IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) vQ 6>p^ ^1 'c>l o>^ w <% m /A (? / 1.0 •liiia 1125 I.I II. IIP 2 12.0 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 ^ 6" _ ► Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14S80 (716) 872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical IVIicroreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1980 i Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagee Covers restored and/or laminated/ I I Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde D Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes g6ographiques en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) n n Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion aiong interior margin/ La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int6rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmdes. L'Institut a microfilmd le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommag6es □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur6es et/ou pellicul6es Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages ddcolor^es, tachetdes ou piqu6es □ Pages detached/ Pages d^tach^es r~7| Showthrough/ D Transparence Quality of print varies/ Qualitd inigale de I'impression I I Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6X6 filmdes 6 nouveau de fa^on d obtenir la meilleure image possible. The to tl The pos oft film Orij beg the sior othi firsi sior or i The sha TIN whi Ma diff ent beg rigl req me n Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires; This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. IPX 14X 18X 22X I \ \ \ I \ \ \ \ I \ PI 26X 30X 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada L'exemplaire filmi fut reproduit grdce A la gAn^rositA de: La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes ont 6X6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de I'exemplaire filmi, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^- (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimie sont film6s en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film6s en commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole ^^^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film6s 6 des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est film6 6 partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche 6 droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n^cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 Te Johi SOM A JO The Loci But C Lou M STATEMENT OF THK Tenders for the Printing and Stationery REQUIRED BY THE Corporation of the City of Montreal, FOR SIX YEARS. John Lovell's Expose of the Unfairness and Trickery OF Tivo MEMBERS OF THE CITY HALL COMMITTEE, (Aldermen Thomas Wilson and Duboc), Aided by their Chairman, Alderman Robert, AND PROMPTED BY PATRICK O'MEARA, Assistant City Clerk; Alderman Allard acting as Whipper-in ; OEORQE E. DESBARATS, ex-Queen's Printer, appointed by THE City Hall Committee to examine Louis Perrault k Co.'s Accounts and to CERTIFY their Correctness. Some idea may be formed of how he served the Tax-Payers by looking at three of his Certificates on pages 31 , 32 and 33 of this Expose. JOHN LOVELL & SON DEPRIVED OF THE CONTRACT Because they are not French Canadians. The City Hall Committee Voted $1000, extra, of the Citizens' Money, TO Patrick O'Meara, to keep Louis Perrault honest. Louis Perrault & Co.'s Contract for the last five years, for the City Printing and Stationery, ' Expired on the 14th of last December, But by the trickery and deceit of Patrick O'Meara, Assistant City Clerk, ai'jed my a few members of the Corporation of Moxtkkal, Louis Perrauit Iretains the Contract at his own Prices, Now more than Nine months ago, being from Hth qf last Dec. Montreal, Sept. 27, 1881. CONTENTS. City Auditor's Roiily to Mr. Perraiilt'« Clmrges 5-' City Auditor's Keport on Mr. Perrault's Charges (KJ City Auditor's Statement of Totak 50 Desbariits, Geo. E. Certificate on whiob he allows an overcharge of SH\." to pass In favor of Louis I'errault & Co 31 Desharats (ieo. K. Certitlcate on which he allows an overcharge of S4.48 32 Desbarats Geo. K. Certificate on which he allows an overcharge of 183 33 Desbanits Geo. K. His infamous letter, bolstering up Louis Perrault & Co., and willfully omitting Louis Perrault & Co.'s tender for binding the City Charter for ?l;;r)0, against .John Lovell & Sons 9il~> for same work 33 Geott'rion C, and It. Laflainme, Q.C. Statement of Facts and Questions anent the Tenders 10 Geottrion C, and R. Latlammo, Q.C. Opinion anent the Tenders 21 Qlacknieyer Charles. Letter to Montreal Iferaltl, being an answer to Louis I'errault . 39 Lovell John. Kvjmsi and .Ippml for FAIR PLAY ! For JUSTICE ! ! 13 Lovell John, ^.rywwp of the Printing and Stationery Scandal. To Tax-payers 5 Lovell John. Letter to Alderman George W. Stephens, asking permission to Exjvn ine Louis Perrault & Co.'s Accounts 42 Lovell John. I^etter to Alderman Robert, Chairman City Hall Conmuttee, which he positively refused to receive or read at a meeting of the City Hall Committee — 50 Lovell John. Letter to Montreal Herald, accepting Louis Perrault's otter of .55,000.. 38 Lovell John. Letter to The Star, complaining that the City Hall Committee of two ordered that Louis Perrault & Co. be paid at the rate of *2 a page for Factums which Louis Perrault tendered, five years ago, to do for ?1.35 61 Lovell Jidin. Letter to Wm. Robb, in which he declines to give up Report 62 Lovell John, & Son. Letter to The Star, exposing the Louis Perrault infamous Protest 47 Lovell John, & Son. Petition to the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Montreal . . 44 Lovell John, & Son. Petition to the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Montreal, complaining that no action was taken on their previous Petition 56 O'Meara Patrick, declares that John Lovell & Son had the Contract, but shortly afterwards he introduces his famous figures on the Drawing ajid Tracing Paper. . . 27 O'Meara Patrick. His Comparative Statement of requirements for six years 14 O'Meara Patrick. His Letter and Statement anent the Drawing and Iracing Paper. 15 O'Meara Patrick. His Statement In favor of Louis Perriiult, in which he leaves out nearly one-half the items 58 Perrault Louis, & Co., and John Lovell & Son's Tenders for the Corporation Printing and Stationery 3 Perrault Louis, & Co., and John Lovell & Son's Totals, &c. on the Tenders 4 Perrault Louis. Extract from his Protest 28 Perrault Louis. His Letter to the Montreal Jlerald, offering John Lovell $5,000 to give up the name of person, &c 38 Perrault Louis. His Protest 58 RoDb William. Request to allow pamphlet, on which overcharges were made, to be counted by Mr. Desbarats and Mr.Perr • v. 61 TENDERS FOR THM CORPORATION PRINTING AND STATIONERY. 56 14 15 58 3 4 28 38 58 61 /■Vir ON K year. Ist Coliiiiiii. I'lid Cohiiiin. ,')rd Column. Aggregate. L<)ui8 IVrrault & Co. $",«06 4,000 2,11» 14,574 John Novell & .Son . . 5,476 2,.W0 7s7 «,S42 92,xm a,070 i,;i;t2 r,,7:a These figures shew fTohn Lovell & Son to be, on 1st column, $2,.'V'M below Louis Porrault & Co., for one year. On L'nd column, ¥2,070. On .'ird column, .Sl,;t;i2. And on Aggregate, for one year, .?5,7;<2 lielow Louis Perrault & Co. With these figures Iwfore the eyes of ttro members of the City Hall Committee, with the casting vote of their Chairman, they persisted in giving the Contract to Ixjuis Perrault & Co. The above calculations, being only for one year, are startling enough. Hut think of tlie two members of the City Hall Conmiittee, with the casting vote of tlieir Chairman, giving the Contract to I»uis Perrault & Co. for kix years, with the following llgures staring them in the face, and with their onth, to protect the interests of the City, on record in the City Hall. y-Vir Six years. Ist Column. 2nd Column. 3rd Column. Aggregate. Louis Perrault & Co. $Mi,nm 27,!K(0 12,714 87,444 John Luvell & Sou . . 32,K")0 ir>,4**0 •♦."^ 03,052 13,080 12,420 7,!tU2 34,302 For the six years these figures show .John Ixjvell & Son to be .f 13,!iK0 below Louis Perrault & Co. on 1st column ; .^12,420 on 2nd column ; $7,1)02 on 3rd colunui ; and 934,302 on the Aggregate. The above figures are made up from the Original Tenders. Mr. 4*'I?leara, in despair, nrnde up the fulloiving Statement * of tbe requlremeiitM for SIX yearm: /'errau;<— Ordinary Work and Annual Reports.. ^38,061 30 Once in six years 726 00 Printing Charter 1,714 60 " Plain Binding 70O 00 " Gilt " BOO 00 41,751 90 Zoreii— Ordinary Work and Annual Reports, . $31,401 72 Once in six years 544 00 Printing Charter 2,16" 20 « I'lain Binding 300 OO " Gilt " I7B OO 34,587 92 $7,163 08 *In this Statement Mr. O'Meara tried to bolster up Louis Perra\ilt & Co.'s Tender, by leaving out nearly one-half the items in the Specifications, and by reducing the quantities, especially wherever his trickery aided his friend Perrault. It would be curious to compare Louis Perrault & Co.'s Tender with that of John Lovell & Son. I have no doubt a few etartling items would be found, such as Blotting Pads per gross, for which Louis Perrault & Co. ask 935, John Lovell & Son ask 915, leaving $20 in favor of John Lovell & Son on this little item. Louis Perrault & Co. ask *2 per 100 for Folding and Stitching, John Lovell & Son ask 30c. per 100 for similar work. On this small item there is *1.70 in favor of John Lovell & Son, per 100, and I need scarcely say that a good many such items find a place in Mr. Perrault's accounts, during the year. John Lovell. TOTALS. Olorpotation IJrintins anti Stationer?) Scantial. On every count all the Totals are in John Lovell & Son's favor. ORIGINAL TENDERS. For Onk year. Ixt Column. 2od Column. 8rd Column. AfCffrPKAte. Louis Perrault & Co. $7.8(>5 4,650 2,119 14.574 John Lovell & Son .. 5,475 2,580 787 8,842 82,330 ~2jm ~L3^ ~5J32 For Six yearn. lat Column. 2n(l Column. 3rd Column. Af;Kro){ate. Louis Perrault & Co... $46,830 27,900 12,714 87,444 John LoveU&Son... 32,850 15,480 4,722 53,052 «13,980 12,420 ~7^ ~34^3"92 MR. ROBB'S CALCULATIONS. Tender of Louis Perrault & Co. stands at $00,965 Tendorof John L0V1II& Son " " 44,464 NIR. IROBB'8 RECAPITULATION OF THREE COLUMNS. Louis Perrault & Co $101,957 John Lovell & Son 04,936 Mr. Louis Perrault, in his infamous Protest (see it on page 5!)), in a most unlieard of way, mustered a deduction of $5f2BB.32 from Air. Kobb's ealuulations of $|6,B0I >" favor of John Lovell & Son, but, unfortunately for hinvself, he still leaves, in favor of ,lohn Lovell & Son, $II,24S.08. The deed was done by Louis Perrault reducing from his tender such items as Press work on City Charter from SI 171 '« $25 ! ! ! and George K, Desbarats, his shameless friend, certifying to this monstrositji fis correct ! ! ! No wonder the deterred printers would not waste their time in competing with such characters. The ejcimne has fallen to the lot of .John Lovell. 1 promise lie will not shirk the responsibility. I ask .a careful peru-sal of all the facts,— they are numerous. Neither Louis Perrault nor Geo. K. Desbarats could linki-run the Jihuliiiji of the Charter, so Geo. E. Desbarats passed it over in his infamous letter, to be seen on page .'13. Fellow Citizens, the Binding of the City Charier stands thus: Louis Perrault & Co. at. ..$1250 John Lovell & Son " ... 475 Patrick O'Meara puts John Lovell & Son down for the Drawing and Tracing Paper at S0f088 ! ! ! If Patrick O'Meara had a sparr. of decency left, he would have stuck to his and Perrault's bungled specittcations and said or wrote : Louis Perrault & Co. . .$603.60 John Lovell & Son ... 334.00 Patrick O'Meara, Assistant City Clerk, being a good chinvlUr, tried his double dealing In favor of lA)uis Perrault & Co., by leaving out nearly one-half of the items in the speci- fications, still he was compelled to put I,ouis Perrault & Co. at $41,751.90 John Lovei ^ k Son " 34,587.92 With the preceding Balances in favor of .John Lovell Si .Son, the City Hall Committee of two, witli the casting vote of their Chairman, voted the Contract to Louis Perrault & Co. for six years. TAX-PAYERS, insist on Fair Play ! on Justice ! ! for John Lovell & Sou, and believe me to be your obedient servant, JOHN LOVELL. Montreal, 2Tth September, 188L JOHN LOVELL'S EXPOSE OF TUB PRHTHG AND STATIONERY SCANDAL. To Tax-Payers. By the calculations of the Original Tenders by Wm. Robb, Esq., t 'ity A ittlitor, Tender of Louis Perrault & Co. stands at $ 60,96f> (K) Tender of John LovoU & Son " " 44.464 00 Showing in favor of John Lovell & Son $Ui.501 00 Mr. RoV)b's Recapitulation of the tfirre columns shows : Louis Perrault & Co. to be 101,0.".7 00 John Lovell & Son " 64,936 00 Showing in favor of John Lovell & Son • 157,021 00 Mr. P. O'Meara, Assistant City Clerk, by leaving out nearly one-half the items, and especially when Louis Perrault & Co. tendered at $;t5 against Jolui Lovell & Son's $1*), and such like items, a most unfair and cowardly act, tficn doing his very best for Louis Perrault &, Co., shows them to be 41,751 W AndthesameMr.O'MearashowB John Lovell ay that the letter bearing his name, was written by two tricksters — Louis Perrault and Patrick O'Meara — and that he (Desbarats) nulif signed it. — Well ? Aldcrvuin AUard, had George K. Desbarats been honest in tliis matter, it is possible the City Hall Committee might have voted the present Tender to John Lovell k Son. — Well? Aldmnini Alhird, now that the truth is partly known, perhaps the City Hall Committee of 3 may reconsider the great injury they have done their fellow-citizens, and John Lovell & Son, and vote them the Contract, It is not too late yet. — Well ? Johii Lovell says that John Lovell & Son consent to accept the Contract for one year, or for such time as they may give entire satisfac- tion in the execution of the work. — Well ? Aldermnn Alhird, John Lovell charged Louis Perrault with making overcharges, and John Lo>ell told Louis Perrault that he (John Lovell) had proo" in his (John JiOvell's) pos.session. — Well ? Louis Perrnidt was staggered, but he did not faint. It was remark- able how soon he (Louis Perrault) recovered his presence of mind ; and he said, in the presence of several persons : " If, itii/ortunafel)/, I have made any overcharges I will return the amount, as I have jiJcuty of money. Neither Dei-barats nor my.self v.ould keep even u cent, on being convinced of our error." All bluff.- Well ? 10 John Lovell'a Exposi of the Unfairness and Trickery of Aldermmi AllariJ, John Lovoll told Louis Perrault that he (Perrault) would have a good deal to refund, if he (Lovell) was to judge by proof in his (Ijovell's) possession. — Well ? Alderman Allitrd, John Lovell threatened Louis Perrault, that he (I.ovell) would petition the Council of the Corporation of Mon- treal to have Louis Perrault & Co.'s accounts examined, not- withstanding Geo. K. Uesbarats' certificates : " Correct according to prlax ill Tender.