The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-09-20

City Attorney Pollard's opinion. that
members OF the Council do not violate
the Code of Virginia in accepting SUBJ
contracts from the city, was not the
only development that came out in
connection with the graft investigation i
yesterday. The Committee on Relief OF ]
the Poor had another session and re.
ceived a report, prepared by City Ac-
countant crenshaw, which threw fresh
light upon the wood scandal at th6 8
City Home. The showing did not res
fleet credit upon the management OF
that institution, DR.. Williams and Gra- Z
ham b. Hobson objecting strenuouslysl
to a vote of commendation in view Of
the record.
Mr.. Crenshaw's report showed that
within the past two years five cords OF
wood had been hauled from the insti-s.
tuition to the residence of Isadore Low
enstein at that time assistant super
intendent. Coming TO the rescue of his
former associate. Superintendent Davis
said that Mr.. Loyenstein had bought
wood for delivery at the City Home
The fact was also brought out that.
there was discrepancy In the ac-
counts. showing the amount OF wool
delivered and received. this shortage
aggregating about forty-tive cords in
| three years. BY far the most sensa-s
ticnal charge, however, was lodged by
Mr.. IIobson. to the effect that Charles
| Gunst. the contractor, had bought wood!
from dealers which could not be sold.
| to the public and had turned 1t over to
the home at the rate of So a cord.
Shrinkage Only Normal.
There was a long discussion as to a
|resolution. finally modified to read that
I the forty-five cords represented shrink
age or, stealage the discrepancy being,
no more than normal. In this shape 1t,
was adopted DR.. Williams and Mr..
mendations of Accountant Crenshaw
as to changes In the method OF keep
| ing wood records We're adopted. S
| While members We're on the wood
subject, DIR. Williams got the floor.
'NIr. Crenshaw," he said. .in the ex-
animation of the wood. did you find the
| Niger In the woodpile?" ~
/ Yes said the accountant. "but he
was employed there to saw 1T"
| AS this was not the Individual the
graft seekers are after. the committee
Elet 1t pass.
After referring to the matters
brought out In the report of DIR. Will
Hams. City Attorney Pollard went di-
Irectly at the question, and agreed with
Councilmen could be subcontractors.
He declared, however, that In his opin-
/ ion at is not proper for the chairman
Iof subcommittee to become a sub
1 contractor for work under the circunl-
stances stated. To recognize the pro-
Iprlety of such a practice would leave
i wide open the door for the Srossest
wrong to the city" q hi
City Attorneys Opinion.
The full text of The opinion follows:
September Is, 1907. sss NJ.
4 Committee on Relief of the Poor,
Richmond. Va.
Gentlemen,-I have had under
4 and protest submitted to you at
your meeting held on September
I. 16, 1907. by DR.. Ennion G. Will.
liams, one of your members. con-
s cerning "the manner In which Ger
tain work at the city Home &5waa
given out. how the work was done,
a by whom. etc." with the request
that I give you my written opinion u
and advice In connection with
the questions raised therein.
a First. 1t Is stated In said paper
that a subcommittee of your body.
consisting of Messrs. sChas.S HI. Vilt-5s
shire. as chairman; j. A. iobson,
]. H. Satterfeld and e. G.. Williams,
last and decided that twas nee
essarY to have the whole OF the 81
8 exterior of the home painted. and s
cornices repaired and covered with
II galvanized 1fOn.5 and bthe bEQtterS4Hl
ID and sthe slate roof repaired, and as
J that the chairman. Mr.. Wiltshire,M
4 was requested & to prepare specifi-fa
cations, and to request bids for
q the work 1t appears from a clip-8
ping from one OF the daily papers
Of the city dated Tune 27 1907. fs
: signed by George r. Davis, Supt..8s
III that bids We're asked for and n
N that two bids We're received, and
y ut a meeting of Your body u held 81
) on July 2, 1907. a report signed
by G. II. Wiltshire, chairman OF
( said subcommittee. With all of the 81
: Z other members OF mis- committee N
present. was presented, repts>tlngs
. said bids for the doing OF the pro-
: posed work as follows: John r. r.s
: Rose & Co. at tho price OF $s,450,
L and Thos, n. Kendler at $3.300,
: With the recommendation that the
g work be awarded to the lowest
bidder, Thomas N. Kendler, and
that In said meeting, on the ,iio XII
ton of Mr., u. w. Miner. the FaGom-
mandation contained In the said q
y report OF the rubcomInittee wan
: adopted and the subcommittae was
requested to sef that 10 propatS
contract be prepared ard executed
: and an acceptable bond given fer&
the faithful performances OF the
\ work. subsequently a. contract he-3s
. tween. the city lby your cha irmanl
: and said kendler. was execute In
= the usual form t0 which waas At~sg
tached the specialization tQEg thAS