Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1906-07-31
caused by Pretended Report OF
]. William EdmundS, The
$1,000 Expert"
EXCITING ARGUMENT MADE,
o.,,ocratic Members Objected 10 Read
Inc Of Campaign Documeni-Minor-
II, Report Read to City Fathers.


o..srred at the meeting last night and
IN over the pretended financial report
81 W Edmunds, who was employed
=, am expense Of $1,000 to audit the
t,oks relative 20 The N,OOO0Oo bond Is
I'M. for water ana sewer improvements
and 10 report the condition OF that fund
d, che council Ion its information The
,.ror. which has been published in
,ssss columns in full. proved 90 bC
rotb.ng more than campaign d0cu-
,,sst Tor the benefit OF The American
.8mu.s.f4uou. the principal object OF
,rti,f was to divert the attention OF
~. public from the eXtrayagant and
t1r1nretcnt administration Of the
American" party. So very interesting
spd exciting was the argument ON
mai proposition and other political
matters that the council came very
near forgetting that the tax levy had
m b. fixed before u O'Clock midnight
In order 90 be- legal and 80 became
necessary TO declare a lull iH o., fight
f,r "a feV minutes just before j. o'clock
30 that tle levy could be- fixed.
CAMPAIGN DOCUMENT
When Mr. Edmunds campaign ducu-
reat was called up Wells inquired Il
Il vas the same report mat was pub
jshsd 10 the papers. II ID was be said
hat De- objected To having the council
records numbered with suyn "bosh' as
tvds not a report On compliance with
lN resolution AUTHORIZING his en-
t9yment az an but was merely cam
illgn document Fernstrum also oh
Fc,ed o. the report being read and
asked this his minority report be
rad first. Mulvey denied that the re-
port was merely campaign matter
ana said that such a statement was
ale.
Fernstrom DECLARED that the report
was passed on IN executive session by
iha committee ON last Thursday night
AMI was given to the papers the fol-
Owing morning and he contended that
N - was not intended for a campaign
document u should have been sub
mittsd 10 the members Of the council
ior consideration before being given 10
M, papers.
MINORITY REPORT.
Despite the objections Of the Demo-
Gratis the report was read by Mr.. Ed
munda himself AZ iis conclusion
Tonstrom called Tor tho reading of the
minority report Mulvcy wanted 10
know who wrote II. but Fornslrom
refused 20 answer any questions until
the report had been read. Following II
Ft.HH 90 81
we the minority 81 the committee
on finance beg leave 10 report the fol-
owing facts concerning The attempt ~
nc majority Of the finance committee
20 bring m a communication by J. VIII
Fam Edmunds. accountant. purporting
% hc a report prepared On compliance
with a resolution introduced on May n
Jest hv Councilman NJ. +. Mulvey,
wherein The finance committee was au-
'horI7ed to spend 1900 In the employ
ms1t ~ some one 70 examine into the
account OF the bond fund.
A MERE POLITICAL TRICK
Tho finance committee was called
together once % discuss the matter. and
several names were proposed as suit
able f0r the work contemplated, Such
men as Nessrs Godbe, Bateman, Edgar
Howe, Rayboud and several others
were mentioned. The committee decid-
o. hat the chairman thereof should
laumuuicate with the above mentioned
grt.men 20 ascertain n any OF them
could he secured for this purpose. and
-h8' they would charge. and then re-
Inr 90 Tho committee for further &C..
u0r Although Nj. Edmunds' name
was not mentioned as an expert az the
time. al least not by the committee. for
that reason be could never have been
engaged By the finance committee.
Last Thursday ne appeared before
ihc committee and read document
which IN every line shows that IL Was
prepared for nothing else than polIti-
sd purposes, and as such should not
DO h.td or accepted az statement COM
hs from or authorized by the finance
Committee. Tho city should not be
called upon 20 pay out money FOR labor
reformed for no other purpose than 20
m.sIead the public.
DOCUMENT OF so VALUE.
To show 70 the members Of the city
council why tho city should not be re-.
s1u1sIble FOR a work Unauthorized and
utterly unreliable and OF no value to
In' city Whatever. u may be necessary
l9 can attention TO a few OF the state
uoHts contained IN the above men.
Toned document
Tho gentleman leads ont with the
criticism hat the city win not receive
"I accrued interest on the bond money
"hicn II is entitled 10. That statement
~ not true. u only shows that The
author lacks common sense and is by
no mans an expert az business trans
aeuons According 20 his calculation
'n' trust company should have paid
me Interest ON he bond money 10 ths
'tIy minute that the money was re-
,'Nti lh me lrcasurer's Office az salt
Lake 'l'N The fact Is that the money
afaNn by The city In New York
s'4 me discrepancy. as De calls d.
mo Tine required to make the trans
The next rs his attempt 10 orltlcise
ue engineering department. There.
among other great discoveries he has
lile. is tho statement that S1gil5
olshi To- he transferred from Toe con-
sent fund and credited 10 the bond
una as The money properly should
NV been paid out OF the contingent
'-a4. His excuse for making this great
important recommendation Is that.
"D.H The work contemplating the IN.
''>' OF our water supply was COM
.'.H'rd u was necessary 10 buy equip.
"'Nl Tor The engineering department "a
aiIt on me Increased work ~ the de-
~. iin'nt. And because there might be
l'sloiiiiy that the Instruments 20
.ht Tor that purpose might not be
"Y worn out on destroyed before