The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-06-29

Select Councilman Chittendeu, in an
interview accorded a Tribune man last
| night, made a lengthy and exceedingly
interesting statement In reply to Chief
Wa lker's criticism of himself and of
| the ordinance which he and Mr..
vaughan drew up. He didn't indulge
much in personalities, saying that he
| thought the chief was only little bit
| excited by the heat when he made the
| remarks printed in yesterdays Trib-
une.
Il was very much surprised" said
| he, ito find in this mornings Tribune
| an interview with Chief Walker in
which not only the ordinance prepared
| by Mr. Vaughan and myself is sharply
criticized, but some unnecessary per-
| sCra. criticisms are indulged in.
ITO these latter 1 will give no more
| notice than l gave to Mr.. divers myS-
| terious business man who suspected
ne OF softening of the brain. But
| the criticism of our proposed ordin
ance by a presumably intelligent chief
on a matter in his own department
| seems to demand as public matter
a little public discussion. Mr.. Waugh
an, Mr.. Oliver and myself were ap-
| pointed a committee to consider in
| creased expenses in the fire depart
ment
| OLIVER TOOK NO PART.
| "Mr. Oliver has taken no part with
| the balance of the committee, but af-
| ter the presentation of our ordinance,
4 Ia.
mutilated by himself and the chief
| What they have attempted is to make
a raid on the treasury. Now, in spite
of this admittedly disorganized depart
ment of the city government 1t is as
well to remember that both Mr..
Vaughan and myself have had long
| experience in city matters.
1T is we'll to remember that my SER
vice in the fire department as volun-
| teer and first and second assistant of
the Nay Augs was much longer and
l hope as creditable as the experience
| of the present chief and also that it
is the council that is Obliged to pro-
| vide money for heads of departments
| that are not of their choosing and who
| far too often do not size up to their
| Offices. The chief thinks that the Or
| dinanCe proposed would put the city
| back twenty years.
| Il wish it would. Fourteen years
| ago the expenditure was $3.50 and it
| was efficient. Last year it was $54, 900
and today the department. is certainly
| open to criticism at all points. other
| departments have been crippled, neces-
sary public repairs and improvements
| have been postponed or given up that
money may be poured into the bot
! tomless pit of the fire department.
For instance, the pressing repair
| of Mates street had TO be sacrificed
| to the chiefs sudden requirements.
| The two years of Chief Ferber's term
the city paid out for the fire depart
ment S5S,000 During the two years of
| Chief Hickeys term, $4,000 was paid
| out, and during the two years of
| Chief Walkers term 100000 has been
| appropriated, with deficiencies not
| added.
| AS HE VIEWS IT.
"A proposition by representatives of
| the council to reduce the cost of this
| department $4,000 and immeasur-
| ably increase its efficiency is met by
| the assertion of the chief that Mr..
| Vaughan and myself are ignorant chill
| dren in fire matters and that the $780,
| 900 yearly expense must be raised to
| $4,000, with no suggestion as to where
| the added taxes are TO be raised, be-
fore the department can be put in good
| shape.
| "Now let us consider those points
that are disputed. There is now $780,
| 600 worth of city property in engine
| houses with no one responsible for its
care. Both ordinances propose a per-
| manent man as foreman and RESPONSE
| BILE custodian. The chiefs measure
gives them extra pay for this plain
duty; our does not. The chief then
wants four sub-chiefs at 5000 a year to
look after the same property and for
| other purposes.
"Now the thirty two present per-
| manent men spend siXty-three hours
| each year in active fire service and
| have available, all told, 1892 hours
| idle time, which could be used for all
| possible purposes that $4,000 worth of
| assistant chiefs could accomplish and
also relieve a s1,50O chief from leading
lame horses in from the Notch. You
see I've got all the figures on this
| thing.
| From a taxpayers point of view
this $4,000 expense of the chiefs is
sheer waste. The chief claims a loss
of twenty years efficiency by the adop-
ton of the call system without thirty
two more permanent men. Now, as
we're doing some figuring, let's figure
| this out We have now 500 men all
told. OF these, perhaps ten per cent.
attend fires. One company of thirty
men reports one volunteer as the usual
| attendance at fire.
| Lets be conservative and call 1t
twenty-five per cent and 125 men are
active at present in the department.
| Now our ordinance proposes some 175
men, all paid for their time actually
served; all looking forward to promo
ton to paid men for good service. Is
there any taxpayer in the city out
side of Mr.. Oliver and the chief who
| will not consider our proposed system
far superior to the present, instead of
twenty years behind?
| MONEY NOT IN SIGHT.
| add to this fact that the volunteer
now refuses TO do hard and dirty work,
insisting that it is the share of the
paid men. OF the chiefs scheme to
add $23,034 worth of paid men 1t is