The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1900-10-19
AN INVESTIGATION ORDERED


chants bank a note calling attention
to the section of the charter providing
for the designation of bank OF depos-
It, and offering to take the city deposits
and pay 2 per cent. interest thereon.
The board of finance then advertised
for bids from banks of the city for the
deposits, and the bid of the Merchants
bank, per cent, being the highest
that bank was designated as the bank
of deposit.
Mr. Curtis in his resolution last night
called attention to the fact that last
wear the finance board estimated that
$4,000 income would be received for in
terest on city deposits, but that in nine
months of the present year already
passed the city had received only about
$500 interest. He alleged that this was
due to the fact that city moneys had
not been deposited in the Merchants
bank and he therefore called for an
investigation. He alleged that if the city
money had been deposited in the des-
ignated bank of deposit at per cent.
the city would have received in the nine
months of the year already passed at
least $4,000 more than has been received.
The resolution was as follows: Re
I. solved That a special meeting of the
board of finance be held Monday, Octo-
Der %, at p. M, to investigate the
alleged improper disposition of the city
funds and that the city treasurer, the
treasurer's clerk, the tax collector, the
controller, and the president of the
Merchants National bank be and here
by are summoned to be present and to
bring with them or have readily access
sible all books and papers now in their
possession relating to the funds deposit
ed on account of the city of New Ha-
ven.
AS soon as this resolution was read
ut created a stir in the board and a hot
time ensued. Mayor Driscoll expressed
the opinion that the board of finance in
1898 was culpable in not having desig-
mated a bank of deposit, and Controller
Rowe moved an amendment to Mr. Cur
it's resolution to provide that the board
of finance, as constituted in May, 1888,
be called in to be examined in the in
vestigation. James D. Dewell, jr., sec
onded the amendment. A vote was TAX
ZEN and the amendment was lost by
vote of 4 to 8. Messrs. Curtis, Atwood,
Wright and Wheeler voted against the
troller Rowe and Mr.. Dewell voted for
1T.
Then the question was put on the
original resolution Of Mr.. Curtis. Mr..
Dewell said that he favored the resolu-
ton because if city money had not been
deposited as it should be the matter
ought to be investigated. All the voting
members except Mr.. Rowe voted for the
Al,
Rowe then moved that the board of
finance as constituted in May, 1892 be
summoned in at meeting to be held
October 20 to undergo examination as
to why that board had not designated
a bank of deposit. Mr.. Dewell second
ed the motion and read an opinion from
Corporation Counsel Ely, dated Decem-
Der 5, 1898, and submitted in reply to
letter from Mayor Farnsworth, who was
mayor at that time. In the opinion Mr..
Ely stated that as for the question of
the liability of the board of finance for
not designating a bank of deposit, all
that could be said was that if the board |
of finance acted honorably, intelligently
and in accordance with the charter and |
with their best judgment, the members
would not be liable. Continuing, the
whether the board of finance would be |
liable should anything go wrong (this |
being evidently quoted from Mayor
Farnsworth's letter., is too broad and
sweeping to answer"
Mr. Dewell then read the section of |
the charter referred to above, and main |
tanned that Mr.. Rowe's motion was en-
tirely proper, and that in accordance
with Mr.. Elys opinion, the board of
finance of 1898 had not acted honorably,
intelligently or with any sort of judg-
ment, and that the question as to
whether or not the members of that
board were financially responsible could
better be determined after the testimony
of those members was before the pres
ent board. He therefore thought that
the present. city treasurer and the old
board of finance should be examined as
to any neglect of duty.
Mr.. Atwood and Mr.. Wright said
that they were opposed to Mr.. Rowe's-
motion. Mr.. Curtis said that it was
ridiculous and that unless the members
Of the board of 1898 were found guilty