The San Francisco call., 1898-04-27
THE MAYOR
 MAY HAVE
 TO PAY Dividing the Respon- slbility for the
 Shortage. The Company Insuring Widber Is After the Coin Counters. It Contends MT. Phelan Gould and Should Have Pre-
 vented Theft. NEGLECTED A CRAVE DUTY
NEGLECTED A CRAVE DUTY
Widber's Estate Win Be Levied on First and Then Those Who Should
 Have Counted.

It seems now as if the board that should have properly counted the money III the treasury as a guarantee against Just sucn a combination of circumstances as leu 10 the exposure of A. c. Widber VIII nave to bear more than the mere censure of the public The surety com pany in which Widber was insured has decloed to make a demand first upon the estate or the defaulter and then upon the president Of the board which should have counted the money, the contention being that had the money been properly count ed each. month the shortage would never have occurred.
 Edwin Warfeld. president of the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Mary land, which was Widber's sole surety, ar rived in the city yesterday morning and left last evening, the object of his flying trip being to investigate and confer and oecloe upon the course the company should adopt. There was a conference in his apartments at the Palace Hotel yes- terday at which Mayor Phelan was an earnest and interested member, and the result was a formal demand upon the city to bring proceedings, first against whatever estate Widber may have and then upon the chairman of the board that should have counted the money.
 The position of the company was out lined to the Mayor in the following con- munication, copy of which was given him:
 To the City. and County of San Francisco: Although no demand has been made upon us, we. taking notice of the fact that one Angus tus C. Widber, formerly the Treasurer of the Clty and County of San Francisco, has de faulted In the sum of hundred and eighteen thousand dollars. more or less and, that we. the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, corporation duly organized. e, created and existing under and by virtue of faf nf arIrlo and tl, sole surety from the first of January, 1884, upon the official bond of said Augustus c. dollars, do hereby state that in entering upon said bond or said Augustus c. Widber. we ac- cepted and became liable upon the same uu- der and by virtue of the law that required the junction with the County Judge and Auditor or said city and county, every month, to examine the books of the said treasurer and shall be permitted. and it shall be their duty, maining in the hands of such Treasurer, and 1t appearing to us that said President of the Board of Supervisors and County Judge and Auditor have wholly failed in the perform ance of their duties to examine the books of the said Treasurer and to see and count over all the money remaining In the hands of such Treasurer
 Now. Therefore, we state for the benefit of that We require 1t under the law or che State of California relating to the rights of sure Widber and his estate and to pursue its rem edy against the President of the Board of SupeaXisors S Ts a and all other persons who may to take all other remedies which the said Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland cannot. itself, pursue. and which would tighten its burden.
 Thereafter the said Fidelity and Deposit Company waiving all technicalities hereby de- clares that 1t will pay any balances or deficit for which 1t may be liable under it's bond and the law and to the full extent thereof Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, per EDWIN WAKEFIELD. President
 Another letter demanding that suit be brought against the estate of Widber was also served upon the Mayor, and also company Is again outlined and the de- mand is made that the Mayor be made a party to another suit for recovery.
 We are not raising technicalities, said MT Warneld, in speaking of his company but we have right under the law to seek every means of Tightening the bur- den upon us either by recovery from the estate or the persons we guarantee or by Sult ana recovery against those whose business 1t was not only to protect him but to protect us. We had what was called thirty y-day risk on Widber-that IS, we went on his bond with the knowl- edge that the money in his charge was re- quired to be counted every thirty days by a responsible board or commission, and with the expectation and the tacit under standing that the officials whose duty it to their duties. We did not insure them for the performance, consequently we cannot be held responsible for what hap pened as result of their dereliction.
 We contend that the shortage would never have taken place had Widber known that the money would be carefully counted every month; and we assert that the way In which 1t was counted gave him the Knowledge that he could steal from the treasury with impunity; fur ther, granting that the money was prop erly counted every month, it is plain that the shortage would have been discovered long before 1t had reached the sum 1t was eventually found to be- and therefore by their neglect the commissioners have rem dered us liable for two or three times as much as we would have had to pay had they discovered the defalcations as soon as they should have done
 "We do not object to pay the loss, and we will not raise technicalities, but we have right to redress from those who have made such dedication possible by neglecting duty designed to make such a state of affairs impossible"
 It Is expected that Widber's estate will be large enough to cover a good part of the dedication. He is said to own an in- terest in mine worth $50 ,000 which has upon its dumps sufficient ore to yield $50- 06- more. The surety company is entitled to all this, and having obtained it the liability of the Mayor and his financial assistants will occupy the attention of the courts.