The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1912-05-07

ted herewith, and your Committee of Audit respectfully invite your atten- tion to MT. Pullman's opinion that: They. are sufficiently specified to conform to any rule of court and 1t is not necessary for him to itemize them any further.
 The amended bill as now present ed to your committee by MT. White
 is reasonably itemized and if it has
 been approved by your Committee it mon Council"
 Your Committee of Audit at it's
 meeting held Friday. May 3, 1912, | unanimously approved the amended itemized bills of MT. Peter White and authorized it's chairman, to recom- | mend their payment to your favor able consideration.
 Respectfully submitted,
 The Committee of Audit, By John Taylor, Chairman. Then follows the correspondence | and city attorneys opinion which are given herewith:
 The Hon. John S. Pullman,- Esq, ,.-, City Attorney,
 City of Bridgeport, Connecticut. Honorable and Dear Sir
 The Committee of Audit would re- spectfully call your attention to a resolution enacted by the Board of
 Aldermen at its meeting held Decem- Der 18th, 1911, under which the Com mittee of Audit was appointed by the
 Mayor; and to subsequent resolu- | tfon enacted by the Board of Alder l men at !ts meeting held April 18th, l 1912, having reference to two bills
 submitted by MT. Peter White. | Copies of both resolutions are here
 with submitted for your perusal. to- by the Committee of Audit to MT. Peter White, which. together with his | acceptance thereof, constitutes the | contract between the Committee of l Audit and him. This letter was writ ten by the chairman of the Commit l ton enacted by the committee at its I meeting held January 18th, 1912, au- | thorizing him so to do.
 | Copies of the bills of Mir. Peter White are also enclosed, together with statements of such details as in the | 18th, 1911, and of the contract with MT. White, the committee may prop erly require MT. White to furnish. | Tho Committee of Audit respect fully contends that it had full power to enter into such contract with MT. White, that the relations of the Board of Aldermen are with MT.
 White, and not with the assistants he may employ, nor with the persons who may furnish MT. White or, his assistants with subsistence or sup plies.
 The Committee of Audit also con- tends that having full and complete knowledge of the items comprised in the said bills it's approval thereof for payment was in accordance with its contract with MT. White, was within the powers vested in the Committee 1911, and that the bills are in order and should be paid, the resolution of the Board of Aldermen of April 18th. 1912, notwithstanding.
 Your opinion upon the matter and upon the relation of the Board of
 Aldermen with and to MT. White, are respectfully solicited, and we would request the expression of your opinion in writing for presentation to the Board of Aldermen at it's meeting to be held. on Monday next May 6, 1912. Respectfully yours, {, The Committee of Audit, (Signed) j. John Taylor, Chairman. John 8. Pullman. City Attorney, sssz-s Fidelity Building. Bridgeport, Conn. May 2, 1912. Committe of Audit,
 Bridgeport, Conn. Gentlemen:-4.5- Your inquiry of May 2. accompan- fed by copy of Common Council reso- lution of December IS, 1911, provid- ing for the appointment of a com mittee of audit by the Mayor, and copy of Common Council resolution of April 15,s 1912, with reference to the bills of Peter White, and also copy of your contract with MT. Peter White, and a copy of bills of MT. PetAr White submitted to the Common Council, as further itemized by him following the Common Council reso- lution of April Is, 1912. is at hand. se The resolution authorizing the ap- pointinent of the Committee of Audit gave said committee power to cou- tract in behalf of the city for the em- ployment of such expert accountant and adviser as the committee deem- l not call for an expenditure in excess 1 of the amount appropriated by the Board of Aldermen. Under this au- thority, your committee had power to | make the contract it did make with MT. Peter White. It is clear, there- fore, that your contract with him is binding upon the city.
 MT. White is entitled under that contract to payment for his services and expenditures. as per the bills rendered. It is the duty of the Com mon Council to authorize payment of l those bills, in the same manner as any other bills legally incurred. It is
 the right of the Common Council be- | fore ordering payment to require MT. Peter White to itenize his bills in a l reasonable manner, in the same way | that he would be required to itemize l them through a bill of particulars, if
 suit was brought by him for their 1 payment.
 The bills of MT. Peter White, as ftemized in the copies sent me, are sufficiently specific to conform to any rule of court. and it ia not necessary l for him to itemxe them any further. With reference to certian provisions | fin the resolution of the Common 1 Council of April 16, 1912, I beg to state that in my opinion some of the provisions therein need not be follow | ed by MT. Peter White nor your com mittee, as they were beyond the pow CT of the Common Council to impose.
 I refer specifically to the following. namely:
 1. To the provision that the bills or drafts should be made out in the name of or drawn to tho order of the 1 employe of Peter White who does the work.
 2. To the provisions that all bills l or drafts for "subsistence' stationery. l railroad fare. etc., should be in the 1 name of or drawn to the order of the person supplying the same. It is my opinion that the amended bill as now presented to your com mtttee' by MT. Peter White is reason ably iteYnized. and if it has been ap- be ordered paid by the Common Council.
 Respectfully yours,
 m pvv11