The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1910-05-09
DEAL RUMORED IN
COUNCIL SCANDAL
DR.. Levy's Salary Increased
at Same Session Which
Favored Dairymen
HEALTH OFFICER MAY
BE INVITED TO EXPLAIN
Mayor Will Send Special Message
to City Fathers Demanding
Full Investigation of En-
tire Proceedings.

DR.. E. c. Levy, chief health oricer
of the city. may be called upon by
tho Common Council, which meets
Monday night In special session 10
investigate the offidlal conduct OF
Councilman Gilbert Pollock ana
4eerge Wise, TO show why he sus-
pended the city ordinance prohibiting
dairymen from feeding distillery
mash 10 their cows. and at the same
time he will probably be given an
opportunity to answer the current
rumor that a deal was agreed to
whereby the dairymen were to be pro
tected. and In consideration of this
an effort was to be made to increase
DIR. Levy's salary from $4,000 to $s.-
600 year.
Records of the council proceedings
show that at the meeting OF March
7, 1910. when the dairymsn's ordi-
nance was amended. resolution
which had been pending more than
year was revived and passed in
creasing DIR. Levy's salary to $4,000.
This resolution was ordered by DIR.
Frank Reade. DIR. Reade also intro
duced the amended dairymens ordi-
nance. The records show that while
neither OF the accused counctlmen
voted on the amended ordinance ask
ing TO be excused, Mr.. Pollock de-
livered an impassioned speech In Ia
vor OF increasing the chief health
officers salary. Both Mr. Pollock
and MIR Wise voted for this resolu-
ton.
History of Measure.
The history OF this salary ordt-
dance. as shown ny the records in
City Clerk August's Office. is as fol-
lows:
The board of health sent the reso-
luton TO the board Of aldermen at
the meeting held January IL, 1909.
The measure increased Dr. Levy's SAL
AIRY from $500 to $4,000 a year.
This amount was cut down to 81.
600 by the committee on charter.
ordinance and reform. To which 1t was
referred This committee reported
favorahiy. The committee on finance
next approved the resolution. 1t was
reported back to the board of alder
men and passed January II. 1910.
practically a year after being pre-
scented.
The ordinance was then sent to the
Common Council for concurrence A.
1t involved financial matters a two
third vote WAS necessary for approval.
Only sixteen votes were cast in favor
of the bill. however, while nine were
recorded against II, the measure being
thus rejected. on motion of one who
had voted for the bill ii WAS Indefinite
" laid on the table.
For over two months 1t lay undis-
turhed. At the meeting of March Z.
however. II was called UP again, ana
passed by vote of "a for and 5
against,
Mayor Richardson signed the ordi-
Aga -. "A
tive.
DIR. Reade Explains.
DR.. Reade, who was seen Monday
morning regarding the controversy.
declared that he had no knowledge of
deal. and that he had called the
measure before the council on his own
initiative.
The datrymen's ordinance he had
been requested to introduce by Coun-
Gilman Wise, he said. and II was for
this reason that he had reported the
matter TO the mayor. since ha found
himself placed in the position of hay
Ing introduced measure for which
other counciimen were accused of hav-
ing accepted money.
Just as soon as the general rumors
OF misconduct" had reached him,
he went Immediately to see DIR. Levy,
he said. He told DIR, Levy that he
Mayor Richardson, and told the health
officer that he could accompany him
to the mayors Office IL he wished to
do so. but that he would report IT
anyway. He said he had not made
any direct charges against anyone. but
had given the chief executive full
account OF all that had transpired and
of all that he had heard, He left
the matter entirely with the mayor.
saying that whatever the mayor did.
he would be satisfied The mayor
notified President Peters.
of the Common Council, and ordered
him to call a special meeting. He also
notified the commemorative attorney.
Deny Wrongdoing.
Councilmen Pollock and Wise are
steadfast In their denial of having done
anything contrary to the strictest code
OF ethics. They admit that they ac-
cepted the $500 in question for influence
ing DIR. Lcvq, hut declare that they
had a perfect right to accept the sum,
as they were representing their clients
in a legal way before the health de-
partment as any other lawyers would
have done. They are more than indig-
nant that their official conduct should
be questioned. and at the meeting Mon
day night will demand q full fnvestiga-
tiou--------4-----
Their handling Of the case was open
and above-board in every particular.
they declare. and they Wish every one
interested In the matter to appear and
demand answer to any question. They