The San Francisco call., 1898-01-05
RAID ON
 SAN JosE's
 TREASURY City Council Orders Payment of He
 gal Claims. Charles Wehner and Ma bury & Farrel Obtain
 Large Sums. Showing of Cash on Hand Incites an Onslaught on
 the EXchequer. GRABBING FOR THE COIN. Favorites of Certain City Fathers Enriched at the Peoples
 Expense.
Showing of Cash on Hand 1nciteS an Onslaught on
 the Exchequer.
GRABBING FOR THE COIN.
Favorites of Certain City Fathers Enriched at the Peoples
 Expense.
Special Dispatch to The Call.

SAN JOSE, Jan. 4.-The report of the count of the money in the city treas ury, as submitted to the Common Council tonight, shows that there is slightly over SPA, 900 on hand. From ap- pearances this is too rich a plum for the members to quarrel over, so they will patch up their differences and pro- ceed tO S~end it.
 Under the investigations into city af- fairs, as made by | ne Call, it has been shown that S650 was paid to Charles Wehner for alleged work on the main sewer, which was not regular. The Mayor refused to sign the warrant, and the interested parties became so alarmed that the money was returned by Wehner to the treasury. Tonight this identical S650 was passed by the Council and ordered paid to Wehner. The only member opposing was Krieg who voted no. The claim was not pre- sented in its original form. On the contrary, it was cut up into smaller sums ranging from $60 to 80 in each bill or claim. Councilmen Noting and Fay showed especial solicitude in ad- vocacy of the payment of this sum.
 The claims were presented in the amounts of less than $100 to keep within the provision of the charter, which require advertisement and an opportunity for competitive bids. The payment of the claims, though cut up into smaller amounts, is clearly illegal, 1t is held, because even if Wehner has done any work it was not let as the charter requires, and this method of allowing the claims is but a subter- fuge.
 This job" was fully punctured by The Call some weeks ago. It is con- tended by the advocates of the claim in the Council that Wehner earned the money in filling in the main sewer and in work which was aside from that called for in his contract. Many citi- Zens wish further light on this matter and may demand it yet.
 Mayor Koch has not intimated what he will do about signing the warrants He has gone on record as against pay ing the money because it was an illegal claim. The cutting of the total sum of S650 into various smaller sums does not alter the original illegality. The sum and substance of the whole matter appears on its face to be just what it is-a job to favor a favorite.
 The Council also paid the claim of Mabury & Farrel of s320. City Attor- ney Welch within the last few days stated that the claim should not be paid and that the courts should pass upon it. This statement came as re- suit of the controversy which arose over the entire Julian street sewer con- tract. Fraud was freely charged, and, although the city attorney had orig inally recommended that the S3200 be paid. he said he was forced to with draw this recommendation under the light given by the discussion. As adopted tonight, the resolution, which was dated in October last, provides that "S1600 be paid at once, $500 at the first meeting in January. and $500 in April" This would require the imme- diate payment of s2400, whereas, as a matter of fact, there is in the sewer fund but s2100. This was explained to the members of the Council by the clerk, but the resolution was passed and then an attempt made to bridge the difficulty by directing the Mayor to draw a warrant at once for $500 only.
 Interested citizens are now asking why Nolting, who had so freely charg- ed gross fraud against Contractors Ma bury & Farrel, should so change his views. Another curious position is that of Fay. Fay and Nolting had the open ditch filled in with great eclat and then declared that no matter what was done with the claim the contractors would be forced to pay for this. To- night no provision was made to collect further than the statement that the contractors would pay their claims for l labor When the contract was let for l SIP, 900, there was no money in the fund and many lawyers hold that the con- | tract was absolutely void.
 In the controversy which arose the Councilmen, especially Noting, charg- ed that there had been collision by the contractors and that the bid of S12, 900 was about s4000 too high. Now, how ever. he allows the proportioned part of the bid for the amount of work done that the fat sum in the treasury will be | rapidly diminished.