The San Francisco call., 1897-11-27

! asked to give the history OF the transac-
! ions connected with this $3.50 claim, SO
| far as he was concerned in it, he told it as
! follows:
| Some five weeks ago, l cannot tell the
/ date exactly, at a regular or special NEE
ing of the CiIy Council, among The bills
allowed the name OF Charles Wehner was
READ for $780, and good many others.
never gave it a thought, as for the last
! three months since he had the contract
for the main sewer portion OF the con-
tract price was paid on account every lew
weeks.
The morning after this meeting l went
10 San Francisco and came back the fol-
owing Friday. | went to the City Hall
looked over the warrants and bills, as is
customary, which laid on my. desk. Tney
were tied together with a string, and as |
looked over them, running through them
and looking a he writing on the back of
eacn in turn, | saw the bill of Charles
Wehner for $3.50 for sewer work. thought
it was all right and signed the warrant
and the bill and took them downstairs to
my Office there.
"A bout a week altar 1 had signed them
nv attention was called TO the bill OF
$3.50 by one of the deputy clerks named
Varcoe. | opened it ana said it was all
right, that it was on account of work done
on the sewer. He said it was for extra
work. / said no extra hao been ordered
and that | never heard of any. | took
the bill, opened IL and found that the $3.50
was for extra work on the main outlet
sewer. l said to Varcoe that that was very
strange, puc the bill in my pocket and
sent for Councilman Noting, chairman
OF the claims commlttee.
He came to the store and said:
What do you mean by this bill OF $3.50,
which is illegal? You can't do work un-
less you advertise for bids. The matter
was never discussed. If Wehner did the
WORK he ough. to be paid, but it ought to
be done in the regular way. l am not
going to stand for such bill. / dom,
understand why you paid bill like that.
l ca n 1 afford 10 d 10 that
He said, Well, you signed it. / said,
Certainly | signed 1t, but under mis-
appre hension, thinking it was for part
payment on the main outlet sewer and
not for extra work. If l had discovered
that 1t was for extra work would never
have signed The bill. This money is. going
10 De paid back to the City Treasurer if
have to pay 1t back myself. II is not right
TO allow bills that way.
"Noltins said: Well, Wehner did the
work, and l sail, All right; if Wehner
did the work lie ousht 10 have his pay,
but it must be done in the regular way
"In the evening | met Wehner, Noting
and Fav and told them the conditions
and clrcums ances, and SAID that the
monev had got TO be paid back. After
ward Mr.. Wehner paid back the money,
giving me check for $3.50, and paid ii
TO the Treasurer. This was about four
weeks ago last Monday, as well as 1 can
remen ber.
The bill and warrant were then de-
sroyed by the City Clerk and myself
When the claim was put in l never heard
il read and never heard it discussed. l
certainly think the contractor is entitled
to the money for this work. A week
afterward the bill was passed In the regu-
lar wav by the Council by a unanimous
vote. They claim i. was work that ought
not to be advertised .or. This second
claim has not been paid, as l want to in
Vestigate myself with the City Engineer
and the CITY Attorney before il is paid.
1t Is my opinion also that this work ought
not to be advertised for. II find that the
work Is worth the amount claimed | will
approve the bill. 1t is now in my Office at
the City Hall"