The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-12-02

| The other side had its inning in the
Kinsley investigation last night. The
street commissioners attorneys were
content to refute but one statement
of the prosecution and having refuted
| this they stated there was nothing to
answer and submitted the following
statement of their reasons why they
believed there was nothing advanced
by the World that required an answer
from them:
To the Honorable Mayor and Committee:
| Counsel for the street commissioner, al
| this stage OF the present proceeding, de-
sire to present to you the following sug-
gestions as u response to the so-called
complaint and the subsequent matters In
| relation thereto:
| Without the slightest disrespect to the
executive head of this city, and the assist
ing members of councils, We say that this
proceeding has no proper or legal founda-
| ton either i'm law or ordinance.
The law provides that the mayor shall
| examine the grounds of all reasonable
complaints against any of the city Off
GERS. The fault finding Of newspaper
without affidavit or signature Is Of no
more legal effect than an anonymous let
| ter, and Is not complaint ut all. either
| reasonable or unreasonable. The defini-
tion OF complaint as regards proceedings
before the mayor may be found In Section
lows
Proceedings for the violation Of the
city ordinances may be commenced by
warrant or summons at the discretion OF
| the mayor or alderman before whom COM
plaint IL made, but no warrant shall be
issued except upon complaint upon oath
or affirmation. specifying the ordinance
| for the violation of which the same Is is
sued"
| This objection Is not technical, but is
an important and necessary prerequisite.
He who throws a bucket of ashes In the
| street offends against the law ana orui,
nance of the city, but he cannot be held
to answer until a sworn complaint Is
| made against him.
one of the charges preferred against
| the street commissioner Is that he has
| extorted large sums of money from appli-
| cants for permits to keep lunch wagons on
the streets of the city.
There is not a word of evidence to
support this charge. Not only this. but
there Is no authority on the part of the
city to grant permit to use the streets
| for business purposes. or receive money
therefor. a person obstructing the street
by any structure or thing used fo busi-
| ness purpose H. guilty under the common
| law for maintaining nuisance ana liable
| to be indicted In our court. at the SUIT or
| any one desiring to prosecute. In such
case Il permit from the city. would be no
protection whatever. Indeed, the city in
| granting these permits Is violating her
| obligation. as laid down In Section IL. Ar
| tltIt D, Ol lIlt tllN tIhIttI, az
ITO require the removal of all ohstruc-
| tions from the sidewalks, curbstones, gut
ters. streets and street crossings at the
expense of the owners or occupiers or the
ground fronting thereon, or at the eX-
pense of the person or persons placing the
same there"
CITY AT FAULT.
Licensing an obstruction Is certainly not
requiring the removal of 1t. II there ha ;
been any extortion from the owners of
lunch wagons 1t would seem to be on the
part of the city that has taken their money
without warrant of law, rather than by
the street commissioner who simply wrote
out the permits.
The allegations that the street commits
sioner has drawn from the city treasury
large sums of money to which he was not
entitled and has falsely certified the
monthly pay rolls of his department are
wholly unsupported by the evidence. The
nearest approach to anything of the Kind
was the Testimony of Mr. Gilroy that he
worked one day and part of another on
some grading for Hill & Connell and drew
his pay from the city treasury. That he
was mistaken IN saying that he drew his
pay from the city Is conclusvely shown by
his own signature to q receipt from MIR.
kinsey for this work.
The remaining allegation Is that the
street commissioner has kept a large
number of his own teams and horses at
work upon the streets and in the pay OF
the city under cover Of the names of
other persons alleged to be the owners of
such teams"
1t will be noticed that this charge con-
tans no allegation that the work charged
for was not performed, or that by reaso':
thereof the city has In any way suffered 4
loss The charge. therefore, even If true.
would be technical rather than meritori-
Gus. That it is not true, however. Is shown
by the prosecutors own witnesses. every
one of whom testified directly contrary
necessarily take the ground that his wit
nesses told the truth or they did not If
hey did not, then they are no facts In the
they ystnSbss aS ssn the her asy OF hs
own charge. In either case there Is moth
ing to answer
We claim, however. that this charge
aSss ton OF n9' tho aW The provision Of law
which the prosecutor probably had In
view In drafting 1t, Is Section 13 of Article
of the Municipal Act Of 1889, which pro-
vides as follows
MUNICIPAL LAW.
mo member of councils or other city
officer shall either directly or indirectly be
a party to, or In any manner be Interested
| In any contract or agreement with such
city for any matter, cause or thing what
soever by which any liability or indebted
against @ st such city. and if any such contract
| or agreement shall be made in violation OF
| the foregoing provision the same shall be
null and void and no action shall ever be
maintained thereon against said city"
In the first place 1t will be noticed that
this section does not apply to the pres
ent proceeding, for the reason that the
class 1t provides against Is the contractors
those having conracts or agreements
with the city. Those who work at clean
ing streets and sewers are no more con-
tractors with the city than the scrub wo-
men in the court house are contractors
with the county. They are simply EN-
ployes, class enirely different from con-
tractors.
contractors In the street department, anu
II had been proven that the street COM
missioner was interested In such contracts
II would not be within the Jurisdiction Of
the mayor or this committee. for the rea.
son that no penalty Is provided against
the street commissioner. and here Is noth.
ing to punish or to report to any tribunal
for punishment. The only penalty for a
violation of this provision of the law Is
visited upon the contractor and consists
in making his contract void; When any
such case arises all that will be neces-
sary will be for the councils TO refuse
to approve for payment the estimates uh-
to refuse to countersign the contractors $
warrant. This would compel the con-
factor to bring suit In the courts ana the
decision when obtained would settle tne
question. Any investigation by the mayor
would not affect the decision Of the court
one way or the other.
with these suggestions as to the facts
and the law 1t seems to us that there Is
not at this time anything that we are
called upon to defend. We conhdently
submit to the mayor and committee That
no facts are in evidence that sustain the
charges or any part Of them. and II there
be any doubts in regard to our views OF
the law, we respectfully ask that they
be submitted for the opinion of the proper
law officer Of the city.
4 l. II. Burns.
George NJ. Watson.
OBrien & Kelly.
OTHER STATEMENTS.
The following were also submitted
by way of explanations: