The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1902-10-03
CITY Counselor Is Asked for an
Opinion Looking TO That
End.
FRICTION WITH THE B. P. |.
Charges Made by Building Com
missioner Which Throw. Sus-
picion on Contracts Let by
Board Cause Action.

City Counselor Bates has been asked for
an opinion as to the ACCESSIBILITY Of abolish
ing the once Of building Commissioner, 50
far as Il Is a separate body from the Board
Of Public Improvements. The opinion was
asked for as the result Of months Of friction
between the Board of Public improvement
and Building Commissioner Longfeiiow-
The Building Commissionership. being an
appoIntfve Office. subject 10 the discretion
Of the Mayor. and at ;he SINE time under
the jurisdiction OF the Board OF Public In
provements has long been a subject Of con-
t@ntion between LongfeIlow and President
Fhiiips. the former claiming that be IS not
subordinate. TO the Board % Public Improve
ments. and in nc way accountable TO thst
Body for his official actions.
This question was raised some time ago
over the letting OF a contract for the con-
sttuction Of the new FIRE e-ngine-house on
Ninth street. between Market and Chestnut
streets. The plans for the building were
originally in the hands Of. Longfelow. but
after a delay OF work on'the new buildings
for SIX months. during which time the city
vas burdened with The expense Of maintain
ing two FIRE engine houses instead Of one.
the matter was finally taken Up by the
Board OF Public improvements. and Presi-
dent Philips. by order Of the board and
sanction OF the Mayor. was given authority
10 take up the work where Longfenow had
left OF. on. rather. where he had not be-
gun.
The Building Commissioner was highly
inceused over this action. and he made
charges to the effect that the board had
entered Into 4 contract with City Council
man jeremiah sheehan. contrary 20 law.
whereby the latter was allowed 10 Go the
plumbing work in the new eng1ne-house
This charge Is e~nphaticaily denied by
Mr.. Phillips, who states that the city en-
tered into no contract with Mr.. Sheehan.
bat that the latter had been employed By
the contractor with whom the city had done
business. which action. he declares. con-
stituted no violation OF the law.
In addition 10 Mr.. PhIHps's statement the
City Counselor gave his legal opinion Of
the matter in which he said that no CT
tense had been committed.
The fact3 OF the matter are these" said
Mr.. Phillips in discussing LongfeIIow's
charge: The contract for the erection OF
the new ere engine house was awarded TO
r. shlnnick & Son, and they in turn en-
ployed Mr.. sheehAn 10 do the plumbing
work for them. There was no contract
between the city and Mr.. Sheehan; IN fact.
] an not aware that there was a contract
between him and the shinnfck Company.
II II probable that he was paid BY the day
on the Job. But. even II he did enter into
a contract with that firm the city has moth
ing 70 do with II any more than II the
shfnniek Company had employed Mr. Shee-
han 20 do work on a private building"
Prudent du Pont of the Transit Com
pany Win appear before the board this
morning and explain Wky his cars have
not a. yet been equipped with the power
brake approved BY the 3. P. l.