Seven To Seven

One of the most stirring chapters in the history of Ann Arbor's municipal affairs was enacted Wednesday and Thursday in the council chamber. Albert M. Clark, president of the board of public works, was investigated on four charges, first, with official misconduct in the performance of the duties of his office; second, with being indirectly interested in the purchase of material to be used in public work; third, with unfaithful performance of the duties of his office; and fourth, with being inefficiënt and not qualified to perform the duties of his office. After hearing the testimony of the witnesses the charges were not sustained by the foilowing vote: First charge, yeas - Aid. Maynard, Allmendinger, Koch, Snyder, Laubengayer, Ferguson, Butterfield; nays - Aid. Brown, Taylor, Shadford, Prettyman, Coon, Cady and Hiscock. The second charge was not sustained by a unanimous vote. The third charge was not sustained by, yeas - n; nays - 3, the latter being Aid. Allmendinger, Koch and Laubengayer. The fourth charge was not sustained by a unanimous vote. All the aldermen were present excepting Aid. Moore, who was sick at home. City Attorney Charles H. Kline, who represented the city, conducted the case in a most able manner and the respondents counsel, Prof. B. M. Thompson, of the U. of M., not less so. George VV. Bullis the other member of the board of lic works, appeared in the words of the city attorney Kline as friend, associate counsel and active witness. Hon. A. J. Sawyer, who had appeared before the city council on Monday, for the respondent, was absent. This was easily explainable on the ground of his high feeling of professional honor, as the testimony showed that he had acted as attorney for the several parties material witnesses in the case when their interests were not conflicting. City Attorney Kline made a bril - liant opening outlining what he expected to prove. He said he had an unpleasant duty to perform. This was simply an examination and the citizens of Ann Arbor looked to the board of aldermen to examine the matter fully. He reviewed the action of the board of public works wben condemned the Jackson tile and three days later approved of them. He would undertake to show that the agent ot the Jackson company came to Ann Arbor after notice had been served upon the contractors not to use the pipe inquired what kind of men they were and if they could be worked. When told that they probably could not be he still went to see them. He came back and said it worked. He followed this with all the other matters he proposed to bring out. The order of business was then varied by allowing Prof. Thompson to make a statement of the defense. The first witness put on the stanc was Titus F. Hutzel. He was to prove statements made by Mr. Smith, the agent of the Jackson company. Col. Thompson objectec to it very seriously on the ground o: its being hearsay. City Attorney Kline saïd he introduced it at this time for the purpose of being logical. It was not hearsay. He woulc undertake to prove a conspiracy anc the statements of any of the conspi rators were proper evidence. Aid. Butterfield said he understand that under the rule of evidence it was admittable. Besides they were business men and want to hear all the testimony improper would not influence them. After the contention of the attorneys the council decided to admit all testimony, only Aid. Prettyman voting no. Mr. Hutzel then testified that Mr. Smith the agent of the Jackson company had met him on the line of the ditch and asked him what kind of men the members of the board of public works wei e, if they could be worked. Mr. Hutzel told him he thought not.. He got the addresses of Messrs. Bullis and Clark. In the afternoon he met the witness and said to him "it worked." He also testified to a conversation he heard between Herman Hutzel and ; Smith in "which the latter asked forj 5 per cent commission to payAlbert M. Clark. The next witness Hon. Charles H. Manly testilïed to hearing a j sation in the Hutzel store building between Mr. Smith the Jackson company's aent and Herman Hutzel. Ex Alderman Frank Wood was with him. They were in the back room of the second story. Mr. Woud sat next to the door. They looked through the door and saw a man talking with Herman Hutzel. He later found out that it was Mr. Smith. He heard some part of the conversation. Mr. Smith was desirous of closing up some matter. Smith said they were obliged to pay 5 per cent commission for the use of their sewer pipe. In answer to the question to whom it wouldgo Smith replied it would go to President Clark. In answer to the demand he said he was willing to pay his share when Stevenson Reed & Co. paid their's. The witness identified a check book and the stub from