^' Alderman Allard, liOuis Perrault got into a great passion and he (l\!rrault) defied John Lovell. IIo (Perrault) said that neither the City Hall Committee nor the Council would ever allow his (Perrault's) accounts to be examined. — Well? Alderman Allard, John Lovell urged Louis Perrault, for his own sake, for the sake of Patrick O'Meara, for the sake of George E. Desbarats, for the sake of the City Hall Committee, to petition (himself) for the immediate revision of Louis Perrault & Co.'s accounts for the last five years. — NVell ? Alderman Allard, what do you think Louis Perrault said to John Lovell, before several persons? Well, he said that I, John Lovell, " had no influence with either the City Hall Committee nor with the Council." The continuous acts of both, shew that Louis Perraulr knew the men. — Well ? Alderman Allard, on Louis Perrault leaving John Lovell & Son's office, Ji>hn Lovell bolted oflf to Alderman Grenier's office to tell him what Louis Perrault said, which I did, and I added : " Alder- man Grenier, as Chairman of the Finance Committee, you are expected to see that the Citizens' money is not wasted on unprin- cipled contractors. If immediate action is not taken, I will get up a Ke({uisition to the Mayor, with at least the names of 5,(100 Tax-l*avers, and I daresay the 5,000 will bring 25.000 with them, and after discussing the injury done us, and our right to be fairly dealt with, we will march to the City Hall and demand that our hard-earned money be not wasted." Upon Alderman Grenier's assurance that Louis x^rrault & Co.'s accounts should be examined, I (John Lovell) left his office. Louis Perrault hoAHtcd that: " Those fellows " (meaning some of the members of the Corporation), " never read a newspaper. That he " (from time to time, of course) " met them — gave them a glass of wine — and then crammed them," and he said " what I put into their heads the Devil couldn't got out." What a pity " Those fellows" did not read the newspiipers. If they had, John Lovell & Sou might have got the Contract. — Well ? Two Members of the City Hall Committee, and others. 11 Aldermnn Allard, John Lovell would hope that you arc not one of the favored ones. Of course Louis Perruult particuhirly mount Aldermen Dubuc, Thonjas Wilson and Robert, members of the City Hall Committee— Well ? John Lovell cannot ima<;ine which member of the Council Louis Pcrrault meant. It might have been Alderman Oilman, but surely he reads the newspapers, and he voted for John Lovell & Son, therefore I cannot think that he would take a glass of wine as a bribe. — Well? John Lovell has been told that Alderman Oilman said to Perrault : *' Fix the figures in that way and I will vote for him, I could do it in two minutes." If Alderman Oilman could do so he must have meant O'Meara's figures about the Drawing Paper. — Well? Alderman Alhird, John Lovell must spare Alderman Oilman, because he voted for John liovell & Son to get the Contract. — Well ? John Lovell now asks Alderman Oilman if he (Oilman) had been con- sulted about the arrangements made at the Caucus, held at Alderman AUard's hou.se. Report says that all was arranged there in the presence of the two conspirators — Louis Perrault and Patrick O'Meara.— Well ? Alderman Allard, as the meeting was hold in your house perliaps you will tell John Lovell something of wliat was decided on. If not John Lovell will give you his impressions! — Well ? John Lovell thinks that it was arranged that new Tenders might deprive Louis Perrault & Co. of the Contract, so the Caucus decided that they must face it out, and take a bold stand. Never mind the figures. — Well ? John Lovell supposes it was decided that Alderman Jeannotte should move that the Contract be given to IMessrs. Senecal & Co., and as no arrangement was made for a seeoiuler, lie, Alderman Jeannotte, was to get into high dudgeon and leave the Committee room. So he did.— Well ? Alderman Alhird, John Lovell supposes that it was arranged that Alderman Oilman, seconded by Alderman Holland, should move that the Contract be given to John Lovell & Sou. Put and lost, of course. — Well ? Alderman Allard, now for the tug. Alderman Thomas Wilson moved, seconded by Alderman Hubuv:, That MeSSrS. LouiS Perrault & Co. get the contract. Put and carried hj the casting vote of the Chairman. — Well? -.in 'n K'j( 12 John LovelVs Expose of Unfairness and Trickery. Alderman AJhird, this act of the famous 3 was a stunner. I wish you could have seen the faces of the disappointed ones. John Lovcll's among them. — Well ? Louis Perrnult on being asked " Who got the Contract ? " exclaimed " C'cst nwi qui I'a." Of course he might have said so, even before the Committee sat, but for once in his lifetime he was silent until the deed was done. Alderman AUard, almost every one knows what followed and what is still going on to the eternal disgrace of too many members of the Corporation of Montreal. — Well ? Alderman AUard, John Lovcll will now put the case of John Lovell & Son before their Fellow Citizens. I solicit a careful perusal of it by the Taxpayers. Let them secure for me the examination of Louis Perrault & Co.'s accounts^ with attrstcd vouchers, and I think there will be no doubt of $2,000 being realized for the Park Flower Garden, and something more for the charities of the city.— Well ? Alderman AUard, may I ask your influence in this praiseworthy matter, especially now that the truth is before you, to secure for me the examination of Louis Perrault Sl Co/s accounts for work done for the Corporation of the City of Montreal, during the last five years. Help me to secure a found- ation — a nest egg — towards a Flower and Ornamental Garden. Remember we have nothing of the kind here. Let us try to imitate Halifax, N.S., in her noble eifort to supply her people with the most beautiful Garden on the Continent. Think of the pleasure it will give our young people 1 Do help in this noble eifort. You have nothing to fear. Louis Perrault says that he has plenty of money. Think of the relief it may be to his con- science to have an opportunity to disgorge some of his ill-gotten wealth. You have fought his battle in a bad cause. Now turn round and fight it maufulli/ in a good cause. lie wants to return to our Citizens every cent that has vnfortunatehj been paid to him for over-charges through the leniincj/ of George E. Desbarats, ex-Queen's Printer and of Patrick O'Meara, Assistant City Clerk. Think of the satisfaction I shall have in helping Louis Perrault to ease his conscience. I hope he will be delighted to see painted over the entrance-gate of the Flower and Ornamental Garden : rianted vith Conscience Monei/. Think, Alderman Allard, how pleased Louis Perrault will be, and so will be JOHN LOVELL. Montreal, 27th September, 1881. JOHN LOVELL'S EXPOSE AND Atipeal for FAIli PL A Y! For JUSTICE ! ! ! Fellow Citizens, — Tax-Payeks, It is my painful duty to call your attention to the figures contained herein as a true expixsd of the manner in which the Contract for rrintingand Stationery, rec^uired by the Corporation of jMontreal, has been awarded to the highest tenderers, Louis Perrault & Co., that is as far as tuv members of the City Hall Committee, with tlie casting vote of their Chairman, could give it ; for at this late date (27th September, 1881) no final decision has been come to. The term of the last Contract expired on the 14th of last December. By trickery and collusion Tenders were not called for till 11th of January, and, it is not too much to say, the same course is still pursued, Louis I'eirault & Co. being, in the meantime, sutlered to do the work, and at liijerty to charge just what they please. Indeed Mr. Louis Perrault boasted ojjenly that in case he did not get the Contract he would make the Corporation pay well for what he did until the matter was decided. I need not say that the figures clearly shew that the Cwiitract should have been awarded to John Lovell & Son. 'Two mem- bers of the City Hall Committee, aided by their Chairman, thought otlierwise, and awarded the Contract to Louis I'errault & Co., the highest tenderers, their tender being, on the 1st column only, §10,501 in excess of that of John Lovell & Son, Louis Perrault & Co. being .?(j(),9(j "», and John Lovell & Co. being only $44,404. In the Ilecapitulations Louis Perrault & Co. stand at S10],9r)7, and John Lovell & Son at $G4,yoO, showing John Lovell & Son to be 837,021 below Louis Perrault & Co. on the Original Tenders, many of the items having been put in to frigliten tiie Printers. These figures are the result of Mr. Kobb'a calculations. Mr. Louis Perrault served a libellous Protest on Mr. Patrick I '•I " i| >• : ; i 4 i J 14 John LovelVs ExposS and Appeal m O'Meara, complaining that Mr. Robb did not accept his ridiculous interpreUitions of Presswork, etc., and after declaring that he would print 100 complete copies of the Charter, a book of from 500 to 600 pages, for Si .25,* and making other fiircical state- ments, he made out a deduction of $5,255.32, which still left Louis reiTault& Co. $11,245.68 higher than John Lovell & Son ; but Mr. Perrault had his faithful Patrick O'Meara, Assistant City Clerk, to appeal to, and he (O'Meara) furnished a statement to the two members of the City Hall Committee and to their Chairman, in which he tried to bolster up Mr. Perrault's position by leaving out nearly one-half the items in the specification (under the pretence that they would not be required), and by reducing the quantities, especially wherever it was to the advantage of his friend Perrault. His totals were : Perrault $41,751.90, Lovell $34,587.92, still leaving $7,163.98 in favor of John Lovell & Son. Here is Patrick O'Meara's Comparative Statement of requirements for six years : Perrault. Si'Hecal. Ordinary work $4,7.37 60 Annual Reports 777 85 Ordinary work %T>,^m <»2 Annual Reports 1,006 <53 38,0(11 HO Once in fi vears l-'^y 00 Printing Charter 1.714 (iO " Plain Binding 7r.0 (K) " Gilt do f>(iO 00 41,751 90 White. Ordinary work 4,7r<8 27 Annual Reports 880 4") f).C38 72 33,832 32 Once in G years 9(12 00 Printing Charter 1.<1U CO " Plain Binding 900 00 " Gilt do 750 00 $38,055 92 5,515 35 33,092 10 Once in 6 years (515 (X) Printing Charter 1,827 60 Plain Binding 600 (K> " Gilt ' do 500 00 36,634 70 Lovell. Ordinary work 4,059 .35 Annual Reports 1,174 27 5,233 62 81,401 72 Once in 6 years 544 00 Printing Charter 2,167 20 " Plain Binding 300 00 " Gilt do 175 00 $34,587 02 Totals made up by Patrick O'Meara, Assistant City Clerk : Perrault $41,751 90 White 38.055 92 Senecal $ 36,634 70 Lovell 34,587 92 * In Louis Perrault & Co.'s Tender, now before the Corporation, their price is $1.25 for each and every 100 copies of 8 pages. He is entitled to say 250 copies instead of 100 copies. For Fair Play ! For Justice ! ! ! 15 ,-ii 70 ',9 35 174 27 price ay 250 The Committee of hvo and their Chairman did not feel justified in a^va^ding tlie Contract to Mr. Perrault, with such a large balance against him, $7,163, the best O'Meara could do. So Mr. O'Meara was ai)pealed to again, and this subservient official unblushingly devised a w scheme to further his ends by calculating John Lovell & Son's })rice for Drawing Paper at per yard instead of per roll as in their Tender, although he had been notified that John Lovell & Son's tender for these items was per roll, and be (O'^Ieara) acknowledged it ; and they also notified Mr. Robb to the same effect. Indeed the matter was so plain that at first it was not considered necessary to notify either Mr. lioljb or Mr. O'Meara, but as there was some doubt about the wording, which was as follows : 5. Sagnr'8 Patent Tracing VcUuni, duU back, 30 in., jt?er roll of 24 yards. " John Lovell & Son decided to inform both Mr, Eobb and Mr. O'Meara that the price was by the roll, and both admitted the fact. Perhai)s in no ^ in the world was there ever a more unfounded and l)arefaced attempt to deprive the lowest tenderers of a Contract they had fairly gained. I have no hesitation in saying that the action of the tivo members, and the Chairman, was disrei)utable. Here I must state that the Committee were ably aided by your well-paid servant, Patrick O'Meara, Assistant City Clerk. I append his letter and statement : To THK Chairman and Mtmbeks op the City Hall Committee, GENTLiiMEN, — In preparing the statement hereunto, Mr. Lovell'H prices for items 3, 4, i", t! and 7 of the Engineer's Department are calculated at the rate per yard, on the supposition that the price put down in his tender was per roll, althoug-h not specially so mentioned,* as is the case in Mr. White's tender. If the Committee should decide that the figures should bo taken as put down in Mr. Lovell's tender, it would very materially alter his prices ; a statement of this calculation is also submitted. If. on the other hand, Mr. Senecal is prepared to supply Bond Paper at the rate mentioned in his tender, $1 per ream, and that the Committee authorize me to order this paper in preference to the one generally used of a far inferior kind, and for which that gentleman asks a greater price, I have no hesitation in saying that Mr. Senecal's tender is the lowest. The whole respectfully submitted, 28th Janvary, 1881. P. O'MEARA. • This is a willful lie. John Lovell* Son wrote in pencil opposite their prices, /Vr/Jo;/'. When their Tenders were returned to them they noticed that the Per Jloll VM rubbed out, but sufUcient was left to show Patrick O'Meara's treachery. ! ..1 m Pi 16 John Lovell's Exposd and Appeal i Item» Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Engineer's Department, computed as set doivn in tenders. No. Lorrll. t>rn6tuil. White. Pivraiilt 3, r>' 00 •A :») 2 25 7 70 4, 44 00 2 20 2 50 6 CO 6, 170 00 . 8 40 7 00 9 CO 6, 21(5 00 10 08 9 00 12 00 7, 2G4 00 12 00 12 00 14 40 749 00 35 98 32 75 50 30 2 Rolls each. 1,4 years. * $8,988 00 431 7C 393 00 fi03 (JO Tax-l'ayers ! thousands of dollars of your hard-earned money are s(iuandered to carry out tricks of this description. Bra iidy — Wine — Oysters — Cigars — B ides — Theatre Tickets . Nearly the whole City Press have put on record their Protest against the flagrant wasting of your Funds. During th'i discussion of this scandalous business, T regret to say that the action of some of the members of the Corpora- tion was notorious, especially that of Alderman Allard IMr. O'Meara assured me that Alderman Allard urged him to give the Contract to Perrault, anil if he could not succeed, he (O'jVIeara) must give it to Scnecal, as the work must be done by a French Canadian. My long residence, of over sixty-one years, in the City of jMontreal, was to be pooh-poohed in order to give the work to a French Canadian. As Mr. Allard is an active member of the Corporation, taking an interest, I trust, in the financial affairs of the City, 1 here ask him if the French Canadians pay all the Taxes ? If so, he should not command his servant, Patrick 0']Meara, to plunder them by giving the Contract to Louis Perrault & Co. The Tenders of Louis Perrault & Co. and of John Lovell & Son stood thus : For Onk year. Louis Perrault .Sc Co. John Lovell k Son... 1st Column. $7,805 5,475 2nd Column. 4,0.^0 2,580 2,330 2,070 3rd Column. 2,119 787 1,332 Ag(?rpgate. H.r.74 8,842 5,732 • These items computed as tendered for by John Lovell & Son would only ainnunt to $384 instead of $8,088 >w shown by Mr. O'Meara. This fact waa thoroughly well known to Mr. O'Meara when he prepared these figures. For Fair Play ! For Justice ! ! ! 