The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-06-09

IollS llSI VI IepuldpIe clIlzeIlS Iudl MI
hudson finds any support for the great
mass of charges preferred by his
client. None, quicker than he, were
! he trier instead of prosecutor, would
reach this conclusion.
| His argument continually resolves
into something that substantially
amounts to this: Gentlemen we have
offered you no evidence to prove our
| accusations, but we ask you to find
those who have testified before you
to be liars under oath, and then we
| ask you to find that our charges are
proven, because, we say So Not
dignified claim, to be sure!
The, evidence shows, not that the
city engineer was incompetent, but
that he was unusually competent.
Some mistakes are permitted to any
business. Error is common to all oc-
equations. But in this case, in which
every act of the office has been ana
lyzed under the scrutiny of one of its
former employees, familiar with it's
every detail, not even the permitted
amount of error has been. shown
The committee will be compelled to
find by overwhelming weight of evil
dence that the city engineer is thor
oughly competent, and that the work
of his office has been done faithfully
and efficiently.
The charges of extravaganza are
also unfounded, except so far as they
relate to the operation and repair OF
a second hand automobile.
The department, unquestionably in
good faith, purchased with the ap-
prevail of the Board of Apportionment.
an automobile that had seen much
USE Their purpose was economy, but
they discovered what most purchasers
of second hand automobiles do, that
upkeep is more than original cost.
gineer borrowed money from one of
his employees, upon which sums he
paid interest, and repaid the princi
pal.
These transactions were doubtless
not in good taste, but they certainly
do not constitute a ground upon which
to challenge his administration of his
Office. Nor is there occasion for any,
body to be dissatisfied If the man
who loaned the money is not.
Nothing is more illustrative of the
difficult straits in which Mr.. Judson's
client placed him than the, repeated
attempts made by the former to gain
ground by a comparison of the con-
duct of the office under the city en-
gineer and under certain predecessors
in the office.
Mr. Judson should know that the
would bear comparison with the de-
partment as it was conducted under
the administration referred to in
terms of profuse compliment by him.
Mr.. Judson was counsel in the case
of the City of Bridgeport VS.. Bridge
port Hydraulic Co. He remembers,
or should remember the evidence in
this case, bearing upon the city en-
gineering department and its relations
with divers private corporations.
If the evidence in the present case
had disclosed conduct of a similar
character there would be no question
as to the action which the committee
should now take.
The comparison was unfortunate
both for those in whose favor it was
made and for Mr.. Judson's client, but
not for the general public since it
tends to throw light upon some Of the
influences that have lent themselves
to the promotion of an inquiry which
was born of malice to promote private
revenge. and fostered by those I'M
savory agencies which seek political
profit at any expense of injustice,
SANDER and vilification.