The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1912-07-09
Puts Up Proposition By Which Charity May Be Enriched to Determine
 Which Is Right
Speaks of "Cross Ignor- ance" of His Critics and
 Shows That He Was a
 Compiler and Not a Re wiser Dare They Accept?

E3A-SA O~AAA ANOO 0 4GO
 wiser Dare They Accept The following from Attorney Jos
 hua Meltzer in answer to the Audi committees criticism of him is sel explanatory:
 An open letter to the Hon. ClifforC
 B. Wilson, Mayor. of Bridgeport.
 Dear Sir:
 My attention was called to the fac
 that communication, of the experti of the Audit committee to you, con
 taining a criticism of the MS. Charter
 compiled by me and submitted abou
 month ago. to the city clerk as
 tentative copy for the printer to en-
 able him to issue preliminary, proof
 reading copy for proper. paging of thu
 index and. correction of any errats
 there might be found in the MS. Char.
 ter-has been given out by you to th' local press before submitting 1t to me
 for explanation and reply, as in al
 decency and fairness you should have
 done. Under the' circumstances, Mir
 Mayor, consider that I am, Justified
 to address my reply to your expert.
 criticism through the. same medium you have used, namely, the Press, and
 let the reading public judge as to the
 AoAA4A0So OA y.OQI A4OIAOQ III uGdliIE
 with this matter and the business ol
 the criticism of your high-priced ex. perts ($20 per diem with hotel bills laundry bills and. luncheons). It was
 indeed amusing to me to read youl
 experts criticism of my work, which you have been in such a hurry to give
 to the press without observing tht common decency of submitting it first to the one criticised for explanation and reply and in my minds eye could see you and your political spon- sors (is "manipulators' more appro- tune that the MS. Charter offered tc you as a Justification to the public for spending large sum of the pub- lie money in the employment of the high priced experts without any ap- parent return for it, and To and be- hold to find on reading the lengthy communication that the entire criti- .cism is based upon the gross ignor- ance of the expert doing the criticis- ing Of the duties of g compiler of the Charter and ordinances and the legal Iifnita tions placed upon his work as distinguished from Reviser of a Charter
 It is more than amusing, MT. May or, it is gratifying to learn that what you and your political manipu- lators considered as political capital will, with the assistance of my an SWe7E d11Q .OAk1d1id CuTA tlO UG d boomerang to you and them. Indeed MT. Mayor, you may salt away the communication of your experts with my reply to it, and you will find that you will reap what you have sowed Of course the Lay Public ought to have an explanation as to the distinc- tion between a Compiler of charter and ordinances, which I was. and a Reviser of same, which I was not, as to their duties and powers and the limitations on same, in order that the Lay Public may intelligently under stand the merits of the controversy between myself and your experts, and it seems to me that even you, Mir Mayor and your expert need the ex- plantation, I shall therefore make it as briefly as I can. Now the Reviser of Charter and Ordinances, properly speaking, is a rebuilder of same. He is given carte blanche, a free hand to cut out parts and add parts to same in order to make harmonious in Strument, but his work is not complete and it is not law until it was passed by the. respective legislative bodies, the Legislature as to Charter and the Common Council as to ordinances of action. He must compile the laws as he finds them, even if they are obsolete and inconsistent with other laws, as only a legislative body can repeal or amend a law, and even when 1t has been amended by the legislative body, it can not be eliminated from the Charter or Ordinances except when the act amending it contains special direction for that purpose, as the words: amend. ..by striking out" amend by adding...." or section. :. is hereby repealed" Repeal by impli- inconsistent herewith is hereby re- pealed" has been held by competent legal authorities not to give the com piler the right to enilinate parts Of an act or ordinance, as it may make an act meaningless. In such case must be had, but before it is done the act as it is and the amendment must be printed separately, which I have done.
 Now before I started on the work of compilation I consulted former City Attorney, MT Cullinan, present C5& MT. Pullman, and the Audl- tor, MT. Heating, all admittedly, able and competent men, though not em- ployed by MT. White as high priced experts, and it was agreed by all of them that 8, compile can not revise the Charter, even though it was amended by the Legislature, except when the amendment was mandatory in it's wording directing the striking out of certain parts or adding certain parts, and it was variously suggested how and where the amendments to the Charter were to be printed: MT. Keating thought that all amendments ought to follow each the section, it amends, except, of course, those which amend some parts by implication, they are to be printed at the end of the charter This ad- vice had the objection to it that it would confuse the laymen and office holders, who are not attorneys, as they would not know which is the present existing law, the amendment or the original. The same objection can be raised to the method employed by the of 1906 by publishing all to the Charter at the end of the Charter, and publishing the original Charter without any amend ment In this. case the laymen could not know that the law was amended. I adopted, therefore, the following plan: Whenever the amendment di- rected to strike out parts struck out and when it directed to add I added to the Charter, but made a marginal note showing when the section was amended in order to give a chance to those who want to know how the law read before it was amended; and when the amendment was by implication I have not amended the original, but