OCR Text |
Show "WHAT A BIG FRADDiD A short time since wo presented an array of facts sustaining the theory that the person who holds the office of city sexton was endeavoring en-deavoring to perpetrate a glaring imposition on the people. His effort was seconded by the City Council committee on "cemetery, who recommended that the malu avenue running from south to north in the original burial grounds be reduced from a three-rod to a two rod street,and a row of lots bo platted ou tho one rod strip; also that tho ordinance on cemetery be so amended amend-ed as to make the maximum price of lots $125 In place of $20, as heretofore. here-tofore. It was also to be provided that the sexton's ten per cent fee for sales remain at that rate. Tbe person who bo'ds tbe office of sexton has, in alleged rtrly to our strictures, published, In the leading lead-ing "Liberal" organ, what he calls "an open letter to the editor of tbe News." He starts by asking "Have you ever thought what a big fraud and humbug you are?" It being unnecessary to propound interrogations in relation to a well established fact, it would be entirely superfluous to retaliate by putting asimiiarinterrogatorytohim. Even if this were not perfectly understood, under-stood, bis "oin letter" would as we pronose to show, serve to establish estab-lish Its truth. In order that there may not even be an appearance of injustice to Mr. Dunne, we propose to quote liberally from his open letter, and will begin with the first part of his alleged answer. "Now if you remember, Mr. Editor, before October, 1SS3, tbe main avenne in the cemetery, running from w est to east, was three rods wide. Robert Patrick sras then city sexton. What djdhedo? lie deliberately mutilated this main artery of traffic and cut It down to two rods. If it is wrong to lessen the width of the north and south avenue now, was it not wrong two years ago to lessen the width of the main avenue?" Thus It will be seen that the open letter Individual seeks to screen his jobbery behind what he alleges to be similar acts of his predecessor. Even If his Insinuations against tbe former sexton were correct, it would make his conduct none the less reprehensible. rep-rehensible. But there Is no parallel between what he at tempts to do and what was done by Mr. Patrick under authority of the Council. The original or main cemetery was, as will be remembered, re-membered, enclosed by a atone wall. The street referred to was two rods wide and uniform wRh the others. It ran parallel with the north side of the south wall. In course of time M addition to the sooth of the grounds was platted, including the Jewish diviatoa. In the new parUontherewaea one rod street, asualielwithUwsSouthside of the wall. This wall waa taken down, the partiUeo formed hy It bdag unnecessary. un-necessary. It waa this additional red, formerly separated from the street on tbe north by the wall, that waa platted Into lots, oa the recommendation recom-mendation of the city surveyor, be-canse be-canse the maps and plate in possession of Mr. Fox showed a two-rod street. The change waa mado that these plats might be conformed to and that that portion of the cemetery might be brought into harmony with the original intention of its plan. The street which Mr. Dunne proposes pro-poses to manipulate runs through the central part of the orlgi nal cemetery ceme-tery north and south, and Is platted S and always has been, a three rod street. The Intention was to run a grass plat np the middle of It and plant it with rare trees at soon as water should be procured. But besides all this Is tho main fact that the Innovation desired by Mr. Dunne was made the basis for an excuse for raising the price of cemetery Iota from S20 to $125, that being his proposal. But this trifling yet grasping per son foisted upon the people by a "Liberal" Council, has discovered that Mr. Patrick who acted under authority had a gigantic Incentive to alter the width of the avenue referred re-ferred to: "Let me also remind yon that Robert Rob-ert Patrick, wbo reduced the width of tbe main avenue, did so with a particular par-ticular end In view. The records show that ) our assistant editor, John Nicholson, got one of tbe new lots facing fac-ing ou tho main avenue, and paid the munificent sum of $15 for the same, his deed, No. 2SS0, showing this consideration." con-sideration." According to this the oljcct Mr. Patrick had in view was to sell lo the gentleman named by Mr. Dunne one of the cemetery lots for $15. Now the lowest price charged for lots is $12, and tho highest $20. Add to this tho fact that the fellow wbo talks about fraud knows that the record shows that every one of the loU along the line in qjestlon was sold at $15 each. It will therefore there-fore be observed that this absurd insinuation in-sinuation issuing from his peanut soul, stamps him with the brand of fraud. Dunne's logic is this. Becaue Mr. Patrick charire! the width of a street, under authorization, in order to make it conform to the original design and the plans and plats of tbe cemetery, he(Dunnc) is justified justi-fied in contracting tho main an 1 central avenue running north and south, and thus marring tbe beauty of tbe grounds. Because Mr. Patrick charged $15 each for the lots thus formed and was satisfied with a fee of $1.5.) on each sale he (Dunne) would be justified in seeking to procure the authorization authoriza-tion to charge, In his discretion $125 for any lot In the cemetery and pocket a fee of $12.30 for each sale made by him at that rate Because Mr. Patrick, under authority, con formed a portion cf the cemetery to theplats-aod maps in possession of tho surveyor,he( Dunne) is justified In rendering the completed maps and plats partially unless ani misleading, mis-leading, by changing the face of the cemetery to a condition not shown by them. It will be seen aa we go along, that it would be unnecessary and superfluous for anybody lo ask the present sexton If he has ever thought what a fraud bo is. If be has not done so it Is simply becaue be is as deficient in discriminating judgment as he appears to be in honesty. The evidence is ample. Tbe next question is simply Im-mensv! Im-mensv! It shows that tho "open letter ' Is. consistently Idiotic throughout: "Now let me call your attention to another matter. Prior to the time when Robert Patrick became citj sexton sex-ton no lot In tho city cemetery avjld for more than $12. DjrlngbisaJmln-istration DjrlngbisaJmln-istration tbe price of lots mie to ?.. Whv did jou not object then to the Increase In price If it is w rung now to raise tho rrlce for iois. why was it not wrong In Mr. Patrick's day?" - In the first place the price cf lots was not raised during Mr. Patrick's administration. It was fixed by the ceme'ery ordinance, which was In existence before Mr. PatricVs appointment. ap-pointment. He exclaims, "Why did you not object then to the increase in-crease In price? Probably became it may be consistent to raise the maximum price cf lots by aiding tbe moderate sum of eight dollars. But there has been an attempt to boom the rate from $12 to $125, there would have been a most 'pronounced oljcclion to such an imposition. An officer at that time wbo would have sought to raise the price to orertentlms tno existing amount would havo been Justly denounced as a fraud. It will be seeu from this, what estimate ought to be placed on officials who make the proposal now. Then, Mr. Dunne, it is presumed, that because the maximum price of lots was increased by an addlttoti of two-thirds of the sum at which they were formerly sold, you consider it justifies you in moving to have tbe original amount multiplied by ten, to enable you to pocket a fee of $12.50 one-half dollar dol-lar more than what wa formerly charged foralot fora few minutes work, to say nothing of the half dollar for the certificate of sale. We have not the Urns nor space at command to riddle and sift the whole of the sexton's open letter at this writing. We will put the balance bal-ance of It through at another time. Were it merely a personal per-sonal matter we would not waste a word on such an insignificant insig-nificant subject. The Interests of the community are involved in this question and we are bound to defend de-fend the right. Incidentally, however, how-ever, It must, as a consequence of the discussion, be made to appear that It is necessary to ask this question: ques-tion: Mr. Djnne, "Havo you ever thought what a big fraud and humbug you are?" |