The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-07-29
DISPUTE OVER CITY BILLS.
Controllers Office Holds Them Up on
the Ground of IrregularitY.

City Controller p. w. Costello who
has been i'll for the past week, was at
| his office a short time yesterday morn
ing, and attended to IL portion of the
work which had accumulated during
| the past few days. One Of the first
things he did was to emphatically re-
fuse to countersign the warrants for
$500 due w. II. Wickizer and $1,595.26,
due the Scranton Gas and Water COM
pany for setting hydrants in the city,
back in 1896.
Both of these bills were passed by
the auditing committee of councils last
Monday night, and while Controller
Costello's action was not entirely un-
anticipated, it leaves matters in tied
up condition. The statement was yes
terday given out from the controllers
office that 1t was an impossibility to
pay the gas and water company's bill.
THAT bill was contracted years ago."
said Deputy Controller John j. Fahey,
land in last years appropriation no
funds were set aside for It's payment.
1t ought to go among the deficiencies"
The objection to Wicklzer's bill, which
is for recent paving and repairs, on
Grant avenue and jackson street is
that no contracts were legally made
out and the claims are therefore in
validated. Said Deputy Controller
Fahey: "All city contracts must neces-
sarly be placed on file in this office,
and there is no record of this Wickizer
claim having gone through such
course of procedure. We do not doubt
that the claim is a just one, but it is
our contention that the matter has not
been handled in the proper manner.
| l.; 10
first, one giving the net sum of the
claim, and recently another bill, giving
the detailed charges by the day. The
changes in the bills do not affect our
stand in the matter in the least"
Director of Public Works John E.
Roche recommended the payment of
both claims last week at the meeting
Of the auditing committee. In a con-
versation, yesterday, with a Tribune
man, he reiterated his former state
ment that this matter did not really
come under the rules, regulating con-
tracts. This was merely an ordinary
business agreement" said he. "a busi-
ness agreement put into writing. 1t
was not drawn by the city solicitor,
nor authorized by councils, and there
fore was not a regular contract, any
more than any agreement l should
make, regarding his wages, with one
| of the employees" 1t is claimed that
from personal reasons Wickizer did
the work for $500, which his itemized
bid shows was worth S44S.
| Therefore, both the controller and
director agree that the terms made
between the city and MIR. Wickizer,
did not constitute contract, but dis
agree in material incidental points. The
original bill was submitted in three
parts, and one of these, an item for
$3.50 was approved by the controller.
Mr.. Roche argues that If this claim
was valid, the others must necessarily
be also valid.
In the controllers Office it is stated
that this bill was evidently carelessly
countersigned, before attention had
been attracted to the various ins and
outs of the matter. 1t is now matter
OF speculation, as to- how the two
claimants are going to collect.
There Is suspicion in the city hall,
| that the next meeting of council will
be productive of move in the matter,
as resolution may be introduced
! directing the city solicitor to enter
| judgment against the city, for the
amounts of the claims. This course
was recently pursued in the case of
Muldoon G. Bowie, who had an old
s., 900 claim against the city. The res
olution was then held up by select
council. If this course of action can
be adopted, it would appear that the
city controllers powers are somewhat
nulllfied in the matter of Jurisprudence
of city claims, and Mr.. Costello will
probably have something further to
say, before the warrants are counter
signed.