Armitage
contract. In this communication. which
had been referred from the Board Of
Aldermen, StelwagOn's Sons submitted a
number OF questions. which bare upon
this matter. These interrogations were
as TO the propriety Of the contract made
the right OF the city 10 enter into such an
agreement without due notice to the
public; the representations OF Mr.. Armi-
tage az the basis of the contract; number
OF barrels Of tar paid for by Armitage
during the years 1887. 1883 and 1885,
amount OF coal carbOnized during the
same years; the names Of all parties in
terested with Armitage directly or IN
directly In carrying on this business etc.
IL was finally arranged for Stelwagon's
Son 10 appear before the committee, which
body had previously directed that the
Philadelphia firm should be shown by the
clerk OF the committee all papers In his
possession in connection with the tar
contract. on June 6. 1880. the committee
met specially for the purpose of consider
ing Stelwagon's petition. Mr.. II. G. Rich
ardson and Mr.. Stelwagon being pres
ent. on tho one side, and Mr.. VI. NJ
Smith, Jr., appearing for Mr.. Armitage
At this session OF the committee the
questions asked In Stelwagon's commune
cation were answered. The committee
decided In effect that II had n proper
contract with Armitage. and that II had
the right 10 make such a contract. The
body agreed that Mr.. Armitage had mol
made any misleading statements in con
nection with his proposal. and the Su.
perintendent furnished the Statistical
figures asked for by the Philadelphia firm
The committee further unanimously re
solved that IL could furnish the names OF