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


from some gypsies. Ramsey furnished
the horse and Peet the cart, and the out
fit was put down In the name Of Emmet
Peet. This horse and cart was driven by
H. Sebring. The other two % carts were
the property OF H. X. Kinsley and as he
only furnished one driver for the two carts
and one of the city's laberers drove the
up as one team at si.Oo per day. The price
Of two carts would been $2.75 for each cart
or $3.50 per day for the two but as the city
furnished one laborer at s.. so per day only
the price OF a team. A.00, was charged.
4 Jacob Baetcher testifes on page Is he
drove carts for II. r. Kinsley on sewer
work in September, 1896, and the two carts
are credited with 40 7-l0 days work in
that month. The sewer gang is composed
of three men, and the material taken from
the sewer basins is removed in two carts.
Prior to the two carts being used, two
teams at cost of $500 per day were used
great portion of the time, as when only
one team was used. the gang were idle
while the team was going to and retLrn-
ing from the dump, as the material is
raised from the sewer basins in buckets
and dumped into the wagon BY the use
OF two carts one Is at the basin being
returning from the dump. and by this
method one or more basins are cleaned
each day than when only one team Is
used, and as many basins are cleaned as
, wnen Two ~ leans We're used and the ex-
cost $500 and two carts $3.50 per day. Thus
each cart in the month Of eDtember 1896
made q sls-lO. which is the time worked
by the sewer gang.
MR.. NEWCOMB OBJECTS.
Mr.. Newcomb objected to the intro
duction OF these explanations. except
through the regular way, by witnesses.
The committee, however. decided to
take them and look them over.
The question OF whether or not argu-
ments should be made was discussed
at length. and 1t was finally decided
hat neither side would further in
fiict the committee in this respect Mr.
Newcomb was perfectly willing to sum
up the evidence of his side II the COM
mittee SO desired. Mr.. Burns was not
altogether unwilling to make closing
argument, but was given to under
stand that the committee did not de-
sire closing arguments and he was 10th
to proceed without preparation. Col
SandersOn, the only lawyer on the
committee, was absent. and as there
We're law points involved he would pre-
fer to have Colonel Sanderson present
when their side made their summing
w.
Mr.. Newcomb held and Mr.. Chitten-
uei toHCullei, tNut law poiltS Iluu
but little to do with the case, it being u
matter in which common sense alone
would have to be exercised. The only
question was as to whether or not the
affairs of the street commissioners de-
partment had been properly adminis-
tered.
Mr.. Newcomb announced that since
the last meeting he had learned that
the work which Mr.. Kinsley had done
about the rockingham was much more
extensive than he had at first supposed
and if the committee desired to reopen
the case he was prepared to show that
during the months of February, March
and April, 1896, Mr.. Kinsley had earned
for himself Sl55.76 with the teams that
had during the same time been credit
ed on the pay rolls with having worked
for the city.
Mr.. Burns in answer to this stated
that Mr.. kinsley could produce receipts
showing that he had paid for every
bit of the work done on the Frothing-
ham site out of his own private funds
ONLY ONE WITNESS.
The only witness the defense brought
forward was James Gilroy who wished
to contradict his statement made at
the former session that he received
pay from the city treasurer for the
time he worked in Mr.. Kinsley's pri-
vate contracts. He recollected after
leaving the city hall Saturday that Mr.
Kinsley himself had paid him. Mr.
Kinsley's private pay roll with Gilroy's
signature receipting for his pay for the
work done on the private contract was
offered in evidence.
Mayor Bailey after the session when
seen by Tribune reporter, stated that
nrrnrHinD n Of ha l.,
was not called upon to make any
recommendation to councils no matter
what the finding of the committee
might be. The only task imposed on h,m
was to say whether or not in his opin-
ion the affairs of the street commits
sioner's department We're conducted in
an honest and legal manner. The
members of the advisory committee
would, he said. have equal powers with
himself in arriving at the verdict.
Whatever their verdict might be ii
would be submitted to council without
any recommendation.
Just before the meeting broke up Mr..
Chiaenden called Mr.. Watson to task
for the statement which the Free Press
had accredited him with having made,
to the effect that the $3.50 received by
Watson 4 Zimmerman from Goldberg
4 Burros had not found its way to the
street commissioner pocket, but had
been spent in fixing up the, council
men, X. j. Beamish, editor Of the Free
Press, was called forward and under
oath said that the above was the way
he had interpreted Mr.. Zimmerman's
statement.
Mr.. Watson averred that Mr.. Beam
ish had miscOnstrued his meaning. All
he said was that the money was used
to secure favorable legislation for the
lunch wagon owners, and that corrup-
tion or bribery of councilmen was In
no was intimated. Mr.. Watson also
said that he had no desire to cast any
reflection on the honesty Of the coun-
cilmen, and as far as he knew no one
had ever paid money or other valuable
thing to any councilman In the way
of bribe.
This was satisfactory to Mr.. Chit
tenden and the other councilmen pres
ent and the joint meeting called to de-
mand an explanation from Mr.. Wat
son was abandoned.