which the check was taken to send to the Jackson company. Herman Hutzel 's testimony showed that after the contractors had been stopped in October last, Smith came down and was followed by Mr. Crego the superintendent of the Jackson company and made arrangemeuts to get its sewer pipe adopted. Mr. Crego had said the expense would be 5 per cent and !y agreement the expense was to be shared equaily between Stevenson Reed & Co., the Jackson conioany and himself. The check he had given was for $17.72 which he gave co Smith up to January t. The check was paid March 15. At the time when they were notified to quit, tiicy met Mr. Crego in Sawyer's office, Crego came to the other contractors and himself and said it could be straightened up for a little money 5 per cent. The company was selling the pipe so cheap it could not stand it and they agreed that each party should stand a third. Crego said the money was going to Clark. About the end of March Smith came out to his house and informed hira it was not necessary to use the money and it had been placed to his credit. Smith read him a letter from Crego about the commission, but would not let him keep the letter. The letter said: Mr. Crego would come down after few days later and settle with Clark. The morning after the contractors had been notified, not to use the Jackson pipe, the agent of the Ohio Valley pipe was on the ground trying to sell them pipe. George W. Bullis testified to Mr. Smith calling on him in reference to the pipe and they came down town together. He told the witness that he had a long connection to make in his yard, and when the sewer got there it would not cost him anything. He answered him "I am not a member of the Detroit school board." Witness told Mayor Darling about this conversation and that President Clark said: he also had been approached, and we decided it was better not to say anything about it. After the charges were made, he had a talk with Capt. Schuh about the matter. Rumors derogatory to Clark had gotten out Clark, and he called on Capt. Schuh. He had not told Capt. Schuh that Clark said he ! had been offered 5 per cent commission. 'Not in those words. Capt. Schuh replied: "I talk too much." The witness did not know if Fred Schmid overheard their conversation or not. Watson Smith, the traveling man of the Jackson company, was put I on the stand and testified to a remarkable story. He denied all bribery or offers made to Clark and Bullis and claimed the five per cent matter was merely a club to help collect the balance from Hutzel. He had collected the five per cent from Stevenson, Reed & Co. by orders of Mr. Crego. He denied exphcitly the statement made by Mr. Bullis, that he offered tofurnish Mr. Bullis sewer pipe free. He had merely said, he would make the price right. What that was, the witness could not explain. He presumed the average American citizen would say, he had lied to Hutzel. He had written the letter shown Hutzel and probably signed Crego's name. The letter had been sent back to Crego. He knew if the letter would get out it would hurt Clark's reputation. Mr. Sawyer drew the affidavit, which was published in the Ann Arbor papers. The money received from Hutzel was credited to his account. In his conversation with Bullis something was said about the Detroit school board. Before he made his contract with Hutzel for pipe, he had seen j the city clerk and ascertained, that a bond had been given protecting all who might furnish material. Fred B. Crego, the ! ent of the Jackson company, fied to sending down Suiith wben the pipe was condtinned, and then followed himself the next day. H. said to Clark that they were making so little on the pipe, not more than five per cent, but that they would be willing to lose that to have the mattet closed up. Hutzel and Stevenson Reed & Co. had employed attorneys, and asked the Jackson company to pay something which had been agreed to. The commission paid by Stevenson, Reed & Co. was held until a few weeks ago, as from his remark to Clark he thought it might be claimed. If Clark had asked for it the money would have been paid. The witness had told Smith to get up some kind of letter to use as a club to make Hutzel pay his balance. He thought the name of Mr. Clark was used in the letter. Their attorney had advised them they had been unwisc to make any statements, and they had pnid Clark $300 to release them from anX damages for slander. Jacob F. Schuh testified to Mr. Bullis' telling him that Mr. Clark had said he was offered 5 per cent commission by the Jackson company. Later Bullis came to him and denied having said it. He had told Bullis it was bad, because Clark could never clear himself before the people. He (Schuh) was satisfied the Jackson tile were all right. He absented