Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-03-03


do. so. he would let him deliver at the
contract-prlce all the shells from MS
(Nontgomery's) oyster-house The con-
trac; was awarded to Mr.. Montgomery
at 8 1-2 cents per bushel. The evidence
shows that the carts OF the late w. 6.
Adams, superintendent and that of I.
!, Walsh. foreman delivered under
the contract of 1924 about four times
as many shells as were delivered by Mr..
Montgomery. Messrs. Adams and Welsh
delivered about 5000 bushels. while Mr..
Montgomery delivered about 5000 bush
els (See tho testimony OF II. c.
Boudar and J. r. Montgomery In one
particular, Mr. Walsh showed marked
prudence and diligence He took particu-
lar palms to see that Mr.. Montgomery
was not paid for the shells hauled by
himself and Mr. Adams. Mr.. j. +.
Meredith was required To keep the books
showing the deliveries by Mr.. Montgom-
cry Mr.. Walsh himself kept the books
showing his deliveries and those OF Mr..
Adams. Mr.. ]. +. Meredith gave one
class OF tickets TO the driver OF Mr.. Mont
gomery. while Mr.. Gaulding. an engi-
neer at the gas-worSs. was required 10
give another kind Of ticket to the drivers OF
the carts OF Adams and Walsh. (See the
testimony of Gauding, Marston. j. r.
Meredith, Walsh, and Fleming Chris
kept separate, the monthly bills. upon
which the Gas Committee issued warrants
for payment. were for sums due for all
shells delivered I'm the preceding month,
and were made out In the name
OF Mr. Montgomery. Mr. walsh
with full knowledge that the bills were
false statements Of the actual facts ala
not hesitate 20 make out month after
month the bills as due TO Mr.. Mont
gomery for shells delivered by him.
! load was regarded as twenty-five bushes
| ana cost sl.37. There il evidence that the
carts. except those Of Mr.. Montgomery, did
not always deliver full loads. although the
/ drivers received tickets for full loads.
! But. amid so much fraud. your COM
mittee does not feel called on to do more
than 10 call attention to that evidence
| (See the evidence OF Fleming Christian
! and Allen Goodman. the driver Tor MT.
/ Montgomery) The evidence Of Fleming
| Christian, the driver for Mr.. Walsh, SHOWS
that the price paid by himself for me
| shells delivered was either q cents. or
sometimes 81 1-2c. n load. 1t Is to be
presumed that the driver of Mr.. Adamss
| cart gave about the same. Yet the city
had 10 pay s1.37 a load Mr.. Walsh claim
| ed before your committee that he ala
not receive any part of such sums. except
! 30 cents per load for the hauling. Your
| committee submit that even II that he
| true such fact cannot relieve Mr. Walsh
| of equal culpability with Mr.. Adams.
Your committee decline to draw a moral
distinction between being paid for as
sisting I'm the preparation Of fraud ana
receiving a proportionate share or the
! profits OF the fraud We are Of the opln-
| ion that In the fraud so perpetrated Mr..
! Walsh was as culpabe as Mr.. Adams.
FRAUDULENT SALES OF SHELLS.
Mr. Montgomery failed to get the new
/ contract, which was awarded I'm October.
/ 1894 Ii seems TO have been determined
| that Mr.. Adams. and those who mad
4 heretofore shared with him the receipts
/ OF his frauds upon the city I'm the pur-
/ chase of shells, or those who In the future
would share with him such fraudulent
/ gains, should sell to the city all the shells
| which 1t might purchase. Whether this
/ change was caused by greed or by the
/ fact that a new partner desired 10 share
/ in those gains your committee IL unable
/ to say. But the evidence submitted by
| your committee proves that at that time
another did desire and had determined 10
/ share in those gains. That person was
Mr. John r. Grimes. a member of the
/ Common Council and VINO mad been trust
/ ed with the position of chairman of the
/ Gas Committee, and whose duty il would
] De 10 sign the NdlldHtS TOT tne pIOIOStl
| fraudulent sales OF shells.
Your committee has no direct testimony
that Mr. Grimes. before making that
/ decision, had become cognizant of the
| frauds that had been already perpetrated.
/ But your committee submit that he must
I have had some knowledge Of the money
/ 10 be made, otherwise he would hardly
have been willing to participate In the
fraud, and have strlven to prevent II
being known.
In october. 1894. the contract was not
awarded TO Mr.. Montgomery, but TO Mr..
f.. W. Smoot. That change was brought
about in the following manner: Mr.
Adams and Mr.. Grimes each interviewed
Mr.. Smoot and got him to agree TO put
In a bid in his name for their benefit.
Mr.. Adams had either already seen Mr..
Montgomery, or saw him after Mr.. SmoOt
had agreed to bid. and tried to get Mr..
Montgomery to bid 1-2 cents per busrel;
But Mr.. Montgomery declined. and told
him that he only proposed to bid at 8
cents bushel. and that money could be
made at that figure. Therefore. Mr.. Smoot
bid only 4 rs cents per bushel. The con-
tract was awarded TO Mr.. Smoot by the
Gas Committee, they not being informed
OF the deliberate fraud that the Supern-
! tendent and their chairman were perpe-
trating upon the city under the cover OF
Mr.. Shoots name. Mr.. Smoot never de-
livered a load OF shells under that con-
tract. How long Mr. Adams continued
to share in the fruits of this fraud your
committee cannot tell; for 1t was proven
that shortly after the sO-called SmoOt
contract was made Adams sold his carts
to Mr. Grimes. From that time until the
committee In March, 1885, ordered that
no more shells should be bought, only Mr.
n.f,. M vi rI III I'LL,
TO the gas-works. The evidence submitted
not only shows that this contract was OBJ
tanned in this fraudulent manner, but also
that it was executed by the beneficiaries
under II In a manner equally as out
lageous and fraudulent.
A visit TO the gas-works. and a view OF
the enormous pile of shells there at this
time, although none have been purchased
since March. 1893. will show that the city.
under the so-called Smoot contract. was
buying. not according to her needs, but
in compliance with Mr.. Grmes's desire
10 sell. But a still stronger proof Of the
gross disregard shown by Mr. Grimes as
to the city's interests, where they came
in conflict with his own, will appear by a
calculation and comparison made by Mr..
II. T. Boudar from vouchers in the Audi
tors Office of the payments made by the
city for shells purchased under the Mont
gOmery and the so-calied SmOOt con-
tracts, respectively. Under the Mont
gomery contract 1t appears that the shells
delivered from January. 1898. TO Deem
Der of the same year amounted to G. S25
bushels from January, 1884. to October,
1894. a period Of nine months there were
delivered $500 bushels of shells. Under
the so-called Smoot contract from Octo-
Der 4. 1894, to the latter part OF March.
1895. a period of not quite six months.
there were delivered 6s,l65 bushels of