The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-05-23

ALCofLN. lIle purpose OL GIlc question is to show that this so- called request of the mayor and the vote by the Board of Aldermen entirely was not as it is the con- tract purported to have been made pursuant, and was illegal in every respect under the provisions of the charter then in force.
 CRAWFORD: Do you propose to have the witness determine that question?
 ALCORN: The charter at any time, if your honor please, was in force at the time this communi- cation was made and a vote passed providing that in respect to expen- ditures of money certain things were necessary to report; the re- port of the committee approving it or approval of the Board of Finance. Following the reading of this char ter in the testimony, of course, by the witness, it will show that no such proceedings were had and vio- lated any such vote asked for by the mayor.
 CRAWFORD: It is very obvious that that procedure is already at variance with the rules of evidence.
 Authorized Mayor
 ALCORN: I call attention to the allegations of the information be- ginning on page 6. It follows: And in further pursuance during the month of July 1930 the said T. Frank Hayes caused to be passed by the Board of Aldermen in said city a resolution sponsored and approv- ed by him, authorizing him, the said T. Frank Hayes, to make and ex- ecute a contract in behalf of said city for term of two years, the purpose of which was to reduce light and power rates in said city Thereafter, to wit, on the 24th day of July, 1880 following a conference with said Leary, controller, and said Kelly, executive secretary of the mayor, and with said Edward G. Levy, a contract in writing was en- tered into by the said Mayor Hayes and also Levy, secretary of Brown ing, Inc. under terms of which said Browning, Inc. or said Levy was to receive one-half of all savings of light cost of said city," Now, what I want to show is that in examina- tion of the records of the city which he has made, discloses no vote of a committee nor that which would show any approval of the Board of Finance of any expenditures of money as it was required by the provisions of the charter which l have asked the witness to read. Of course, if there is no objection, we will be glad to have the entire rec ord that the gentleman refers to made full exhibit and perused for any purpose; but I submit that we are entitled to show that the witness has made the examination and he finds no vote nor approval either by a committee or the Board of Finance, authorizing the expen- allure of any such money or the making of any such contract. Now if an expenditure of money was contemplated by that contract and it isn't the terms so stated, then it requires action for proper safe- guarding of the treasury of the city requires action either by commit tee or by the Board of Finance, ap- proving what ever arrangements were to be made. If it didn't auth orize and contemplate the expendi- ture of any money on the part of the city, then, of course, every dol lar that was paid out-whether 1t was division or whether it wasn't every dollar that was paid out was an illegal use of funds of the city Now the terms of the charter of 1885 are exactly or almost the same as that of the charter of 1881. It was in full force and effect at the time the mayor made his communi- cation to the Board of Aldermen