The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1896-11-14

Further Thoughta Upon the Good Fortunes
OF Contractor Herbert Tate.

OF Contractor Herbert Tate.
Col. Warnings reply to my letter calls for a re-
joinder as To one or two points.
First-It seems Mr.. Tate got the benefit Of the
scow trimmings (unloss the types OF Col. War
Ing have made n slip Tor fourteen months in
stead of n year. as l supposed. During that
time Mr.. Tate got pay from the city at So5 n
day, which for i28 days gives him a total OF
Slo.650 for his services, not S6,l50. rs Col.
Warning states. This is at the rate of about
50. 100 n year. or more than the salary of any
head OF department in the city Government
except the Mayor. Comptroller. and Corpora
tion Counsel. 1t was while Mr.. Tate was re-
ceiving this munifccnt compensation that he
earned GU his S2l3,000 for removing snow.
This error of Col. Warnings rs to the COM
pensation received by Mr.. Tate makes his
bookkeeping wrong in its totals. In passing
II occurs to me to inquire whether If
Mr.. Tate was thus in the pay of the city he
could legally be u contractor with it for remov-
ing snow or anything else except himself. Sec
ton so OF the Consolidation act says that no
"oficer OF the corporation shall be or become
directly or indirectly interested in or in the per-
formance OF any contract, work. or business or
the sale of any article the expense, price. or
consideration OF which is payable from the
city treasury" Mr.. Tate certainly comes
within the spirit II not the letter OF this pro-
vision.
In the fourteen months Col. Waring says Mr..
Tate received from the dumps only S5T,225.
while. IL Col. WarinS had not terminated tho
existing contract and turned the scow trim
minGs over to. Tate, the city would have re-
ceived during the same period 100000.
Secondly-Col. WarinE does not deny that he
read to the Board OF Estimate and Anportion-
he stated that he was = prepared 10 pay to the
nlcrfnr aver the tIhlflh Of flp rlfy aside from
garbage, ashe-. and street sweepings. so far as
IL is practicable to make the separation and
that he recommended II contract with Mr.. Tate.
He does not deny that on the sane day he tig-
ured out to the Board chat. II the ARRANGEMENT
the garbage and Of the ashes and street sweep
inRs would cost the city S:2I,s1s. the $4,000
SIS. !: Q the city in the disposal o. all lis re-
fuse oes les making lots of land FOR the city.
1dr. Taie's bid was very different from his letter
and annexed conditions which. II c3mpiied
and SO greatly reduce the net amount 10 be re-
ceivrd for Mr. Tate. Bet he says one OF these
which was approved y;ho Board q Arportion-
ment. This doe, not relieve Col. NarirG from
the charge of ignorantly or knowingly m's!eai-
offer would show a profit 10 the city of SlS.l22.
for the clause To which he refers was inserted in
the advertisement with Col. VI arinE's concur-
renee and. | am Informed. was drawn Or sug-
gested by him. Thgre is. moreover. no pretence
that the other conditions in Tate's BID were In
the contract or advertisements.
In short. there is no escape from this dilemma.
When Col. waring presented rate's letter and
figured a profit to the city Of Sls.122. he either
knew that IL Tate made a bid 1t would be with
conditions which would leave no such profit to
the city or he did not know 1t AID was deceived
by Mr.. Tate. Col. Warnings established charac-
ter leads to the hel!ef that lie did not know 1t.
His eulogy of and adherence to Tate after the
deceit. IL It was deceit. indicates that he did
know. or that lie feels that he ought 10 have
known II. At any rate. BY presenting Tate's
letter he secured the approval of his scheme not
TO include the scow trimmings in the contract
20 be awarded aud left those literal "pickiugs"
for Tate To grasD for.
Let me close by suggesting that Tatn's infu-
which he says it. is motor sumethlng else. so
warps Col. Warnings action that it would he
well for the Board or Estimate and Appurt!on-
ment to cease following his recommendations
implicitly. GORGE BLISS.