17 Son lint to well These figures show John Lovell & Son to be : On 1st column, ♦2,330 below Louis Perrault & Co. for one year. On 2ud column, $2,070. On 3rd column, $1,332, and on aggregate, for one year, $5,732 below Louis Perrault & Co. With these startling figures staring them in the face, two members of the City Hall Committee, with the casting vote of their Chairman, decided to give the Contract to Louis Perrault & Co. for six years. The preceding calculations are only for one year. They are startling enough. But think of the same two members of the City Hall Committee, with the casting vote of their Chairman, voting the Contract to Louis Perrault & Co. for six years, with the following figures staring them in the face, and with their oath, to protect the interests of the Citizens, on record in the City HaU : For Six years. lat Column. 2nA Column. 3rd Column. Aggregate. Louis Perrault & Co. $46,8150 27,9(K) 12,714 87,444 John Lovell & Son... 32,850 15,480 4,722 53,052 13,980 12,420 7,992 34,392 For the six years these figures shew John Lovell & Son to be $13,980 lower than Louis Perrault & Co. on 1st column; $12,420 lower than Louis Perrault & Co. on 2ik1 column ; $7,992 lower than Louis Perrault & Co. on 3rd column; and $34,392 on the aggregate. In the face of these large amounts in favor of John Lovell & Son, the tivo members of the City Hall Committee, aided by the casting vote of their Chairman, voted the Contract to Louis Perrault & Co. for six years. At first sight the three columns, just quoted, appeared reasonable ; but when I now look at the 3rd column, and see that Louis Per- rault & Co. ask $12,714 for it, and John Lovell & Son ask only $4y7i22y I dread the result iu the hands of dishonest men. I would like to see Mr. Perrault's figures for the 3rd column, just to see how they compare witli the 1st column. For the sake of explanation I shall suppose the columns to stand thus : Ist Column: 1,000 copies, $10 2nd Column: 600 copies, $r.50 8rd Column: 250 copies, $5 In the hands of tricksters, conspirators and dishonest men, B i 18 John LovelVe Expose and Appeal these columns might be used so as to make the Corporation pay $20 instead of 110, for each 1,000 copies, by the Clerk giving out the order each time for 250 copies, and the Contractor charging $5 for them. Of course, by mutual understanding, 1,000 copies would be printed from the same type and same form, but only 250 would be delivered at a time, so that by four deliveries the 1,000 copies would be used up and 820 P^^^ ^^^ them instead of 810. Brandy — Wine — Oysters — Cigars — Rides — Theatre Tickets. Any one interested will easily see by the preceding figures the corrupt manner in which the specifications have been made out. Alderman Allard instructed Patrick O'Meara, Assistant City Clerk, to give the work to Louis Perrault & Co., because they were French Canadians. Alderman Thomas Wilson took a solemn oath that he would vote for Perrault with his eyes shut, and if he could not succeed in getting the work for Perrault, lie would turn round and vote for Sen^cal. Let his constituents bring him to task. Will the Tax-Payers allow such outrageous conduct, such reckless squandering of the City Funds ? Think of the poor, whose water supply is ordered to be cut off, because they may owe $3 or $4 for water rent ! Think of wretched families and helpless infants being left without a mouthful of water to quench their thirst, while large sums are going to fill the pockets of those who wish to grow rich at the City's expense ! The Corporation bailiff is ordered to sell the table and the chair of the unfortunate that money may be raised to pay Louis Perrault & Co.'s exorbitant prices for a Contract, forced upon them by a majority of the members of the Corpora- tion of Montreal. Think of voting away $11,245.68 of the City Funds to aid a political hack. Louis Perrault & Co. tendered to do Presswork for $1.25 per 100 copies of each 8 pages, but he now claims that the $1.25 is for each 100 copies of a complete pamplilet or book ; that is, he now says he meant to print 100 complete copies of the Charter, a book of from 500 to 600 pages, for $1.25. This is a wonderful fabrication. I wonder if Louis Perrault now blushes for having made himself look like a fool. ■ II For Fair Play ! For JiLstice I ! ! 19 such larter, lid erf ul iving It required some effrontery to hazard such trickery, but it is in keeping with Louis Perrault's general acts throughout this scandalous business. It was given as a bait for the two mem- bers and the Chairman of the City Hall Committee. They swallowed it, even with more effrontery than Perrault could possibly muster. They voted the Contract to Louis Perrault & Co., and, by some mental reservation, they evaded the oath they had taken to protect the City Funds. I was near forgetting that the now notorious 3 had also the Opinion of two gentlemen, learned in the law, put before them. Had they read it I fancy they would have thrown it into their waste basket. If anything, it was more in favor of John Lovell & Son, than of Louis Perrault & Co., but Louis Pen'ault had plenty of money, — he paid for it. The delusions could only last for a moment. They were too barefaced, and the remorse that now haunts the 3 will follow them to their graves. I always understood that a coach and four might be driven through an Act of Parliament, but I wonder what kind of a coach could be driven through the Opinion of the two gentlemen learned in the law. Here it is : Translation. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND QUESTIONS. By 37 Victoria, chapter 51, Section 24, it is enacted that " the Council may " appoint so many committees, consisting of such members of the said Council " a» the said Council may think fit, for the better transaction of the business " before the Council, and for the discharge of such duties within the scope of " their powers, as may by the said Council be prescribed, but subject in all " things to the approval, authority and control of the said Council." This section is merely a reproduction of a similar enactment forming part of the former Charter of the City of Montreal, 14 and 16 Victoria, chapter 128 (1861). Conformably to the powers conferred upon the Council by the law above quoted, on the twelfth day of July, 1875, on a motion of Alderman Stephens, seconded by Alderman Holland, it was resolved : " That in future, the " Printing of the Corporation and the supplying of stationery shall be done " by contract, under the supervision of the City Hall Committee, who shall " make all the necessary arrangements to carry out this resolution, and who " shall for such purpose include in their annual appropriations a sufficient " amount to meet the requirements and wants of the different departments." Subsequently to the passing of that resolution, the City Hall Committee, having previously called for Tenders, entered into a contract with Messrs. Louis Perrault k Co. for the Printing and the Stationery of the City, for a period of five years. This contract was entered into by the city on the one 20 John LovelVa Expose and Appeal I part, and MeiwrB. Louis Perrault & Go. on the other, without any intervention whatever on the part of the Council in the taking^ into oonniduration and acceptance of the Teudera which were then Hubmittcd to the City Hall Committee. Sometime previous to the expiration of the said contract, to wit, on the twenty-third December, 1880, there is to be found in the minutes of the City Hall Committee the following entry : The specificaticiiiH for the Printing and Stationery being placed before the Committee, It was" Resolved that the same be approved of, and that Tenders be asked " and received up to the 7th January next at noon, for the City require- '■ ments in Printing and Stationery for a term of six years from the 1st *' January next, in accordance with samples and spocitications to be seen " at the City Clerk's oflBce ; each Tender, in order to be entertained, must " be accompanied by an accepted cheque for $1000, which cheque, in case " of Tenders not accepted, will be returned at once, and if acccpti d, shall " remain at the disposal of this Committee during the term of this cou- " tract, and that this Committee docs not bind itself to accept the lowest ♦• or any of the Tenders that may be made." In conformity with the resolution, public notices were given in the news- papers generally publishing the city advertisements, over the signature of the City Clerk, said notices being a textual reproduction of the above resolution. At a meeting of the City Hall Committee to consider the Tenders for the contract in question, held on the 28th January last, it was resolved that new Tenders be called for. On the Dth February, 1881, the Committee having met again to consider the question of the said contract, decided to reconsider the resolution of the ])reviou8 meeting asking for new Tenders, and after discussing the same, a(iopted the following resolution : •' That the Tender of Messrs. Louis Perrault & Co. being the only legal '• tender before this Committee, be accepted for a term of six years, in accord- '■ ance with the terms of the spucificatiou and advertisements calling for such '• tenders." Messrs. Louis Perrault & Co., in a letter addressed to the Mayor, to the Chairman of the City Hall Committee, to the City Clerk and to his assistant, iuformed those gentlemen that, in view of the acceptance of their Tender for supplying the printing matter and stationery, they were now ready to conform with the conditions and requirements of the specifications to which they had bound themselves by their said Tender. Since the acceptance of Messrs. Louis Perault & Co-'s Tender, the latter have executed certain works pertaining to the contract which had been granted to them by the City Hall Committee on the 9th day of February, 1881, and on the 26th March last the city paid over to Messrs. Louis Perrault k Co. $t)39.64 on account for part of the work and stationery under the new contract. The question now raised is: whether the City of Montreal is bound by tlio act of the City Hall Committee, who have duly accepted the Tender of Messrs. Louis Perrault & Co., who have commenced the execution and carrying out cf said contract ; and whether the Council can undertake to set aside the contract ectered into between its committee and said Louis Perrault t Co. Pi For Fair Play ! For Justice ! ! ! 91 OPINION. Before entering into the disousHion of the extent of the powers vested ip the City Hall Committee by the resolution of July the 12th, 18HI, it is proper to remark that, according to what is represented to the undersigned Council, for a number of years, and even long before the resolution of July 12th, 187fi, the various committees organized by the City Council for the special depart- ment necessarily required for the management of the affairs of the city, have been in the constant and invariable habit of contracting for the execution of the works under their control, without interference of the Council, to the knowledge of that body and under and with the sanction of its legal advisors. The City Hall Committee, in entering into a contract with Messrs. Louis Perrnult k Co., after the resolution of July 12th, 1876, which said contract has just expired, and for the renewal of which Tenders have been asked, as hereinabove stated, has therefore merely acted according to a long established custom. Supposing that this resolution of July 12th, 1876, was not sufficiently explicit, in virtue of the now well acknowledged principle that corporations, as well as individuals, may bind themselves by the tacit mandate that they may have delegated to one or more individuals, the custom admitted by the Corporation of Montreal to allow committees to enter into contracts for works pertaining to its various departments would give those committees a sufficient mandate to bind the Corporation. But in the present case, there has been not only a delegation of authority, but that delegation of authority has been made in the most formal and explicit manner by virtue of the resolution of July 12th, 1875. It is impossible to interpret that resolution in connexion with the other powers of the committee, in so narrow a sense that the committee's province is merely to discuss details, and that when the contracts have been discussed and decided upon by the interested parties and the committee, they should come before the Council for their sanction. This would be tantamount to a declaration that the City Hall, Finance, Road, Police, Water, Light, Market or any other of the standing committees are merely a collection of clerks, whose office it is to look into details and report to Council whenever there is any business to terminate or complete. If the City Hall Committee be not em- powered to enter into and complete the contract in question without the in- terference of the Council, neither is it authorized to engage the services of the engineer of the heating apparatus, neither is it empowered to engage mes- sengers nor keepers for the City Hall, nor any other employe whatsoever ever, for the most humble or least paid work, for each or all of those engagements are in fact contracts which, although not to be placed on a par, in connexion with the salaries attached thereto, with the amount involved in the contract for Printing and Stationery, constitute nevertheless transactions whereby that committee binds the City of Montreal without the interference of the Council. Objection may be made in regard to the duration of the contract ; this is a question whereof the committee is the sole judge ; it has been doubtless represented to the committee that the kind of work required by the city was of such a special nature that, if the contract was not granted for several years the materials required for the carrying on of the work being used for a limit- ii! 22 John LovelVa Exjtosi and Appeal ed timo, the partien who made the Tender would be compelled to ask for a higher price, and that it would be more advantageouB for the City of Mon> treal to contract for a number of yoara than for a limited period. The only rational definition of the powers of committees is that the Council, while preserving its control hy the fact that thoy alone grant the money appropriations asked by such committees, the latter make such use of the appropriations granted to them as they deem proper. So long as the general powers vested upon committees in using their ap- propriations shall not have been restricted or limited by a resolution of Coun- cil to that effect, so long also will those committees be enabled to bind the City of Montreal by the contracts entered into for the management of their respective departments. The amount and duration of the contracts which the committees may make being unrestricted by the Council, nothing but collusion or fraud could authorize the city to repudiate them. It is also the opinion of the undersigned counsel that the signature of the Mayor and Clerk of the City is in no wise necessary for the validity of the contract entered into by Messrs. Perrault A Co. and the City of Montreal act- ing through its committee. From the moment the latter had accepted Messrs. Louis Perrault & Co. 's Tender by the resolution of February 9th, 1881, the Contract stood perfected and complete between the contracting parties, in this manner that from that time Messrs. Perrault & Co. could not have with drawn their deposit of one thousand dollars, nor decline to proceed with the execution of the work for which they had tendered, without rendering them- selves liable to damages to the city. On the other hand, if the city decline to carry on with those gentlemen the contract that is now perfected and complete, the latter will have good ground for an action of damages against the city for breach of contract. Montreal, April 2nd, 1881. (Signed,) C. GEOFFRION, Counsel. I concur, O. LAFLAItlME, Q.C. With respect to the authority of Committees of the City Council, the power of the Council to appoint Committees is con- ferred by Statute, and the authority of the Committees is defined by the same Statute (37 Vict. cap. 51, sect. 24). By this sec- tion it is expressly declared that the acts of the Committees are to be " subject in all things to the approval, authority and con- trol of the said Council." The City Council did not really entrust the City Hall Committee with any greater powers than the Statute permitted, for by the motion of the 12th July, 1875, it was merely resolved *' that in future the printing of the Corporation and the supply- ** ing of stationery shall be done by contract " — contract with whom ? Clearly, with the Corporation, for the resolution goes on For Fair Play ! For Justice ! ! ! S3 to say : " under the 8Uj)ervimon of the City Hull Committee." That is to say, contracts, when they have received the ajyproval of the City Council, shall be executed under the sujyervision of the Committee. The opinion given by Messrs. Geoffrion and Laflamme admits that the Council retained full control and the power to ratify or reject contracts ; but it is pretended that " nothing but collusion •* or fraud could authorize the City Council to repudiate " con- tracts entered into by the City Hall Committee. " Collusion " is a term of wide significance, and it would not require a very elastic interpretation to make it applicable to a grave impropriety of a Committee, by which a contract for six years — the term of six successive City Hall Committees — was awarded to the highest tenderer, over the heads of three other large and responsible firms, at a wanton and needless expense to the City of about thirty thousand dollars. In the face of such flagrant waste of public money, collusion might without much stretch of fancy be suspected. But it is unnecessary to go so far ; since it is manifest that tha discretion of the Council, with respect to the approval or rejection of contracts, is not restricted. The Courts, as far as I am aware, have uniformly refused to hold the Corporation responsible for the acts of its Committees and officials, when these overpass the strict line of their functions, and it is quite preposterous to suppose that Louis Perrault & Co. have any claim for damages by reason of the resolutions of the City Hall Committee, unless it be against the individual members who so generously awarded them the Contract. Louis Perrault & Co., in the Tender now before the Corpora- tion, ask $5 per 100 for covers, etc.; John Lovell & Son ask $2.50 for similar covers, etc. But it takes two members of the City Hall Committee, with their Chairman, to vote that Louis Perrault & Co. must get S5 for what John Lovell & Son offer to do for $2.50. Tax-Payers ! look to this jobbery. You do not get any of the spoils. Louis Perrault & Co. ask $1.25 to print 100 copies ; John Lovell & Son ask 90 cents. Of course, the two members of the City Hall Committee, with the aid of their Chairman, give a preference to Louis Perrault & Co., thus defrauding the Citizens out of the difference. HF 24 John LovelVs Expose and Appeal Louis Perrault & Co. ask $7 per ream for Double Demy Paper ; John Lovell & Son ask $5.50 for similar paper. The two members of the City Hall Committee, with their Chairman, side again with their political hack. Louis Perrault & Co. ask $2 per 100 for Folding and Stitch- ing ; John Lovell & Son ask 30 cents for similar work. The same members go again for their political hack. They «ay they can't stop now. The public must be fleeced out of $1.70 more than John Lovell & Son offer to do the work foi' I need not say that thousands of sheets are folded for the Corporation. The Blotting Pads are worth mentioning, although Patrick O'Meara, Assistant City Clerk, omitted them in his calculation as being one of the items that can be dispensed with. Yes, because Louis Perrault & Co. tendered for them at $35 per gross, and John Lovell & Son at $15 per gross. Can the Corporation offi- cials do without Blotting Pads ? Oh, yes, say the Committee of 3, we have Mr. O'Meara's word for it. The items were only put in to frighten the Printers. I might fill pages with similar outrageous prices, but suffice it to say that Louis Perrault & Co.'s Tender, for the six years, amounts to SlOi,957y while John Lovell & Son's Tender amounts to only $64,936, for the six years. Go it. City Hall Committee of tivo, with your Chairman, — squander the Citizens' money. John Lovell & Son most respectfully presented two Petitions (see them on pages 44 and 56,) to the Council of the Corporation of Montreal, complaining of the extraordinary treatment (silent contempt) their Tender received from the City Hall Committee. The Petitions were burked without even being opened. Johu Ix)vell & Son fear that Alderman Gilman, although he voted for them, had a good deal to do with the burking, because all through the shuffling he showed a decided leaning in favor of Louis Perrault & Co. He twisted and turned whenever he could advance Louis Perrault & Co.'s position without being suspected. Well, I suspected him all through, and especially when he under- took to read my letter containing a very serious charge against Louis Perrault, George E. Desbarats, ex-Queen's Printer, and against Patrick O'Meara, Assistant City Clerk. (See letter on n For Fair Play ! For Justice ! ! ! 25 page 50.) While the City Hall Committee was sitting in full blast, at a suitable time I handed said letter to the Chairman, Alderman Kobert, who, while sitting in his chair, positively refused to either receive it or to allow it to be read, simply because he knew of its contents through Alderman Oilman, who received his information from Alderman Holland, to whom I communicated the contents. I am sorry to have to correct one of the Press Reporters in this matter. The fact was and is : the Committee had not risen when the Chairman rudely refused to read my letter. I was all the time in the room. On my asking : " Is there no one here to read it ? " Alderman Holland moved that Alderman Oilman take the Chair. He did ; I then presented my letter to him, when he said : "There isn't a quorum." On hearing this I rose and said : " Is there no gentleman here honest enough to sit down to form a quorum ? " Mr. Thomas Wilson did ; and, to my utter astonish- ment, Alderman Oilman got up, saying : " I forgot — I have an appointment," and he moved from the table with my letter in his hand. I instantly followed him, and snatched the letter from Alderman Oilman's hands, saying to him : " Oivo me my letter. You did not intend to read it." Notwithstanding my telling both Chairman Robert and Alderman (iilman that the City Exchequer was being robbed by Louis I'errault and his crew, I was treated with contempt by botli. I exonerate all the other members from any blame. They had to obey their Chairman. Imagine my mortification, when present in the Council Cham- ber, to hear a proposition to send John Lovell & Son's Petitions and my own letter back to the very same City Hall Committee who had burked them — for fnrtliei' consideration. Aldermen Greuier, Allardaud Oilman were sure that tlie Connnittee would act honedly. Was there any mental reservation here ? Did tliose gentlemen feel mortified or overjoyed when tliey heard of the silent contempt with which tlie Committee treated them. This time they were referred to Aldermen Dubuc and Oilman to report on them, but these two gentlemen shirked the responsi- bility by consulting the City Attorney, and he said that John Lovell & Son would have a perfect right to charge $8,988 for Drawing and Tracing Paper, in case the Contract was awarded to them. Surely Mr. City Attorney Roy did not know that John 26 John LovelVs Expo86 and Appeal Lovell & Son notified both Mr. Robb and Mr. O'Meara that they had tendered by the Moll and not by the Yard, and they even wrote in pencil opposite the items : Per Roll. Patrick O'Meara, Assistant City Clerk, might have told Mr. City Attorney Eoy that he rubbed out, with his own fingers, Per Roll, but unfortu- nately for himself he left sufficient to shew that John Lovell & Son had written, in pencil. Per Roll. May it not be suspected that the entry in the specification was a piece of premeditated trickery on the part of Louis Perrault and Patrick O'Meara. What a fine chance for Louis Perrault & Co. to step in ! What a lift for them ! I wonder if Mr. Roy gave a written Opinion. In this expose I have given the Ojnnion of two gentlemen profoundly learned in the law. If Mr. Roy will supply me with a copy of his Opinion, I will insert it, gratuitously, in the next edition of this expose. As it will be put into every house, gratuitously, the learned gentleman may get additional notoriety. Surely nine months ought to be sufficient for ordinary busi- ness men to decide a Contract, especially when$ll, 245.68 stands in f I vor of John Lovell & Son. This large sum is admitted by Louis Perrault & Co. The Committee of 3 cannot complain of the alacrity of the City Attorney. He was always on hand. I have now to deal with Patrick O'Meara, Assistant City Clerk. It is difficult to find suitable words to qualify his treachery and double dealing. Read his letter and statement on pages 15 and 16. When Patrick O'Meara penned this rigmarole letter he knew that he was stating what was false. He must answer for his duplicity at the bar of Public Opinion. He must be dismissed from the Public Service. I trust and pray that the Council of the Corporation of Montreal will put him on trial. His dismissal is sure to follow. Let them entrust the examination of Louis Perrault & Co.'s accounts to me, and I will undertake to put Louis Perrault, Patrick O'Meara, Assistant City Clerk, and George E. Desbarats, ex-Queen's Printer, in their true char- acters before the Tax-Payers. With reference to O'Meara's vile statement about the Drawing Paper, I positively declare that he knew and believed that John Lovell & Son tendered for the Drawing or Tracing Paper, for the Engineer's Department, at per roll ; as I had informed both him- For Fair Play ! For Justice ! ! ! 27 self and Mr, Robb of the fact. In the face of this fact, Patrick O'Meara put shame under his feet, and at the last moment made out his lying statement, after he had declared to myself, a few moments before the City Hall Committee assembled, that John Loveli & Son had the Contract, that his (O'Meara's) report was far more favorable to them than Mr. Robb's, and therefore he had declined to to sign Mr. Robb's report. I then believed that he was acting honestly, but when I heard of the above figures I resolved to make an example of him, and on Monday morning, at ten o'clock, I went to the City Hall. Mr. Glackmeyer happened to be in Mr. O'Meara's ottice, so was Mr. Gosselin, and shortly afterwards Mayor Rivard and an Alderman came in. I then asked Mr. Glackmeyer if Mr. O'Meara was in, and on being answered in the negative, I said to Mr. Glackmeyer : " I came here this morning to cowhide O'Meara. Do you know that Pen-ault is fleecing the City, and that O'Meara and Desbarats are heli)ing him ? I have a pamphlet in my posses- sion with Geo. E. Desbarats' certificate, on which an over charge of $84.57 is made. It is possible that another $84.57 is made on the French copy. I said further : " Mr. Glackmeyer, do you know what Perrault did with some of the over-charges ?" Mr. Glackmeyer seemed surprised and said : " I do not." " Well, I will tell you. He took O'Meara to a saloon, where Wine, Oysters and Cigars were ordered. Afterwards they had a drive, and they spent the evening at the Theatre." This clearly shows that Patrick O'Meara had an inducement for sinking his character to assist Penault. He also felt that he would be supported by the Committee of 3, and he began to feel that, if the Contract was awarded to John Loveli & Son, there would be an end to Wine, Oysters, Ci^'ars, Hides, Theatre Tickets, and perhaps to a little borrowed money occasionally, and espe- cially when each Quarterly Account was paid by the Corporation. Certified, of course, by the reckless Geo. E. Desbarats, ex-Queen's Printer. See three of his Certificates, on pages 81, 32 and 33, and read his infamous letter on page 33. On page 35, I will show up the deep laid plot of George E. Desbarats, ex-Queen's 28 John LovelVs Expose and Appeal Printer. A want of moral pluck made him sign the letter — what must his mortification and shame be now ? Neither Louis Perrault, nor Patrick O'Meara, nor Geo. E. Desbarats, supposed that such wholesale plundering of the City Exchequer would ever be discovered. The three pamphlets on which the certificates appear were handed to me as samples of the work John Lovell & Son would be required to do in case the Contract was given to them. Up to this time, every effort was made by the Committee of 3 and Patrick O'Meara, Assistant City Clerk, to secure the Contract for Louis Perrault & Co. But seeing no chance they went for new Tenders, although they knew and believed that John Lovell & Son were in every way entitled to the Contract. When the report that new Tenders were decided on reached the passage, where Louis Perrault and all the Tenderers were awaiting the decision of the Committee, then sitting, Perrault exclaimed : " / told my friends, in case they could not secure the Contract Jor tne, to go for new Tenders." Here Louis Perrault seemed to glory in his shame, without thinking that he was dragging Alder- men Robert, Wilson and Dubuc with him. Surely this whole matter must have been planned at the Caucus, held on the 9th of February last, at Alderman AUard's house, when Louis Per- rault, Patrick O'Meara, Aldermen Eobert, Allard and Dubuc were present. I should like to know where Alderman Thomas Wilson was at that time. Was he standing in Ste. Th^r^se street, looking up to Heaven and saying : " Je jure que je serai pret de fermer mes yeux, et de voter '^ pour Perrault ; mais si je ne pouvais pas r^ussir, je voterai " pour Sen^cal." MR. PERRAULT'S protest. " Wlicreas, moreover, Messrs. Jolin Lovell & Son have quoted tracing and " drawing paper on page .38 of Specification at two dollars, two dollars and " fifty cents, seven dollars and fifty cents, nine dollars, and eleven dollars " per yard (items 3, 4, 5,6 and 7 of said page), which prices for two rolls of " each kind, would represent a svmi of eight tiiousand nine hundred and F(yr Fair Play ! Far Justice ! ! ! '"iqTr29 " ninety-eight dollars, which sum only would prove higher than Mr. " Perrault's tender, and if these prices of Lovell & Son arc intended so much " per roll instead of so much per yard, tlieii the nienning of tlie Specitication " is altered again. " Whereas there can be no doubt in the mind of any unprejudiced pereon " that the items so quoted per yard in the said John Lovell & Son's [tender] " were so meant and understood by them in the hope that they would be " overlooked in order to make up for the very low and unprofitable charges " made by them for several of the items of said Specification, and conse- " quently their tender should not be entertained." The preceding extracts are given as a sample of this in- famous Protest. See the whole document on pages 58, 59, 60, »)1. It is a great curiosity in the way of effrontery and falsity. The Notary was crammed and paid by Louis Perrault, as he has j>lenty money. Perhaps no more outrageous production than this Protest was ever produced in any country in the world. Louis Perrault outdid himself in his false f. tatements. No man possessed of a spark of common decency could or would father them. But he had George E. Desbarats, ex-Queen's Printer, Patrick O'Meara, Assistant City Clerk, and a City Hall Committee of 3, to urge him on. Alderman Allard acting as Whipper-in. The prospect of again grabbing the Citizens' Funds drove shame from his thoughts. Think of an individual, who has been for years systematically, in conjunction with Patrick O'Meara and George E. Desbarats, fleecing the Citizens by over-charges, serving such a Protest on the Mayor, Aldermen, the City Hall Committee, the Auditor, and all others, threatening them with an action of damages, in case he should not get the Contract for six years. He, Louis Perrault, little knew, when he caused his libellous Protest to be served, that his robbery of the Citizens' Funds would be found out. He must answer to the Public and disgorge. He makes the obedient ex-Queen's Printer, George E. Des- barats, declare that the Presswork Louis Perrault & Co. intended to charge $287.50 for, should be only $54.38. George E. ■*1! ■ ffh 30 John LovelVs Expose and Appeal Desbarats, do try to lead a new life. Try to forget that you ever made yourself look so dishonest. Why go on ? You again declare that Louis Perrault & Co. would only charge $87 instead of $460 (the amount in their Tender) for Folding and Stitching. From my long knowledge of you I expected to see you come out of this scandalous business with credit to yourself; but I cannot hide my surprise at the course you have chosen. Look at your famous Certificates. Mike up your mind to blush and feel mortified before you look at them. In the first one you certify to an over-charge of $84.