himself from the meetings af the board of public works be:ause they had a dispute and Clark tiad called him a liar. Mr. Parkinson, the attorney for the Jackson company, testified as to the payment of the $300 to Mr. Clark, but was very careful to disclaim any knowledge of the matter until after Mr. Smith had made his affidavit. August Schulz, of the firm of Stevenson, Reed & Co., testified to the firm paying a share of five per cent commission, Mr. Smith had informed them that it was for the pipe, and that Mr. Clark would get it. The testimony of William Stevenson, the senior member of the firm, was similar. He had known nothing about the agreement until they came to settle. He was mad about it, when it was demanded by Smith. Mr. Clark came to Port Huron to find out if thev had paid too much for their pipe, and wanted to look over their check-books and invoices, and had taken the check-books with him. S. W. Beakes and William Miller swore as to what Clark had said when the pipe was condemned. Dr. A. Kent hale identified the check given by Herman Hutzel for the commission. Ex-Mayor Darling testified as to talking with Bullis and Clark about the offers made them. Mr. Clark desired to probe the matter, but he had advised them not to, and let the matter go no further. When this conversation was had he could not say; it might have been a week or a month after stopping work. In his opinión President Clark was a very efficiënt man on the board of public works. He had not made the statement to any one that he had made a mistake in appointing Bullis and Clark on the board of public works. Pres. Clark testified to the vast amount of work he had done since being a member of the board of public works. He recollected when they had stopped the contractors from using the Jackson tile. After getting more information as to the pressure of the earth, etc, he became satisfied that they were sufficiently strong. Mr. Smith had called on him to find out on what grounds they discarded the Jackson tile. He answered that until better satisfied they could not allow their use. Mr. Crego had called on him, and shovved the different cities in which they had been used. He said they would rather loose five per cent than have any controversy. To this he made no remark, but thought at the instant it might mean a bribe. After a full discussion by the board the contractors were allowed to use the Jackson pipe. No one had approached him excepting what Mr. Crego had said. After the charges were preferred he had gone to Jackson with his attorney and got the affidavit of Smith. He received $300 from lawyer Parkinson to release Smith and Crego frora any action. The city engineer was supposed to be the general inspector, but he did not understand that he was an expert, had rauch theory and little practice. After some oontroversy with the city attorney, Mr. Clark produced the stub book showing a memorandum of ''$13 donated Clark." Thomas Fernán of Stevenson, Reed & Co., testified as to the drawing of the check. He also understood the $13 was to go to Clark. At the time the sewer pipe was settled he had had an idea there was something wrong. He had talked with Smithj who said he would try to fix it in some way with Clark. George VV. Bullis testified as to the tests of the pipe. They had stopped the use of the Jackson tile until they got more information. He told of the legal rights of the board, that they had tried to make it as easy for the contractors as possible, being most liberal to the contractors with whom they had much trouble particularly contractor Hutzel with whom he had repeated personal encounters. He was quite severe on Mr. Hutzel. No two men ever did work more thoroughly than Mr. Clark and himself. The witness continued speaking Aid. Taylor and Brown both suggested that while Mr. Bullis' speech was interestingit consumed much time. Mr. Bullis lauded Mr. Clark's faithfulness ia the highest terms. He had never known of any corrupt offer being made to Mr. Clark. Then followed the speeches of the respective counsel. When it carne to voting on the charges the aldermen became rather nervous, and some seemed to think they were voting on the specifications, and not on the charges. Aid. Prettyman made an eloquent appeal for Mr. Clark. He believed the charges were honestly brought by Mr. MarJy, and the testimony of all the witnesses excepting the Tackson men to have been honest. The testimony all hung on Mr. Smith, who was a monumental liar. When Smith went to the lower regions, Smith's ancestor, Aninias, would say good and faithful servant. He lauded the members of the board of public works. The difficulty with Clark and Bullis was that they were entirely too honest. They were mulish and headstrong. The vote taken was as given above.