Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1919-02-22
WILSON DEFENDS
POLICE CONTRACT
Safety Director Charges
Unsuccessful Bidder
With Improperly
d APPRECIATION
Taxpayer Brings Suit Because
Lowest Bidder Was Not
y Awarded Job

Director of Public Safety Wilson de-
clared today that william Tinker and
Company resorted to Improper meth
DDS in an effort to obtain the con-
tract to build a police station and fire
house at Twenty-Fourth and Rltner
streets.
rms assertion vas made by the d.
rector In a taxpayers suit before judge
A~udenried in Common Pleas Court.
contract for the police station and
nrehouse was awarded to Frank g..
stewart although his old bid was $4,000
pany.
The ma bid of the Tinker com-
pany was s312.250. while that Of stew.
art was sSl6.26O. In giving reasons why
ne awarded the contract to Stewart the
Director said: "o
i not only regarded Mr.. Stewart to
De the lowest responsible bidder on the
uh1erent elements that made up the hid.
put believed the Tinker Company ire
sponsioie. my belief being based on in
formation that reached me 10 the effect
that one of the Tinker brothers had
used improper. IL not corrupt methods.
win one OF my subordinates to obtain
this contract. 1 could not, therefore.
regard the f1grm as responsible bidders.
even though they might appear to h.
the loN est On the figures submitted. In
making the award j was aware that thu
law requires such a contract to 20 70
the lowest responsible bidder"
Deny Using Improper Method.
Both william Tinker and BENJAMIN
Tinker. OF the Tinker Company, while
admitting that they made every effort
to obtain the police station contract. de-
MED emphatically that there had been
any illegal or improper recourse to in
fuence or reach subordinates in the De-
partment Of Public Safety as testified b,
Mr.. Wilson.
Benjamin Tinker said that the firm
nad had employed three different lawyers
IN an enort to see Director Wilson. who
mao refused to deal with the company
oirect' Benjamin Tinker said he had
pnoned James H. Lambert, Jr., the
Directors secretary in the Department
OF Public Safety, and had seen him per-
sonaiiy n made a request that he use
MS influence in having the director
award the contract to the Tinker CON-.
pany. No"-
Inc only thing 1 told him. testified
Tinker, was And Mr.. Lam
pert, IL we are successful, / will show
my appreciation"
henry A. Hoefier. who appeared for
.ne fling the suit. Herbert L.
Maris. complained to the court that the
statement Il will show my apprecia-
tion." vas indefinite and might mean
that the appreciation would be a boz
OF cigars or $4,000. He contended that
the statement OF Benjamin Tinker was
not sufficient to warrant the belief that
there had been any attempt at cor
ruption.
Judge Questions Propriety OF Promise
such a statement" i~nterposed Judge
Audenried. might not be sufficient for
a charge of attempted bribery but In
this wicked world n vale of tears one
cannot be too careful in the use of Ian
guage n methods for procuring d
municipal contract. A promise of ap-
probation like we have heard would be
a shock to the senses of a man of high
honor. And the question remains, Was
the Director justified in mistrusting a
contractor who made use of such a
statement"
Assistant City Solicitor Coyne asked
that the suit for an injunction against
the contract being warded TO Stewart
be dismissed.
Judge Audenried said he would not
render any decision until he had care
fully read the testimony Of Director
Wilson n the Tinker brothers.