New-York tribune., 1901-05-22
4 CASE FOR MR. PHILRIN-

Controller COler answers criticism of his fail
ure TO stop the payment of excessive prices for
supplies, such as Fire Commissioner Scannell
has paid 10 his friend Marks. by the statement
that he has held up such bills until forced by
the Supreme Court TO settle them. the law as
laid down by the court being that where tie
head of a department enters into agreement
10 pay certain price for an article the city
must pay the bill according 10 agreement even
if the price is excessive. That ruling would seem
TO settle the question of holding up the bills
but it does not close the door to the punish
ment of official and unofficial conspirators who
waste the public money. If ii is possible that
q head of a department can continue to pay ex-
cessive prices for supplies when it is matter
of public knowledge that the dealers in those
supplies are ready to sell them to the city at a
lower rate, as they have done in the past then,
indeed, there is serious need for radical amend
ment of our laws for the punishment of official
crime.
The Controller for more than a year has had
in his possession detailed statements Clearly
showing that the taxpayers were defraudad Icy
chiefs Of departments. Those contracts could
not be broken. perhaps. but it is not TO be sup
posed that the unfaithful officials who made
them could not be punished. The general facts
about favortism and excessive payments have
for a long time been we'll known, and from
time TO time details concerning transactions
have been published which clearly suggested
criminal conspiracy to blackmail merchants
and defraud the city. But the persons who
could strengthen these suspicious by positive
evidence seemingly have been content to make
popular capital out Of denunciation of waste in
stead of using ii the basis for criminal
charges The formal statements made to the
Controller by the managers Of various fms
selling goods to the city ought TO have the at
tention of the District Attorney. They show
Enthusiastically that those who refused to give
Mr.. Scannelrs friend a rake off" found no
chance TO sell goods to the Fire Department.;
that those who did give the rake off" were
able TO do business, and that in some cases this
rake off" paid by the taxpayers. slice
the firms stood ready 10 sell the goods directly
to the city at the lower price which they did sell
at before the advent Of the favoril. whom Mr.
Scannell himself declared to be "all right" while
refusing TO do business with another man as
selling agent and recipient of a rake off"
No man can read the statements made to the
Controller without a moral conviction of tie
existence of a corrupt understanding. What
constitutes legal proof of crime is n question
for lawyers, but the success of the Federal
Government in holding for trial the alleged ac
compIices of Carter on crcumstantial evid ance
ought TO encourage all public prosecutors to
follow up cases of apparent criminal conspiracy
even if they cannot show written verbal
compact Facts which can only be explained
by the theory of cOllusion sufficient proofs
of collusion TO warrant at least the attention of
the District Attorney, and we hope Mr.. Philbin
will consider the propriety of subjecting Mr..
Scannells transactions to the scrutiny of the
grand jury.