-57. In the next certificate you have certified to 200 copies 28 pages, Folding, Stitching and Cover .?5.50. Look at the opposite page, and you will see that you have certified to 200 copies 20 pages, for Folding, Stitching and Cover $6.50. Pretty reckless, allow- ing $1 more for 8 pages less- Were you not aware. Sir, that Louis Perrault & Co. were only entitled to $3.50 for each of these charges ? Louis Perrault will have to refund. He told me that neither you (George E, Desbarats) nor himself would allow the Public to be kept oiit of even a cent, whenever it was proved that over-charges had been made. He said he had plenty of money. Let me examine his accounts, with the sanction and authority of the Finance Committee, and I will give him a chance to get rid of some of his ill-gotten wealth. I fear he won't let me, because when I said I would petition the Council to have his accounts examined for the last five years, he seemed startled, but mustered courage, and dared me to try it. He said that neither the City Hall Committee nor the Council would ever allow his accounts to be examined. I said to him : " For your own sake, for O'Meara's sake, for Desbarats' sake, insist upon their beinw examined at once, and avert the scandal now hanging over all concerned." He set me at defiance, and bounced out of my office, threatening that O'Meara would send a police- man for the pamphlet. I may say that Mr. Perrault came to me to get the pamphlet on which I had discovered an over-charge of $84.57. He was not aware then that I had two other pamphlets, certified by George E. Desbarats. For Fair Play ! For Justice ! ! ! 81 ^ A^ ^ ^ //C>^^„^ A^fr^-p ^<:?. 4^^^ /^fffj^ ^i ^. C/^ ^^^f^-ut.^ ^^yCyo^Ca^^L^t^i^ ^^ ^^. ^»^ /f./^ [In this Certificate there is an over-charge of *84.57.— John fiUVELL.] On Louis Perrault leaving my office, I went to Alderman Grenier, Chairman of the Finance Committee, and told him that " Louis Perrault & Co.'s accounts were in a bad state, and that the only way to satisfy the public was to have them examined." I then said : " Alderman Grenier, as Chairman of the Finance Committee, you are expected to see that the Citizens' money is not wasted on unprincipled contractors. If immediate action is I 32 John Lovell'a Expose and Appeal 7 [In this Certificate there is an Over-charge of $4.48.— John Lovkll.] not taken, 1 will get up a Ee, and as a sheet of Double Demy paper contains 'A'l pages, the number of sheets would bo about 4,0;i(), which with allowance for waste would make 8J reams; — the particular figure attacked by Messrs. Lovoll. It was further ascertained that the total composition amounted to 2,010 m'dle emu. In applying to those quantities the prices quoted by the several appli- cants, I took, as bound by common sense to do, the e.tpln nations set forth in the letters written by the several firms in an-iwer Lo the question put to them by the City Clerk. Thus, Messrs. LovcU offered to do the work at !»0o per token of 27>0 impressions of 8 pages ; Sunecal at 15 cents and White at 10 cents per 100 impressions of 8 page>', whilst Porrault asked !J!1.2."< per 100 oipies of any pamphlet or b))k. In tho matter of folding and Btitching, Lovell asked HO cents, Senecal HJ cents, and White 10 cents, per 1(X) sheets of 8 pages, whilst Perrault quoted $l'.()() per 100 pamphl(;ts or books of any size. These letters clearly stated the above to bo their intention, and, whether absurd or not, the rates would have to be adhered to in each cane. In Lovell's case I took the 218 average copies of the pamphlets to he a token, and the HO pages to be 4 form?, which was in each case slightly against them. I now give the result, which the parties themselves and others in the trade, or out of it, for that matter, with the above data, can easily check. HEPORTS. Composition. Presswork. Paper. Foliliiig, etc, TotalR, LovpU , l.OO.) 00 Vi 00 4S 13 4!) 11 1,174 27 Scn<r. Poldini?, et;. TotaK Lovell ,'>:)1 00 2.17 00 :!15 00 1,0S;! 60 S<>ii(<'al.. .. ;171 70 99 00 420 00 23 10 ill:! SO Whitp 424 80 66 00 315 00 805 80 I'errault 424 80 12 60 420 00 857 30 In the above I havo not computed binding, not having been required to do so. The figures for the printing of the City Charter arc for the English Edition only, and must be doubled to get the cost of both English and French Editions. Seu('cal was the only applicant who charged separately for the folding and stitching of the City Charter, as distinct from the binding. It is easy enough from the above to ascertain whose tender for the six years is the lowest, on thfuc item", and I am prepared to maintain the accuracy of the figures. I go no further, and do not know how the result may or may not be modified by the sum total of the very numerous and important items contained in the Schedule. I remain, yours truly, GEORGE E. DESBARATS. For Fair Ploy ! For Justice ! ! ! 35 H5 45 so 30 red to nglish h and 3ly for ding. years acy of "ay not items Its. The innocent creature bet,'in3 by questioning Jolin Lovoll & Son's estiinato of the quantity of \m])er ii.sed l)y Louis I'urnvult & Co., in lust year's IJeports, and certifuHl us correct by (ieo. ¥j. Desbaruts. If hi.s statement of 8.f reams is now correct, why (lid he allow Louis Perrault & Co. to charj^'e for I'.V^ reams ? George E. Desburats says that he was ret^uested by Patrick O'Meara, Assistant City Clerk, to assist him (O'MearuK as expert, in determining a basis whereon to decide the merits of the several Teuders, and he (Desbarats) cf)nsented to do so. lie (Uesbarats) says ho was only reiiuested to examine the I'ublic Reports and the City Charter. All these statements I ludieve to b ; untrue. Let me ask you, Sir, are you the autiior (jf the letter bearing your signature ? lie candid. Sir. Was not tlio letter laid before you by Louis I'erruult and Patrick (J'Aleara ? And did they not stand on either side of you, each one with a revolver in his hand, saying: "Your signature or your life"? And did you not, Sir, prefer to prolong a miserable existence rather than act honestly ? You signed the letter. You must now abide the consequences. I must treat the following figures as being your production, as you signed the letter. If it can be proved hereafter that you signed it through fear of being assassinated, it is iiossible that the hard feeling which now exists against you may be softened down. But you can never again take the place in society which you formerly held, I believe that your own guilty conscience will unfit you for a social position. As far as the Reports and Charter go, here are your figures : JtCpOVtS. Comix)sition. Pre^^swirK. I'aper. Foldinvr, otc. T'ltiil-;. Lovell l,(K)r).()0 72.00 48.13 4'.t.U l,17t.L'7 Perrault.. 804.00 o4.;i8 Gl.2.5 87.00 l,(»(>t).t;:{ This HliewB Louis Perrault & Co. to be lower than John LoveU 3c Son by $l(;7.(it. City Charter. LoveU., Perrault Composition. 5:n.oo 424.80 I'rossworlc. 2;!7.00 12.50 Paper. 31,5.00 420.00 Totals. l,()s;{,(;i) 8.".7.;'.o Tlii9 shews Loui.s Perrault & Co. to be lower than John Lovell & Son by $lliii.;i(). Just after these figures the modest man says: "In the above I have not computed Binding, not having been reiiuired to do so." Well, George E. Desbarats, I will do it for you, and I will put the figures for the above items as they should be put. I am sitting quite alone writing this expos4. 86 John Lovell'ti Expose and Appeal No Louis rermult, no Patrick O'Meara, with revolvers at my head ; so I am at liberty to put the figures just as they ought to be. Let me first quote the words in your letter. They may be I'errault's and O'Meura's, but you, by your deliberate act, have fathered them. I need not keep you any longer in suspense. Here they are : " It is easy enough from the above to ascertain whose tender for *• the six years is the lowest on these items, and I am prepared " to maintain the accuracy of the figures. I go no further, and '• do not know how the result may or may not be modified by " the sum total of the very numerous and important items con- " tained in the schedule." George E. Desbarats, did you read those lines before you signed the letter ? Try to save yourself from disgrace. Give some excuse, if you can. Tell the truth. What was the in- ducement ? Was it the preservation of your own life ? Answer ? Now, Sir, I will give you the correct figures. Here they are : MepOrtS. composition. PreMwork . Pnper. Folding , etc. Totals. Perrault.. 740.00 IIB.OO 140.00 460.00 l,4r)5.00 Lovell.... 925.00 82.80 110.00 69.00 1,180.80 This sliews John Lovell k Son to be lower than Louis Perrault k Co. by $'i(iii.'20. Now for the figures for the City Charter. As I am interested I will add the Binding : ChCLVter. composition. Preaswork. Paper. Plain Binding. Gilt Binding. Totals. Perrault... 720.00 625.00 840.00 7C0.005 500.00 3,435.00 Lovell UOD.OO 450.(J0 630.00 300.001 175.00 2,455.00 Thi8 shews John Loveli k Son to be lower than Louis Perrault k Co. by $980 00. " It is easy enough from the above to ascertain whose tender for the six years is the lowest. — George E. Desbarats." Let me remind you, George E. Desbarats, ex-Queen's Printer, that the item of Binding, which you willfully omitted, has been put in by me. Eemember you designedly led the City Hall Committee of 3 astray. Great is your responsibility. Why did you not whisper to them that you willfully left out the Binding, for which Louis Perrault & Co. ask the enormous sum of S1250, and John Lovell & Son only ask $475.^ Perhaps you did, — and perhaps they did not want to hear you. Tell the truth. Was the Binding left out to aid Louis Perrault & Co. to get the Contract ? If so, you are responsible for all For Fair Play! For Justice ! I ! 87 the scandal. But I have brought to lij,'ht some of your famous Certificates. Loolv at them again. You will find them on pages 31, 32, 33. Don't they make you regret that you ever had anything to do with Louis I'errault ? Why do you say : *' I am prepared to maintain the accuracy of tliese figures. I go no further." Well, I think you went far enough. Perhajts day- light is dawning on you, and you are getting wiser. If so, I trust that there is still some hope for you. Lest you should not be quite satisfied about the Binding of the (charter, look at Patrick O'Meara's figures, on page 14. He took them from the tenders. They are genuine. I will repeat them. Here they are : Louis Porrault & Co., Plain Binding of City Charter 4i t( t( (^ilt ** ** *' '* John Lovell k Son, Plain Binding of City Charter II 11 It Gilt " " " " $700.00 r)Oo.()o 3(K).()0 175.00 1250.00 $i7r>.oo " It is easy enough from the above to see whose tender is the lowest." What do you say, George E. Desbarats, ex-Queen's Printer ? Give your opinion, and while preparing it, keep out of the way of Louis Perrault and Patrick O'Meara. Give it without any reservation. Put in the Binding, although your friend Louis Perrault tendered at $1250 for it, and John Lovell & Son's tender for the same Binding is only $475. Tax-Payers, look to it ! Insist on Fair Play ! George E. Desbarats, I cannot help repeating that you are a great deceiver. Now, I suppose you Mould like the st-a to swallow you up, so that there might not be even a chance to put up a headstone to your memory. Surely Louis Perrault and Patrick O'Meara would put up something in the shape of a cenotaph, and paint on it, " Here lies George E. Desbarats, ex- " Queen's Printer, and the famous Certifier of Louis PeiTault &; " Co.'s Accounts against the Corporation of Montreal. Voov "fellow, he was lost at sea and never found." I am sure tiie pair might devise something better in grateful memory of your Signature to the astounding Letter that bears your name. George E. Desbarats, take my advice and keep out of the presence of Louis Perrault and Patrick O'Meara. They have made you a deceiver ! ! ! w 38 John LoveWs Exposi^ and Appeal I in list quote some correspondence >vhich appeared in the Daily newspapers : — CORPORATION PRINTING. To the Editor of tlw MONTREAL Hkkald. Siu,— lu answer to the mauy comments and criiioiRms in Thr. Slur and other papers, permit me to say, by way of explanation and vindication : — Ist. The statement in The (lazrtte, to the effect that, by my having the contract for the Corporation printiupr, the city will be involved in an extra expense of $20,000 or even 8:i(),000, is most apparent nonsense. Why, Sir, the whole of the money paid to me by the Corporation during the last five years was $:i2,000 as per contract ; the present contract is about the fame amount, a little less in fact. If $30,000 can be made out of that, there is some way of doing it known to The Gazette, but not known to me 2ud. It has been said that I did not deposit the $1,000 as a condition of tendering. The truth is my accepted cheque was sent at the time tenders were asked for the second time. 3rd. I served two (2) copies of my protest, one on Mr. Glackmeyer, and one on Mr. O'Meara in the regular form. The object in sending two was to be sure that Mr. Glackmeyer (uluis City Hall Himnavck) would not have the power to show further hostility to me by withholding it from the Chairman of the City Hall Committee. 