The herald., 1896-01-05
JOE CARROLL HAS SKIPPED
The One Witness Needed Went
to San Diego
THE TEAM REPORT FILED
Nothing Worthy of Censure Says the
Investigating Committee
1t Says That the Committee Could Not Find
That Any Public Officer Was Con.
nected With Hiring Teams

The board of public works yesterday
finished its report upon the team inquiry
instituted some four weeks ago by Presi-
dent Freeman G. Teed of the city council
The document is, 10 say the least, a bit
himsy. 1t whitens the character of every
one about the city hall who had been ac-
cused in connection with the matter, and
confesses by implication at least, in it's
first paragraph, that the only witness who
might have thrown some light upon the
pending inquiry, early in the game hied
himself beyond the jurisdiction of the in
vestigating committee, being assisted to
San Diego or somewhere else by some
angel who had most vital interest in his
emigration. The report is il full as fol-
lows:
TO the honorable council Of the city of
Los Angeles-Gentlemen: Your special
committee appointed to investigate and re-
port whether any teams were used in the
street department owned by others than
those whose names appear upon the pay
roll of the department as such drivers, beg
leave to report that they have subpDnaed
all drivers whose names appear upon the
payrolls of the street department and also
such others as they believe could throw
light upon the matter; that they have Sue
ceeded in obtaining service and examining
all except one doe Carroll, who the police
department report in writing they are un-
able to find, and that to the best of their
knowledge the said Carroll left for San
Diego on the 30th day of December at
o'clock am.
This examination before your committee
was conducted by the attorneys office, and
the matters under inquiry gone into in a
thorough manner.
The examination of the several witnesses
developed as follows:
Mrs. Loring, whose husband was an en-
ploye of the city during his lifetime, has a
team in use in the department driven by
Mr.. Peckham, but the pay for the team is
drawn in the name of Mrs. Loring. The
arrangement for the payment of the driver
is a matter between the owner of the team
and the driver and one which your COM
mittee believes it should not interfere
with.
c. j. Howell and H. W. Pierce were the
only teamsters examined who stated that
they did not now the teams which they
had been driving. The witness Pierce
stated that he was driving team which
belonged to his father II. A Pierce, but
the name of the father appears upon the
pay rolls of the city and the pay is drawn
by him. The witness Howell stated that
the team which he was driving belonged to
man by the name of Granger, yard master
for the Santa Fe Railroad company. and
that he has possession of the team under
promise to buy the same, and that when he
has paid to the said Granger the sum of
$225, which it is agreed shall be paid
within six months from August 4, 1898,
and of which amount he had already paid
the sum of 81 10, the team shall belong to
and become his property. This team APP
pears upon The payroll in the name of Mr..
Howell, and while the witness stated that
there was no written contract for the pur-
chase of the team, it does not appear that
any city officer or employe is interested in
its ownership.
G. III. Howard, the foreman of the corral
swore that he was the owner of team
heretofore employed upon the streets and
driven by one Welch, of whom he pur-
chased it on the 9Th of June, 1895, and
from that date until the time that the
team was taken off of the public work he
paid WeIch the sum of $1.5O per day for
driving the team, and he received the bal.
ance of ~ per day for the use of and feed
ing amp keeding of the team. This is the
team the ownership of which Is now in
controversy in the courts between Mr..
Welch and Mr.. Howard, and the testimony
of the two is conflicting, Mr.. Welch swear
ing that the team belongs to him and Mr..
Howard that the team belongs 10 him.
All the witnesses examined swore that
the teams which they drove and for which
they received pay are owned by them, and
that no city officer is interested directly or
indirectly in the ownership of said teams,
or in the money received from the city for
such teams, and that they have not in the
past, nor are they obligated in the future,
to pay any money or other valuable con-
sideratIon to any city officer or other per-
son for the use of such teams in the street
department, or for obtaining employment
for them in the department..
Your committe having now examined
all of the witnesses who, to their knowi-
edge, could shed any light upon this mat
ter, and having failed to find that any
public officer connected, either di-
nectly or indirectly, with the hiring of any
teams TO the city. and that all of the teams
with the exception herein noted appear
upon the pay rolls of the city in the name
of he owner, would recommend that this
investigation be closed and the committee
discharged.
The report above will come up for action
by the council tomorrow.