Staunton spectator and vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1896-1916, 1901-12-06
COUNCIL MEETING.

SdlS 1lCSa uChus CASOpo thho AD'iSS" -
the place of person so selling, Was
adopted.
The usual rebate for use of opera
house was allowed the Royal Arcanum
and Staunton Rifles
On motion of Mr.. Nelson, at the re
quest of theCounty Supervisors. the
ordinance committee was instructed
to prepare an ordinance forbidding
auctioneers using the court house
grounds and sidewalks.
The ordinance forbidding the shoot
ing of firecrackers was, on motion OF
Mr.. Burke, suspended from 6 p. m.
Dec "a, until midnight Dec. rs.
$3.50 was appropriated to purchase
new hose for the fire department, and
$3.50 for new electric lights.
The petitions of Prof. w. A. BoWles
and Mrs. Marquis were referred to
appropriate committees.
The special committee on investi-
CATION of the accounts of Messrs. Muir
ray & Kilgalen against the city made
it's report. MI. Burke took the chair
and Mr.. r S. Ker, OF behalf of Muir
ray & Kilgalen, asked to be heard He
said that this firm had sold the city
at the same price and less than Mr..
Hounihan had charged the city in at
least dozen cases; that the prices
were the usual ones; that the assOcia-
tion referred to was not local one,
but the National Plumbers association.
He asked that special committee be
appointed with power to take testlmo
ny. Mr.. kilgalen also asked for
special committee to take testimony
and report. A motion to that effect
Was voted down.
| After some discussion the motion
was renewed with an amendment to
summon witness. S, and was carried.
The chair appointed Mr.. SPOTS, who
| declined to serve. Messrs Taylor,
Tams and Nelson were then named,
! Mr. Taylor and Mr.. Tams refusing to
serve, and Mr.. N elson stated that it
was probable that he would be called
away by the illness of his father. At
this point Mr.. Tams moved to lay the
report on the table, but it was lost.
Mr.. Hughes moved that the report,
after striking out the recommendation
to bring suit, be adopted, and his mo-
| ton prevailed by vote of to 2 Two
IL embers not voting.
THE COMMITTEES REPORT.
Gentlemen-You our committee being
W hChl AA1s luI uASA
upon the matter under investigation
submit the following:
We find that there should be cred
it of So II On the balance We reported
as being due the city, caused by our
including one bill which we should
not have done in our former report.
This reduces the amount we think due
the city to $10912. With this correc
tion we desire the former report to
stand.
Your committe arrived at this con-
clusion after another meeting with
Messrs. Kilgalen, Murray and their
attorney. They claim that the charge
brought by your committee as to over
charges was not true; that there was
no overcharge; that the price charged
was their regular price; the prices
charged being what they charged
others, and that having sold sewer
pipe to the city at 1877 per cent. profit
was no evidence of overcharge. They
claim further that the price charged
was in accordance with an agreed
scale with other plumbers here. Upon
being informed that Mr.. Hounihan had
offered sewer pipes upon a basis of IS
per cent. for "a inches, they replied
that he was not member of the asso
| citation and consequently not legiti
| mate competitor, though they admit
| ted that he haG been waited upon and
urged to join and had he connected
himself with the association that he
would had to employ skilled labor and
make his rates as others. We submit
| that it does not require skilled work
men to sell sewer pipe, when the same
| is not laid, aud that the difference be-
tween IS cents and $162 per foot tor
| "a inch pipe is too much to pay even
| should it require skilled workmanship
| to haul from the car and put it on the
ground.
In 1896, before he was member of
the council, Mr.. Kilgalen was the sue
cesSful bidder upon contract with
the city for "a in. pipe laid at 73c.
| There were four other bids on this
contract as follows: So, 971, 964. l .044.
We are reliably Informed that the same
scale of prices and discount as now
were ruling at that date. In order to
show that our findings of overcharges
are correct We submit the following:
Cost of u inch pipe, II 10 per foot
| Cost of Is inch pipe. 254 per foot.
| Cost of Is inch pipe, 35 ITO per foot.
Cost of "a inch pipe, 68a per foot.
Prices charged by Kilgaen u Muir
ray:
Cost of II inch pipe, 35c per foot.
Cost of Is inch pipe, 6Oc per foot.
Cost of Is inch pipe, SIC per foot.
Cost of "a inch pipe, 1852 per foot.
Kilgallen & Murray's bills
amount to 1868 So
cost of material was 2S2 "a
leaving them profit of 3S7 10
or as stated above 1877 per cent.
In fixing the amount of overcharges
We have allowed the firm 35 per cent.
or $3.50, being the same rate as asked
by Hounihan, this we think most
liberal one.
| We have not, and do not now make
any charge against MI. Kilgalen for
sellinr the city. The majority of the
council and former ones, being 1gnO-
rant of the State law, were guilty of
this, 1.-TWO members of this committee
included), but there is an ordinance
prohibiting any purchase to be made
in excess of $50 unless let to the lowest
bidder. There can be no doubt that
had this ordinance been complied with
the city would have gotten the price
much less. Ignorance OF this ordnance
cannot be pleaded, as city cOuncllmen
should know the ordinances. We also
wish to state that before this matter
was brought to the attention Of the
council in session, the chairman of this
committee approached Mr.. Kllgalen on
the subject, and he told him he would
ad Just the matter satisfactorily and
die withdraw one bill of $177.21, thus
admitting that he was wrong.
~,r,f. "
our report to be received and your
committee be discharged from what has
been a very unpleasant duty. We
submit this as an addition to our for
mer report and feel confident that the
taxDayers who elected the members of