4th. It is said that I sent a person to Mr. Lovell with the offer of $1,0(X) if he would withdraw his claims, If Mr. Lovell will bring that person to me I will make him, Mr. Lovell, a present of $.'>,000, which would enable him to tender for another contract at a still lower rate. LOUIS PERRAULT. Montreal, February 10, 1881. To the Editor of the Montreal Heuald. SiK,— In your issue of to-day appears a letter from Louis Pcrrault, in which he offers ^.'ijOOO if I can produce the man he sent to offer me $1,000 to with- draw from the contest for the Printing Contract. In this connection I am prepared to report Mr. Perrault's own words to two gentlemen. Some days since, Mr. Pcrrault met these gentlemen, when the printing contract came up for discussion ; Mr. Perrault stated to one of them that he had offered Mr. Lovell a handsome sum to withdraw, but that Mr. Lovell was foolish enough to refuse his offer, seeing that the money would have helped to pay his debts, etc. He then stated to the same gentlemen that he had $4,000 ready in case the withdrawal of the other tenders could be secured thereby. I have permis- sion to furnish the names, provided Mr. Perrault deposits the amount he names for the benefit of some of our charitable institutions. Yours obediently, JOHN LOVELL. Montreal, February 11, 1881. For Fair Play! For Justice I ! ! 39 To the Editor of the Montreal Herald. Sir,— I cannot allow Mr. Perrault's impertinent and uncalled for allusion to me, in hia letter of yesterday, to pass unnoticed. I deny having shown any hostility to Mr. Perrault, as alleged by that gentleman. I interfered very little in the matter of those tenders, and in what, I ilid had but one object in view, that is to say, to see that Fair Play was (riven to every one, a fact which I flatter myself will be readily acknowledged by all the parties interested, save and except, of course, Mr. Perrault. I ara, Sir, Your humble servant, CHARLES GLACKMEYER, City Cln-k. Montreal, February 11, 1881. Opjwsite is Louis Perrault's letter offering me $5,000, and attacking Mr. Glacknieyer in an insolent manner, becau.se he most righteously refused to be a party to his (Terrault's) trickery. My answer and that of Mr. Glacknieyer, follow. The letters seem to have sobered Mr. Perrault. . I have heard no more of the $5,000, consequently I see no chance of getting the amount to be divided among our charitabhi institutions. Now that it is pretty well known how he acquired so much money, I am positive that none of the institutions would accept even a cent of the $5,000. It is possible that some of it may go back to the City Treasuj-er. As it will be looked upon as found nioi.ey, let it be appropriated towards getting our Citizens a Flower Garden, such as the Citizens of Halifax, N.S., now enjoy, a garden which probably is not surpassed for beauty and elegance on this continent. Let the Park Committee fence off a little of the Park and commence the work with the money returned by Louis Perrault for over-charges, — over-cliarges which Patrick O'Meara, Assistant City Clerk, and George E. Desbarats, ex- Queen's Printer, allowed him to make in the hope that the fact would never be discovered or found (uit. Put a motto over the entrance : Planted ivith Conscience Money ! I fancied I was through with Patrick U'j\Ieara, Assistant City Clerk. I find I have still a matter of some moment to mention. I mean the 11,000 voted to Patrick O'^Ieara, As.si.stantCity Cl^-rk, and mm of all work for the City Hall Committee, it tqipears that when ^Ir. Perrault presented the first accounts under his Contract with the Corporation of Montreal, they were found to 40 John Lovell's ExposS and Appeal \ f be in a frightful state in the way of over-charges. But Patrick O'Meara, Assistant City Clerk, was present to check them and to make startling reductions. This occurred time after time. The happy thought struck some of the members of the City Hall Committee that Patrick O'Meara, a well-paid Assistant City Clerk, ought to get some compensation for saving the City Exchequer from the rapacity of Louis Perrault & Co. So it was hinted to Alderman Holland that a proposal on his part to the Committee, to allow Patrick O'Meara 1200, extra, a year, to keep Louis Perrault honest, would be a graceful act. Worthy Mr, Holland thought so too ; so the proposal was made and carried unanimously. I suppose this was the only time Mr. Holland ever had a unanimous vote in the same City Hall Committee. Well, the accounts were regularly presented with fearful over-charges, which Mr. O'Meara, of course, cut down ; but until Louis Perrault & Co.'s accounts are put into my hands for examination, with all the vouchers, I shall be inclined to believe that the over-charges were pre-arranged so as to give Mr. O'Meara something to do for his extra $200 a year to keep Louis Perrault honest. Consider, Tax-Payers, that Patrick O'Meara, Assistant City Clerk, has received in the last five years $1,000 for all(j\ving Louis Perrault & Co. to make outrageous over- charges ; and in the same accounts, O'Meara made a few deduc- tions, sufficient to satisfy the City Hall Committee that O'Meara was saving the City Exchequer to a very large amount. I will name a couple of items that have come to my knowledge. Take the item of Factums that Louis Perrault & Co. tendered to do for f 1.35 per page, and which the Lovell Printing and Publishing Co. tendered, at the same time, to do for $1.05 per page. In their first account Louis Perrault & Co. made a charge of $3 a page for said Factums, and by the advice of Patrick O'Meara, and the unanimous consent of the City Hall Committee, it was decided, for peace sake, to settle the matter by allowing Louis Perrault & Co. $2 a page for what they had tendered to do for $1.35 ! Then there was the Covering and putting on, which Louis Perrault & Co. tendered to do for $1.75 per hundred ; the Lovell Printing and Publishing Co. tendered to do the same work for $1 per 100. It is notorious now that Louis Perrault has been charging for For Fair Play ! For JuMice ! ! ! 41 said Covers for the last five years nearly double the amount he was entitled to, and the well-paid Patrick O'Meara has, at the end of five years, left this outrage for me to discover. See Geo. E, Desbarats' Certificates on pages 32 and 33 of this expose. Tax-Payers, won't you insist upon the refunding of the amount of this over-charge and of all other over-charges to the City Ex- chequer ? Mr. Perrault is quite anxious to return it. Put the accounts in my hands, and he, perhaps, will have to disgorge a good deal of his ill-gotten wealth. As I have already said, let $2,000 of it go towards a Flower Garden on the Park. Before I close my remarks on this matter, I must say that while I was seeking information anent the Tenders, in the different offices of the City Hall, Mr. O'Meara, being in good hunor, voluntarily took about half-a-dozen of Louis Perrault & Co.'s checked accounts from a pigeon hole, so as to show me the trouble he had in keeping Louis Perrault honest. He pointed out many deductions, and he said, at the same time : " The poor devil often makes mistakes against himself, consequently I try to make the amount good to him." I then thought that the over-charges could bear the deductions and still leave Mr. Perrault a good margin of spoil. The Tenders seemed to be almost entirely ignored. Sometime afterwards, when I spoke to Mr. O'Meara about some of the over-charges I had discovered ; he said he had nothing to do with them, as the Committee had appointed Mr. Desbarats to check them. By this time, I suppose, he (O'Meara) entirely forgot that he had undertaken to keep Louis Perrault honest for $200 extra a year of the Tax-Payers' money. Surely i 1,000 for five years ought to have spurred him up to acquire a knowledge of how to count the work. To a man of ordinary ability, a week would suffice to acquire a good knowledge of the manner in which Printing work is counted, especially when there is a Tender to be carried out. Tax-Payers, use your influence towards causing Louis Perrault & Co.'s accounts, with the vouchers, for the last five yeai-s, to be put into my hands for examination. The labor on my part shall be gratuitous. If I can save $2,000 for a Flower Garden, I humbly pray that any amount saved over the $2,000 be If ''!.' i)>^ 42 Jolin LoveU's Expose and Appeal handed to a few of our chaiitable institutions, to be named by His Worship the Mayor. Of course the neet'ssiuy order must be obtained to enable me to enter on the work ollieially. The vouchers must accompany the items iu the accounts. Now is the time, as Mr. Perrault says he has plenty of money. On this subject I may mention that I recently addressed a letter to Alderman Stepliens. In case he does not succeed with the Finance Committee, you, Tax- Payers, must use your individual influence with the City Hall Committee. A good deal is accomplished by influence. Just read my letter to Alderman Stephens. Here it is : JOHN LOVELL'S VOLUNTARY OFFER TO EXAMINE LOUIS PERRAULT & CO.'S ACCOUNTS. George \V. Stei>hkns, Esq. Dear Sib, — As you take a very praiseworthy interest in the honest disposal of the Citizens' Funds, I trust you will continue your good work by obtain- ing permission from the Finauoe Committee, that I may examine Louis Per- rault & Co. 's accounts ajraiiist the Corporation of Montreal, I'or the last five years. I seek no other compensation than the satisfaction of comparing the charges therein with what I, as General Manager of Lovell Printing and Publishing Co., offered to do the same work for five years ago, when I w^as tricked out of the Contract. Further, I want the authority of the Finance Committee, of which you are a member, for the purpose of making a comparison of Louis Perrault & Co.'s charges with their Tender of that time ; and I expect of course that the vouchers will be forthcoming. I have no hesitation in saying that the result will give the Coi"i)oration at least $2,000 of overpaid money towards a Flower Garden. All that may be found over this amount I would respectfully suggest should be divided amongst u ijw of the City Charities, to be named by His Worship the Mayor. This would give Mr. Louis Perrault a chance of returning all the money he has over-charged in Louis Perrault & Co.'s accounts. I may say that in a conversation with Mr. Louis Perrault, some time ago, I accused him of making over-charges, when he assured me that, if it could be proved that either himself or Mr. Desbarats had, iinfortnnutrly, made any over-charges, he, Louis Perrault, would return the money, as he had plenty. Please try to give him a chance, and oblige. Yours obediently, JOHN LOVELL. Montreal, Ist September, 1881. I trust that the City Hall Committee has, ere this, removed Patrick O'JVIeara from the office of Printing and Stationery Clerk, and that they have recommended Mr. Gosselin, a worthy, sober For Fair Floy ! For Jvffue ! ! ! 43 money ELL. and upright officer, whose long experience in Mr. Glackmeyer's department entitles him to tlie appointment, and more especially as he has already a good knowledge of the work required by the Corporation. Fortunately there is no Contract in force now, so Mr. riossolin would be master of the position, and could insist on f.di trade prices from whomsoever may be called on to do t!i ■ u ivi:, until the Tenders, now before the Corporation, are finally Jciiil (l uu. I would advise Mr. Gosselin to look after the Blank Uooks. In the new Tenders, Mr. O'Meara insisted on 10 quire bo.>ks, while 6 and 8 quire books, generally, were in U3e in th;'. different offices. Wherever the Tender is for 10 quire books koc that the Tax-Payers get full value for their money. The specifications are of such a voluminous nature that it required a long time to ferret out all the items and to get samples. The whole scheme of making out such lengthy sjieci- fications was to frighten the Printers of the City from tendering, and it appears that the trick was successful, as there were only four Tenders sent in. When Patrick O'Meara, Assistant City Clerk, was asked why he inserted so many items, when one quarter of them would have been sufficient for the purposes of tendering, he said he could not help it; that Perrault insisted on idl the items being put in. The volume of them would deter the Print(;i-s. Fellow Citizens, don't you begin to think that Patrick O'^Ioara is an obedient tool? I hope he has had his coiiy^ ere this. V>y l)is arts all through this scandalous business he has succLcdeil in un- fitting himself for any place of trust. Louis Perraidt ought to adopt him as a pensioner for the remainder of liis days. Now that I have put the actual state of the Tenders of Louis Perrault & Co. and of John Lovell & Son before the City Hall Committee, let me suggest that it would be a graceful act for the Committee to reconsider all previous decisions, and to vote the Contract to John Lovell &Son, even for one yenr. It is clear that the City Hall Committee have been deceived aa.l badly advised. Now is the time to make the conspiratoi's wince by giving the Contract to John Lovell Sc S(m. It would be a graceful act, and, what is more, it would be an act of simple u John Lovell's Expose and Appeal IMS it I ! justice. As Mr. Perrault, from his long experience, is thor- oughly posted in Corporation charges, or rather in charges made against the Corporation, for Printing and Stationery, John Lovell & Son express their willingness to have their accounts, under the new contract, submitted to him for revision and correction. I canr^r,^ close this long and painful expose without offering my _nost suicere thanks to the gentlemen at the head of depart- ments in the City Hall, and to their assistants, for the courteous manner in which they answered the frequent demands I was compelled to make upon them, almost daily, during the time I was beeVin,^ lu^cmation anent the Tenders. Fellow Cit./.^^. -Tax-Payers, In this cxpuhi I liave endeavored to vindicate the position of John Lo f^ll & Soj; i,\ relation to the Tenders, and to put before you a lull « d J.j i .utement. The figures tell their own tale. Deal with the cise a. l.e- jmes men and citizens. Insist On Fair Play ! On Justice ! ! On the honest distribution of your money ! ! ! And allow me to remain, Your obedient servant, JOHN LOVELL. Montreal, 27th September, 1881. To the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Montrceal : THE PETITION OF JOHN LOVELL & SON, OF THE CITY OF MONT- REAL, PRINTERS AND PUBLISHERS, Respectfully Sheweth : That Tenders were recently invited by theCiTY Hall Committee op the City Council for executing the Printing and for supplying the Stationery required for the City departments, for a term of six years. That your Petitioners, believing it to be the desire and intention of the said Committee, in order to procure the most favorable terms for the City, to submit the said Contract to fair and open competition, proceeded to make a minute examination of the Specifications and to prepare a careful estimate of the prices at which they would be ready and willing to assume and carry out the said Contract, and they duly submitted a Tender therefor, and complied with all the conditions which had been prescribed in relation thereto. That at a meeting of the City Hall Committee, held on the 4th day of January last past, the several Tenders for the said Contract were opened by the said Committee, and the same were then and there referred to a Sub-Committee, For Fair Play ! For Justice ! ! ! 