The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1899-01-04
RADWAY & CO., S. Elm Street, N. Y
FOR OVER-BlLLING THE CITY
CONTINUED from Eighth Page.)

In reference to bill of Mr.. T. f. ODon-
nell would say in view of the fact that
this is the last meeting of Council of The
year, and as the work was contracted for
and furnished this year, il should be paid
out of this years appropriation. You are
granted permission to make out correc-
ted bill for work done and put same in the
schedule"
On considering the matter more closely it
seems Alderman johnson come to the con
ciusion that it should take a different
course, and he proceeded to write Supt
Lotion the next day as follows:
Dear Sir: After considering the matter
l require that the corrected bill of Mr.. r.
+. ODOnnen be withdrawn and demand
that you send me his original bill, together
with the reasons why you refused to ap-
prove same in the first place"
| Superintendent lotions reply to the
| foregoing is as follows:
''Yours of even date stating that you
had Withdrawn corrected bin of Mr..
| ODonnelfs from clerk of Councils office
! and demanding that l forward you the
! original bill, together with my reasons for
not approving it., is received. Attached you
| will find the original bill My reasons for
not approving it are that il is incorrect.
in that it contains charges for work which
! has already been paid for and also in
| cludes charges for work which has not
! been done. In connection with the above
l desire to state that l had no desire to
create any friction In the matter and only
| desired that nothing but a correct bill lie
| passed"
When Superintendent Lotion had finish
| ed his statement which was in accordance
| with the foregoing correspondence, he was
cross-examined by members of the board.
why did you not can on Mr.. O'Donnell
| at first%' inquired Alderman Davis
Alderman O'Donnell was absent from
the city, was the reply.
Did Mr. O'DOnnel request you to rush
the bin through for payment" inquired
! Alderman Guckenheimer.
mo, sir there was no request of that
| sort. But il was the end of the year, and
as the city had The money, I thought the
matter should be arranged and the bin
paid replied Superintendent Lotion.
Il picked cut items amounting to over
$780," added Superintendent Lotion,
(which were Incorrect. Some were for
work that was never done, while others
We're for things that had already been
! paid for"
isn't it a common thing TO have bills
come in with errors this way?" asked AL
derman Guckenheimer.
yes, they frequently have to be cor
rected," was the reply
DO you find many of this kind" asked
Alderman Charlton, where there is an
! over-charge of over 100 per cent of the
! total amount"
mo, Sir, 1 do not" he replied
Superintendent Lotion explained that he
came to his conclusions from his expert
ence as a machinist. A mechanic should
| receive a certain amount for his work, he
/ said. but on making the calculation for The
| amount of work that was actually done
! he considered the charges far exceeded
what they should. He said ne did not
consider it was 10 the interest of the city
| to approve the bill.
"You had passed on bills from Alderman
! O'Donnell before, had you not?" asked AL
derman Krouskoff.
! yes, he had done a good deal of work
for the city"
Were there any mistakes?" asked Al
derman Krouskoff.
''Not of this kind" was the reply.
In reply to another question from Alder
man Davis, Supt. Lotion said he based
the allowance on the amount he thought
| others should have received for the same
work.
Supt. Lotion evidently surprised those
waging the fight on Alderman O'Donneu,
when he replied to a question at this
| juncture pertaining 10 a communication It
! is claimed he received from Alderman
|
TO the city. This communication is said
to have been a telegram and is the prin-
| cipa thing the opposition was urging
| against the alderman. Ii Is reported that
Supt Lotion wired for Alderman ODon-
! nell to return before the election, If pos
| sible, and that he replied he would come.
under certain conditions connected more
or less with this bill against the city. It
seems this alleged telegram was seen by
some one, and when it got to the Haines
| men they desired to use it against Alder
| man ODonnell
Have you had any communication with
| Alderman O'Donnell about any of the ac-
counts mentioned in this bnl?" asked Al
| derman Charlton.
mo sir" replied supt Lotion.
There was some disappointment because
! the contents Of the telegram were not
brought out. During the caucus investi-
| cation Alderman Charlton asked Alder
| man ODonnell about Il, and the alder
man said Supt. Lotion would answer the
| question. Alderman Charltons question
was then objected to by Alderman We'll,
| who was trying to suppress the evidence
on the ground that Il was irrelevant. AZ
ter Supt. Lotion had replied In the mega
tive, Alderman Charlton then considered
inasmuch as Supt Lotion had replied in
the negative, that he could fall back upon
Alderman O'Donnell for an answer. Again
Alderman We'll objected. but Mayor Mel
drim allowed the question put
WAS there any communication between
yourself and Supt. Lotion about any diff
ference in these accounts now in dispute?"
was asked.
81 refuse TO answer the question, be-
cause it has no bearing on this matter"
replied Alderman ODonnell.
Alderman Smith asked several questions
tending to vndicate Alderman O'Donnel
Alderman ODonnelIs clerk was intro
duced. but when asked by Mayor Mel.
drim if he could say whether the count
was correct, he replied he would have to
refer 20 the books. he was asked sew
eral questions by Alderman Charlton.
In conclusion, Alderman ODopneu made