The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-12-01

If find that the Work is worth the
amount claimed l will approve the bill. II
is now in my office in the City Hail.
Yet the veto, as will be seen from the
following copy of 1t, was ostenslb.y signed
on the 10th OF Novem Der, and the reason
for disapproving the claim was not that
the work was not worth the money de-
manded for it, This Is the veto as it was
surreptitiousiy flied with the City Clerk
last night by the Mayor:
To the Honorable the Common Council Of the City
Of San JOSIE ENTLEMEN: l herewith return 10
you The claim OF Charles Wehner for $500 for
extra work in II ling IN the maln-outlet sewer
with my d isa pproYal Endorsed thereon, for the
reason that the amount is IN excess OF 800
ana that the work for which that claim is in
payment therefor was never advertised or the
contract awa rded according 10 the provisions
OF section 6 OF chapter = of ArticIe.V of the
eherter. V. KOCH, Mayor
Dated November 10, 1897
The veto was attached to the second
claim put i'll by Char es Wehner. This is
dated september % 1897. The charge is
m ade for extra work on the main outlet
sewer and reads in the bill as follows:
ITO fill along line of outlet sewer, a dis
lance OF abou 1860 ineal feet. $500"
Councilman J. 2. Eay and City Engineer
c. NJ. Barker certified TO the blll being
correct. The aim was filed with the CITY
Clerk on Novem Der 3, 1897. and the proper
oath made by Mr.. Wehner. On the same
date the Committee of Claims, com prisinr
Councilmen William /. Noting and
George 3. Dittus, recommended the al
lcwance TO the Council and 1t was duly
passed by that body that same evening.
The question which now arises is: Why
did the Mayor withhold his veto all these
days when he had already, according to
the date OF the veto message, decided to
disapprove of the claim as far back as
November 1872 True. there has been no
meeting o. the Council since that date
but neither was there any meeting of that
body last night. Neither had the Mayor
given any intimation that he intended to
disapprove OF the claim until Yesterday
during an interview with THE CALL cor.
res pondent :...*
In the course of this investigation it was
learned from the records of the Council, OF
the City Clerk and of the City Treasurer,
that another claim had been illegally paid
out of the civ treasury. 1t was allowed
to Npsh & McReynolds the contractors
who performed the work in connection
with the Improvement OF Guadaioupe
Greek. The contract price was $2775. On
June %. 1897, the Council passed a claim
for $3.50 in favor of the contractors named
for extra work. This was approved by the
Mayor on the 30th OF the same month
aud on the same day the money was drawn
from the treasury. This money can be re-
covered for the city under section 6, article
XIII, of the charter, which provides as
follows:
Every officer who shall approve, allow or pay
any demand on the treasury not authorized by
law, ordinance or this charter, shall be liable
TO the CITY individually, and on his official
bond for the amount of the demand so illeg ally
approved, allowed or paid.
This demand was illegally approved
and paid, because the work Tor which the
money was paid had not been awarded
according to the provisions Of the charter,
which require that all expenditures in ex-
cess OF 500 must be advertised for and let
10 the lowest and best BLADDER.
Councilman Fay claims that this was
paid under suspension of the charter,
but the council has no power to suspend