45 I composed of Mr. William Robb, City Auditor, and Mr. P. O'Moara, AnHifltant City Clerk, with instructions to make an examination thereof, and to report at the next meeting of the said Committee as to which of the said Tenders was the lowest. That at a further meeting of the City Hall Committee, held on the llth day of January last, the Report of the Sub-Committee was laid before the meeting, and the said Report showed that the Tender which had been sub- mitted by your Petitioners was considerably the lowest. That a motion was then proposed that the Contract be awarded to your Petitioners, but, as they are informed, and have reason to believe, Mr. O'Meara interposed, and submitted a Comparative Statement of prices for certain items in the several Tenders, which exhibited a considerable variance of rates charged for such items. That this Comparative Statement did not alter or affect in any way the fact that the Tender submitted by your Petitioners was the lowest, but the City Hall Committee were thereby induced to defer the adoption of the resolu- tion by which the Contract would have been awarded to your Petitioners, who were fairly entitled to the same, and it was decided that a further investiga- tion of the several Tenders should be made before the Contract was finally awarded. That such examination was made by the Sub-Committee, and the result thereof was embodied in two several reports and laid before the City Hall Committee at a further meeting of the said Committee, held on the 28th day of January last past. That the Report which was submitted by Mr. Robb indicated that the Ten- der of Mr. Senccal was the lowest by $164 on the whole six years, but that, allowing your Petitioners the beaefit of the explanation as to the presswork which they and the other parties tendering were requested by letter to make the tender of your Petitioners would be the lowest by $1200. To this sum there should be added in their favor and against Mr. Seuecal : on Letter Books $400 ; on Paper for Charter $140 ; on Drawing Paper $183.72 ; on Composi- tion $HCO, showing, at least, $2,170 below Messrs. Senccal & Co. on the six years. This is without taking into consideration 24 items on page 34 and 84 of Specifications, for which their prices are filled in, while MessrH, Senecal & Co. have left those items in blank. That the explanations and statements submitted in writing by your Peti- tioners, and which were read at the said meeting, established beyond all doubt that the Tender of your Petitioners was the lowest. That Mr. OMeara also submitted to said meeting a statement by which it appeared that the Tender of your Petitioners was the lowest by $2,04(5.78 for the whole six years. Here are his totals : Perrault, $4 l,7r)l ; White, $;i8,05r).92 ; Scndcal, $:{fi,634.70; and Lovell, $34,687.62 J but he also produced an erroneous and misleading estimate, supplementary to such statement, in which. by calculating the price given for five items of Engineering Department Draw- ing Paper as per ijard instead of PER ROLL as is the invariable practice in the trade, he made the Tender of your Petitioners to appear about $8,900 higher than any other, on these items, while he knew that the charge made by your Petitioners would not exceed $384 in six years. That such a mode of calculation, by which a sum of $8,988 would api)ear to be asked for the said items, was grossly absurd and incredible on its face. ill 46 John Lovell's Expand and Appeal it being well known that the sum of $50 per annum has hitlicrto been more than sufDcicni, toBupply the requirements of the Engineering Dupartment as to this (loHcription cl' paper. That your Petitioners had previously explained to Messrs. Robb and 0"Mcara that they had tendered for haid items yy^v- roll, that being the only way in which the Tender could properly be made, as is well known to all persons in the trade ; and they Ixjth acknowledged that they had so understood the Tender. In fact the Speeificavion reads after the de scription of th ese items 2>cr r oll of 24 nardf. That tlic statement produced bv I\Tr . O'Me ara as to t he s aid it ems was a gross misr(^pr(!seiitatiou of your l'etitio7iers' Tender, and they are at a loss to account for his apparent bail faith in making such an absurd ealciiliiliiii. iuul thereby misleading ( Hi m ' ('pmni That the said Committee, being thereby taken by surprise and completely deceived as to the merits of the Tenders, were induced to reject the Tender of your Petitioners, and to resolve upon calling for new Tenders. That subs'jquently, viz., on the 8th day of February instant nw)uth, your Petitioners and the otlier parties who tendered for the said Contract, were requested by t!:e Chairman of the City Hall Committee to send back their tenders to the said Committee, which request your Petitioners immediately complied with. That at a I'urther meeting of the City Hall Committee, held on the 9th day of February instant month, when five members only were present, to the great amazement of your Petitioners, a Resolution was adopted, b y the casting vote of the Chairman , awarding the said Con tract to Lou is Perrault & Co. That the sole ground u^iou which the Committee could liave arrived at such a decision was the absurd supposition, which is repeated and re-assertcd in a false ami I'ljollous Prot( st served upon the Committee by Mr. Perrault, on the !)th day of February insiaut month, that your Petitioners intended to charge for the paper above mentioned per yard at the rate which they had quoted Pkb Roll, that is to s;ay, that they had proposed by their Tender to charge about 89,000 for items which would be worth less than S'lOO. That sucli a d>cision is grossly unjust to your Petitio ners, who wcsre clearly entitled to have the Contract awarded to them by reason of their Tender being unquestioTia lil y the lowest, as is, indetul, un iversally admitti d l)y tlu; trade. That it is in the public interest that the lowest Tender from a party com- petent to carry out the Contract, and able to furnish the required security, shall be accepted. That otliervvise the system of submitting Contracts to jjublic competition will fall into disrepute and contempt, and those who would be disposed to send in Tenders will abstain from doing so, from fear of being trilled with and such neglect to compete will prove highly detrimental to the interests of the City. That till! highest tribunal of this Province, in a case recently determined, animadverted in strong terms upon an instance of bad faith, on the part of a public body, in enacting the farce of calling for new Tenders, in order to For Fair Play ! For Juat'ice ! ! ! 47 clearly iLT being ipctition [)U,Srd to ed witli interests promote the intereHt.s of a favored competitor, and j'our Potitionera hope that this worwhipful body will not sanction any similar injustice. That your Petitioners, being aggrieved by the action of the Committee aforesaid, desire to lay their case before the Council, in the expectation that the Council will exorcise their auUinrity. under Sec- 21 of tln' Charter, and that your Petitioners will obtain redress, and that the said Contract will bo duly awarded to thorn. And to this end your Petitioners chal- lenge the strict ,.st investigation, confident that the statements hcreiu above set for'h will be found true in every particular. Wherefore your Petitioners pray that tlie City Council will be pleased to institute an iuciuiry into the matters herein above st^t forth, and to investigate the merits of the respective Tenders and to award the Contract aforesaid to your Petitioners as the lowest tenderers for the same. And your Petitioners will ever pray. JOHN LOVELL k SON. Montreal, 1 1th February, 1881. PRINTING CONTRACT. To the Editor of the The Daily Star. Sin,— In your issue of the 10th instant, you have inserted a Protest laid before the City Hall Coramittoo on the 'Jth instant on behalf of L. Perrault & Co. The statements contained in this document are so entirely unfounded, that it is dtiUcult t o sup p)se tha t the y could have ha d a ny in lluenee what- ever upon the Committee, unless they were simply intemled to hDlstiu- \ip the c mclu-^ion at which the majority o f the miimbors hadalready arrived, v'l/,. : t hat, rightly or wrongly, Mr. Perrault should get the contract. ThiS Committee had previously decided to call for new tenders. Becoming a littlo bolder, they suddenly added to the injustice of rejecting our timder. which was by far the lowest, the additional wrong of accepting Mr. Pcrrault's, which was considerably the highest of all tha t had been submittiul. The ess parte statements of Mr. Perraulfs protest were the only ba.^is on which this new departure could have been resolved upon. With your permission, then, Mr. Editor, we will examine briefly the contents of this paper which appears to have exercised so potent a n influence over the mimls of the Comm'ttee. Mr. Perrault claims that his tender for press work was $1.2.") per 1(H) copies of any report or book, no matter how many pages it might contain. This pretension on its face is utterly absurd. The proposed Charter will be over TiOO pages, yet Mr. Perrault would have the Committee believe that he intended to charge for the presswork of this thick volume at no higher rate per copy than an 8 page report. We leave those who have any knowledge of the trade to form their own judgment of this interpretation, simply remarking that it is in complete contradiction with Mr. Perrnult's own practice i n th e matter of presswork. in his past dealings with the Corp iration. One might be inclined to suspect that the specifications were purposely left vague in order that, if occasion required it, an unusual and utterly improbable interpretation might be put upon these items in the interests of a favored competitor^ Then, as to the item of folding and stitching ; Before filling in our price 48 John LovelVs ExposS and Appeal wo took the trouble to ask for an explanation, and were informed by the ABsiHtant City Clerk that this item was to be underHtood an 100 copies of each 8 pages. Mr. Perrault was no doubt as well informed on this head as we were, yet he now declares in his protest that he meant 100 copies of any report or book, whether i t contai ned 8 pngvm or 800 pages. It is hardly necessary to point out that the value of folding and stitching is increased very materially by the thickness of the book on which the work is done. If any member of the Committee is able to arrive at a different conclusion, there is reason to suspect that his parception has been blunted by devices not apparent to the ordinary observer. We have already shewn pretty clearly the character of the statements which Mr. Perrault has put forth in his protest. But let us take another specimen. He pretends that the calculation of the amount of paper required is too high, and docs him an injustice. We answer that the quantity estimated is very close to the mark, and even if it were not, all the other tenders would have to be reduced as well as that of Mr. Perrault, yet he gives himself credit for a reduction calculated at the full price per ream, instead of allo:ving merely the difference between his price and that of the other tenderers. Thus, Mr. Perrault's price is $7 per ream ; our price f .}..50 per ream. On the quantity estimated by himself and Mr. Desbarats, he should take credit for 11} reams at $1.50 per ream; amounting in one year to $10.87; in 6 years to $101.22. But Mr. Perrault takes credit for five times this amount - Apart from this, Mr. Desbarats' estimate of the quantity of paper required is evidently unreliable. He estimates 8f reams for one year's Reports, whereas for Reports alone, printed last year, Mr. Perrault was paid for 12j reams. The actual quantity of paper required for the Reports printed last year is found by careful count to be 12 reams 16 quires. This variance in one item does not say much for Mr. Desbarats' accuracy. On these and the like frivolous pretexts Mr. Perrault claims to have his tender reduced by several thousand dollars. But, unfortunately, these explanations of his are at variance with his actual charges during the last contract, and they are also in contradiction with his frequently reiterated declarations since the present tenders came under discussion,— to the effect that his tender was too high, and that he could not ex pect to get the contract ; that he had given up hope, &c. He stated both to Mr. Lovell, sen., and to Mr. Senccal, at the close of one of the meetings of Committee, that he wa s not intpresticd in the battle now, and that it virtually rested between Mr. Senecal and Mr. Lovell. And Mr. O'Meara, notwithstanding the extraordinary interest which he has exhibited in Mr. Perrault, repeatedly made observations to the same effect, remarking that Mr. Perrault was too high altogether. At the close of the meeting, on the 28th ult., at which the Committee resolved to call for new tenders, Mr. Perrault admitted that, on seeing how high his tender was, he had told his friends on the Committte " t<> go for new tenderit." Yet we now find Mm, twelve days later, protesting against new tenders being asked for, and claiming the contract on pretexts, the utter unsoundness of which, from beginning to end, we have exposed above. In the latter part of his protest, Mr, Perrault has repeated the ridiculous mis-statement that the price which we quoted per roll for items, 3, 4, 5, 6 and For Fair Play ! For Justice ! ! ! 49 7, EnRincer'B Department (page HH of HpeciflcationH), wa^intended ns the price per yard. From this ho infers that th(i cost to the city for these items would bo $8,!(I»H in Mix yeurs, aiul thiit our tenilur was inf-uded to miKleivd and t-atrap the Coinmittee. Wi; have no hesitiitioTi in sayiuf^ that 3Ir. Perrault, iu makiiiL'' tliis statement, has asserted what he knows to he false, and we brand his statement r,s a nmlicicMis libel njion our firm, iTiti'iichid to cover up his own intri{,'ues iu couuection with this coutriwt. It was perfectly understood all alouj,' by Mr. Ilobb and Mr. O'Meara tliat our tender for these items was pir mil, and not per yard, and thi^y both aeknowledKed that they so understood our tender. In fact, the specification reads, after the descrip- tion of these items : jirr roll of tircntij-four yiiriln. It may be achled that the ofHcials in the Eri giiuier's Dep artment state posi tively t ha t th(^ paper in questi on is always ordered by the roll and not by the yard, and we ma y atld that the cost of these ])apcrs t<^ the En^fineer's Department has never gmounttid to $I(H) per annum. We based our prices on a price list, furnished by Messrs. Sharpley & Sons, quoting the price per roll. No other construction was ever put on our tender until the meeting of Committee held on the 2Sth January, when Mr. O'Meara suddenly produced a statement, in which by taking the price quoted per roll as the price per yard, he figured up !