The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-10-03

City Controller p. w. Costello sent a
lengthy communication to select coun-
Gil last night, explaining that. acting
under the advice of his personal coun-
sell he has refused to approve of cer-
tain bills contracted by the department
of public works and department of law,
and expressing desire to have the
soundness of his objections to these
bills passed upon by court. The COM
munication was as follows:
Scranton, Pa. oct 2, 1902.
Gentlemen of Councils: Herewith you
Will find submitted a list of bills or
claims against the city which have passed
the auditing committee. but which this
department.. acting under the advice Of
counsel. deems IL advisable not to pay.
The reason for withholding payment on
these bills is that in our judgment they
were contracted without proper authority.
This department contends that claims OF
the character of the Mulligan and Rich
ards bills although under $3.50 should un-
der the law be let to the lowest and best
bidder and a contract drawn up for the
same in the regular manner and a copy
filed in the controllers office. If this
method were carried out, contracts could
be charged up to their respective appro-
and the exact condition of such appropria-
ton could at all times be ascertained On
the other hand there might be at any
time small contracts of any number out
standing of which this office would have
no knowledge until the presentation Of
the bill after the completion of the
work. We contend that the only differ
ence in the manner of treating contracts
under $3.50 and those of greater amount
nf ~ n
advertisement will be dispensed with.
The bill of c. Comegys. esq. is for a
legal fee for acting in the capacity Of
associate counsel for the city in the Sc
of r. b. Sturges VS.. the city of Scranton
growing out of the refusal of Mr.. Sturges
to pay his assessment for the paving Of
Washington avenue. After consultation
with the city solicitor and Judge Vos-
burg. former city solicitor, both of whom
stated that they had not engaged MI
Comegys. and being of the opinion that
they of their own accord had no a,,-
thority to engage assistant counsel with
out consent of councils. this department
refused to allow the claim a few days
ago Mr.. Comegys brought suit against
the city before Alderman Ruddy for $3.50
and there being practically no defense
offered, Judgment was obtained for the
amount of the claim. This office had no
knowledge of suit being brought against
the city and consequently had no oppor
tunity of defending it's position. l am re-
liably Informed that suits are to be
brought for. the amounts of the other
claims, and in fact | know they are be-
ing urged by city officials to bring suit
against the city in order to obtain iudg
ment. 1t seems to be that some action
ought to be taken in these matters in or
der that the interests of the city might
be safeguarded. The position or stand
taken by this office with reference to
bills of the character of Mr.. Mulligan s
claim has been pretty generally UNDER
stood from the beginning and backed up
by competent legal advice. we feel dis
posed to maintain that position.
We desire to state, however that we
are perfectly willing, and would he glad
of the opportunity of submitting this en-
tire matter to court and let it be finally
decided by the said court what the in
tent of the law really is with reference
to the letting of contracts and purchasing
of supplies for cities of the second
class. 1t is understood that the city shall
be at no expense for counsel for the
controller. This, in our Judgment. is q
fair proposition and the proper manner
in which to settle this matter for all time.
Very respectfully submitted
p. w. Costello.
City Controller.