Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1912-12-06
MAYORS WATER
VETO SUSTAINED
Board of Works, by Party Vote,
Refuses to Override
Executive.
BARS NEW EXAMINATION
OF BUREAUS ACCOUNTS
-
Takes HaussIing's View That
Such Action Would Be
Needless Expense.

furnishings veto of the plan to en-
Nploy another expert to go over the ac-
counts of the water department. It
was the mayors contention that the
work had already been done by a
nrm of International reputation and
that 1t would, be q, waste of the city's
money to'semploy. others. to go over
the same work. The Republican men,
bers of the board, however. disagreed
with the mayor and voted to over
ride his veto. The vote stood three
to two. lacking one vote Of the two
thirds necessary to override the veto.
The report of Price, W~aterhouse
e. Company, which showed a deficit
of $4,000 in the water departments
accounts, vas openly attacked by the
majority members on the same
: ground that they disagreed with it
when it was first presented, that it
credited to other departments assets
that belonged olthe water depart
ment. Representatives of the ac-
countant firm will appear before the
board next Thursday, and it is likely
that hot retort will be made of the
criticism that was made yesterday.
The resolution which the mayor
vetoed called for the selection of an
expert or firm of experts to cooperate
with Price, Waterhouse & Company
in going over the water departments
books and to rearrange the accounts
so that a new set of books would be
opened on the first of the year
When the attempt to override the
veto was lost, President O'Connell de-
clared that he would pay for the
audit himself, and afterwards ex-
pressed the opinion that Commission
ers Mungle and Denman would share
the expense.
The Mayor commented as follows
In his letter upon the resolution:
"The firm mentioned has already
made an audit of the books OF the
Department of Water and has arrived
at certain conclusions, some of which
are disputed in the preamble to this
resolution. AS the board is moi will
ing TO accept the conclusions thus
reached by the firm in question, it
seems to me both unnecessary and
wasteful to employ an expert to CO.
operate with them in preparing a new
set of books. 1t appeals to me that
If the question in dispute cannot be
settled at a conference between the
experts who have already gone over
the books n your honorable body
that the matter of opening a new set
of books had better be left to the
board which will take office on the
first day of January next"
! don't think 1t Is fair or that he
Is doing justice to himseif or to u.s.
said Mr.. Denman, chairman of the
water committee, when the Mayor
takes such a narrow view. He Is
inconsistent in taking this stand
when II is known that the water
department is the prime income pro-
Queer of the city government"
The commissioner reached the
above conclusion after he had COM
pared the attitude Of the Mayor on
the employment of experts in the
ship canal and meadow reclaima-
ton proposition. He said the Mayor
asked for experts to go over the
findings of the engineers in the canal
matter and asked for an appropria-
ton of $1,000 to defray the expense
and that the board acquiesed in his
demands. That was done, he aver
red, to satisfy the mind of the Mayor
oiiA LAAO ASAaOob AOA aaoALAOAAdA "a
perts in the water department con-
~troversy was to satisfy the minds
of those who believe the water de-
partment to be the mainstay of the
city's assets.
Because the department was not
given credit for it's sinking fund &C
count, the 5000 or more fire hydrants
in the city, the sale of the Halsey
street property and the millions of
dollars represented in the water sheds
property Mr.. Denman held the report
of the accountants was not a true
report of the departments assets.
mo evidence of dishonesty, no evil
dence of criminality and no money
lost is shown in the report" Mr.. Dem
man added. 1.-THE deficit is nothing
more than a question of correct
bookkeeping"
Objection to the characterization of
the bookkeeping system as obsolete
was raised by the commissioner be-
cause he said the system was brought
up to date twelve years ago and new
laws alone were responsible for any
criticism along these lines. He in
sisted hat the department was earn
NE llAOlAC9 III hAAC Ct oAlObANt AAON
be compelled to take the word of one
set of experts employed by a single
department of the city that gross
carelessness had been discovered in
Its management.
Saving of the city's money is not
employing more experts as recon-
mended by the Mayor was commented
by Commissioner Charles f. Kraemer.
who pointed out that Price, Water
q Co. was a firm of unquestion-
ed integrity and of international fame
and therefore had too much at stake
to come to Newark for the purpose Of
making anything but an honest audit.
You put too much confidence In the
firm" replied Mr.. Mungle. at am in
formed that in their examination OF
the books Of the Metropolitan Rub
Der Company they were forced to ad-
nit a serious blunder. l want the ex-
perts to explain why the 5 5000, 900 rep
resented in the water shed is credited
as an asset In the city account and
not credited as an asset In the water
department"
1t was then brought out that
Messrs. Mungle and O'Connell had not
been furnished with copies of the ex-
pert's report.
mot to provide us with copies was
very ,discourteous," commented Mr..
Mungle when Commissioners p. j.
Ryan said he had received a copy.
Mr. Mungle remarked that the fore
ing OF balances by the department
which the report exposed did not