|SH,.S printed page.s — aiul whether 3Ir. Perrault had not a hand in thi-; — — IHnil ■win 1 MTIUMIIMI — I glJM MM IWWM ■■■— ■IIM—^— — ^IMMMllllM^^—^Bl^lll IMiaW^^— — business , s o as to frig hten awayfamderers and restrict the competition to as narrow a circle as possible. But we abstain from entering into matters outside of the question. We will only add a word upon one point. It has been said that nothing could be done now to remedy the wrong that has been inflicted on us by the action of the Committee. Permit us to say that this is an error. The Committees of the City Council have not the powers once' arrogated by Boss Tweed and his associates, to make away with the citizens' money. Their action is subject to the authority of the Council, as sect. :24 of the Charter expressly enacts. We app eal, then, to the Council for redress and entreat them n ot to sanction a j ob w hi ch has a wa kene d the deepest indignation iu the co mmunity. The amount of money at .stake is very con- siderable, but the evil precedent that will be afforded for similar jobs in the future is of more importance still. We can bring up evidenci, to show that Mr. Perrault relied upon underhand means to secure this contract over the heads of all the other parties who tendered, and that he considered he coukl afford to pay handsomely for the sake of buying off opposition. We have refused to be parties to any such arrangement, and we intend to appeal to the Council for redress. Yours obediently, MoNTEEAL, nth Feb., 1881. JOHN LOVELL & SON. 50 Jolm LovdVtt Expo8i and Appeal t >i I ! I Tutlw Mttyorand Alderiaitn of tho City 0/ Mantrfiil : Orntlemkn, Tho following letter was banded by mo to the Chnirman of the City Hall Comiiiitt«!e, at the meeting of tho Committee on the "ith innt. I reprot to say that thiH gentleman poMitively refused to receive it or allow it to bo read. I now beg that the Council will be pleaned to take immediate action thereon. Your obedient servant, JOHN LOVELL. Montreal, 14th March, 1881. To Alderman Robert, Chairman City Hall Committee, Dear Sir, Through the kindness and courtesy of yourself and tho other members present of the City Hall Committee, I, with others interested in the contract for Printing and Stationery, hwl au opportunity of being present yesterday while the City Auditor was reading his reply to the charges matle against him in a Notarial Protest served on your Committee at a mooting held on the yth February last, at the request of Mr. Louis Perrault. With your permis- sion I would submit tho following observations : Mr. Robb, in his reply, clearly showed the unfitness of Mr. 0:?sbar.its to certify to the correctness of Mr. Perraulfs charges lor paper used in the reports of the various departments of the Corporation. In this particular I have no hesitation in saying that Mr. Robbs statonieut is correct. My main object, however, m the present communication is to direct tho attention of the Committee to a letter from Mr. Perrault, which was read by the Assist- ant City Clerk at the meeting of yesterday. Mr. Perrault states in this letter that his chargrs for the work done by him since the 14th of December last, and for that, which may be done until the final decision of the Council upon the present Tenders, will be in ac cordance •"vith his previous charges. If by this he means his charges as certified by Mr. Dcsbarats, I must respectfully request that said letter bo not received by your Committee or acted upon until Mr. Uesbarats' certificates of Mr. Perraulfs charges during the last five years shall have been submitted to competent printers for a thorough examination and comparison with tb(! prices stated in Mr. Perraulfs tender for the work in question. In this request I make no wanton ch irge : I have in my possession clear and positive proof of Mr. Desbarats' unfitness to certify the correctness of Mr. Perraulfs charges. In one report alone Mr. Desbarats has certified to the correctness of Mr. Perraulfs charges, although these charges were $84.57 over and above the amc ant he was entitled to according to the prices stated in his tender. i!i Perraixlt'e 368 stated For Fair Play ! For Justice ! ! ! 51 In or(l«^r to nhow thiH clearly I bog to append a brief re»um6 of the report in quoHtion Jfi'/wrf 111 rhiirtitil hii Mr. J'rrrtiiiff. 600 plea— no p«ge«. m.lM pms, nt40c »209 06 21 Tokens ai 00 4j HcanH 2(i 00 Foliling, .Stitcliiiig and Cover 11)60 CO Extra Koports . CertiUed correct according to prices of Tender, OEOKGE E. DE8HARATS. Mr. Prrrmilf irnx rntitlidfo charqr n* iiniirr Vi m •288 16 600 copies— 110 pageo. ems, at 40c 8141 09 21 00 352,738 21 TokenH 4;! Keama Folding, Stitching and Cover 60 Extra Ilcports. 26 00 10 60 llt8 6« 6 00 S2U3 69 Amount cprtified as correct by Mr. Desbarats |288 16 Amount Mr. I'errrault U entitled to according to prices In lilsti'nder 203 59 • Amount of over cliarge on tblg Report ^Ht 67 It appears from the above that the ocrr-rhiiri/r on this report amounted to $8 l.uT, or over 40 per cent. The Freneh version of the same report, it may be assumed, has l)'jeii chari^ed foraud certitied ou the same basis. I give this as a specimen of the charges which Mr. Desbarats has certified to be correct. AVheu it is considered that there are some twenty different reports printed annually for the Corporation, there is good reason to believe that the over- charges similar to the above would, during the last five years, amount to a considerable sum of money. It is also deserving of note that the Factums which Mr. Perrault has printed for the Legal department of the Corporation have been charged at the rate of 52 per page, while, according to the terms of his tender, he would not be entitled to charge more than liSl,;i5 per page. This shows an over-charge of *!."< cents per page on all the Factums printed for the City during the pa.st five years. I beg to suggest, therefore, that it is desirable, in the interests of the City, that a strict investigation be had as to the charges and the certificates therefor under the last contract, in order to determine the amount of the over-charges, with a view to such further action as may be deemed necessary When I directed the attention of the Assistant City Clerk to these charges in excess of the rates per tender, he declared that he was not competent to check the charges ; that the Committee had apijointed Mr. Desbarats for the purpose, and he therefore considered Mr. Desbarats alone responsible. I may i iiS If I Wit 52 John LovelVs Expose and Appeal bo permitted to Hay, in this connection, that the ability to check such charges maybe very easily acquired by anyone of ordinary intelligence, who is willing to do his duty ; and, without at all presuming to advise the Committee, I would say that, in my opinion, the responsibility of checking the charges should rest with the olhcial who has charge of the Printing and Stationery department- If this system were adopted the responsibility for errors or irregularitie-i would fall upon the o'aicial to whom it properly belongs. I would only beg leave to add that Mr. Perrault's present interpretation of Presswork m in striking contrast to his own practical interpretation of it, as shown by his charges under the last contract, which were per token of 10 quires, and not a uniform charge for any book or report, irrespective of the number of pages it might contain. I am, dear Sir, Your obedient servant, JOHN LOVELL. Montreal, 4th March, 1881, City Auditor a Rtpl;/ to Mr, PerrnuVs Charges. M. '!< !i ;l III ll i I 1,«^ Charge. — That item No. 52 in Auditor's report makes " Press- work " $287..">0 while the same item, calculated by Mr. Desbarats, shows only (31.38 Ansjver. — In the Specifications submitted for completion, item No. .52 reads as follows : " Presswork per 100 Impressions." This phrase being a technicality of the Printing business, I had to ascertain what quantity it implied before I could proceed. In order to this I addressed a note to each of the tenderers asking for a definition. I supposed the same answer would be returned by each, but communicated with all to avoid the appearance of partiality. Messrs. White and Senccal replied that it meant one hundred impressions of an eight-page form. Mr. Lovoll, that it meant the equivalent of a hundred impressions of 20 pages, what is known in the trade " as a token," and that he had so assumed it. Mr. Perrault, that it meant a complete copy of any pamphlet or book of whatever size. My object was not to give them the right to put such an interpretation as might suit themselves, but to ascertain what was its understood meaning in the trade ; what any of them would have had the right to exact in the event of being -awarded the contract. Finding, however, a ditference of interpreta- tion, I made further inquiry as to which was the most generally accepted. For this purpose I visited several of the other printing establishments tf the city, and soon became convinced that the words " Impressions " an.l "Tokens" were in equal use, and that their quantities were as above stated, while the interpretation of Mr. Porrauit was universally repudiated. It will bo seen from this that I would have been justified in accepting Mr. Lovell's interpretation, and extending his tender on that basis, especially as his price was so much higher than Messrs. White and Senecal's (ItOc. to 10c. and l.'ic. respectively) as to afford strong proof C- ■'. assertion that it was •• Tokens " he had in his mind while filling up his tender. As, however, two out of the four considered the eight-page form as the most generally accepted For Fair Play ! For Justice ! ! ! 53 .'oid tlie «sions of Luudred and that of any view, and it was necessary to place all on the same basis, I adopted it, giving Mr. Lovell the benefit of an explanation in my report to the Committee. The difference, then, between the 15"iS7.r)() as calculated by me and the!iB.")4.38 as made out by Mr. Desbarats, is that he has acted on Mr. Perraulfs interpre- tation, while I have a/loptcd the eight-page form. 2n(} C/i(/rf/r. — Tiiat Auditor estimates D Demy paper, 20 reams.... $140 while Mr. Dosbarats shows that onlySJ reams : (51 Anxiver. — In this case I obtained an estimate from Mr. Lovell, which shewed that about 12 reams would be required for the Annual Reports alone. Mr. Senccal has furnished a statement which claimed about double that quantity for all the work, and Mr. Desbarats had certified V.\\% reams for the Reports alone paid to Mr. Perrault in 1880. In the face of these facts I considered 2() reams a very reasonable estimate to cover the reports, factums, special reports, &c., and I think the Committee will agree with me. How Mr. Desbarats assumes that 8J reams will do what he certified l.'lj reams for a portion (the greater portion, it is true) of, I leave that gen- tleman to explain. M;vZ r//«7-/7^'.— That Auditor makes " Folding and Stitching per 100 " come to $((50 While Mr. Desbarats makes same item only 87 AiiKivcr.—Thc. same explanation is applicable lu-re. Mr. Desbarats assuming 100 copies, while I adhere to the eight-page form. Herewith I submit a certificate, signed by all the leading printers of the city, certifying tc the correctness thereof : " AVe, the undersigned. Printers of the City of Montreal, hereby certify that we should consider the phrase "per 100 impressions" in a specification for printing work ss meaning one hundred impressions of aa eight-page form \i>t;my >iVO). The word " token," which is also a technicality of the trade, and in equally general use, means two hundred and fifty impressions of an eight-page form (Demy 8vo). The words " Folding and Stitching per 1(W " are understood in the same sense, viz : per 100 eight-page sheets (Demy 8vo). D. Bentley & Co. J. Theo. RoniNSoN. Berthiaume & Saboubin. J. M. Plinguet. Beauche.min & Valois. La Cie d'Impressions Canadienne, F. Thibault, Gerant. J. Stewart. Herald. Rich. White, Man. Director Gazette Burland Lithographic Co., F. B. Daken. Secretary. John P. Whelan, Post Printing and Publishing Co. John Beatty, Manager, Mechanical Dci)artmeut, Witness ottice. John Lovell v't Son. Eus. Senecal. Morton, Phillips & Bulmeb. Becket Bros. Printing Co Aili Charge. — According to Auditor, Presswork of Charter would be While Mr. Desbarats shews it would only come to ^l«.v«r;-.— This is too ridiculous to call for serious refutation. $1171 00 00 It is based on the same assumption as No. 1, and claims that Mr. Perrault intended to do the presswork of 2,000 copies of the Charter for twenty-five dollars,— or in other words one and one quarter cent (Uc.) per volume for a book of over 500 -?•■ jH 54 John LovelVs Expose and Appeal pages — and yet Mr. Perrault accuses me of partiality again' him because I declined to act on such statements as this. Mr. Perrault sums up by claiming that these discrepancies represent a total diiference of $.'),25.'j.32, (five thousand two hundred and fifty-five dollars ;52c.) to be deducted from my statement. With reference to the first and fourth of these— both of which are press- work— I have shown that it is claimed on an hypothesis which is utterly untenable, and, therefore, cannot be admitted. With reference to the second, viz : estimated quantity of paper, I have shown that the quantity actually certified by Mr. Desbarats and paid for to Mr. Perrault last year was 14 reams for the Annual Reports alone, which shews that I have only provided a margin of C> reams to cover any increase in these and such other work as may be required in that shape. This reduces the affair to a matter of 6 reams at the very outside, which, at Mr. Perrault's price of $7 per ream, would make only $42, or $252 in the six years. But this is not all. Mr. Perrault forgets that the same quantity was charged in each case, and that a corresponding diminution would have to be made on all the others, so that the only legitimate cause of complaint he could make against the insertion of an excessive quantity would be to the extent of the diiference between their prices and his, and, as Mr. Perrault's price for this item was $7 and the others from $5 to $5.50, the entire difference could not exceed $12 a year. With reference to the third, viz : " Folding and Stitching," I have shewn that it is claimed on a basis equally at variance with the usual custom and accepta- tion of the trade, but that there exists evidences of his having so meant it, and, that if the personal interpretation of any of the tenderers were admitted, this would have to be allowed, and the difference it would make would be substantially what he represents, viz : $373 a year. bth Chirge. — Submitting Mr. Perrault's tender to Mr. Lovell to look over all its prices. Answer. — A great writer says that" a lie which is half a lie is ever the worst to meet " — the above statement belongs to this class. It is not true that any of the tenderers had access to any tender except their own, and that only for the purpose of giving required explanations, until after my report was completed, signed, copied in the official Record Book, and ready for submission to the Committee, and when, practically, no result could follow any exposure of the Specifications. At this point Mr. Senecal, hearing that Mr. Lovell's tender was declared to bo the lowest, called and asked whether I had not included in my additions the item of binding of the Charter on the six years' aggregate instead of making a separate item of it for only one year, as had been done with the composition, presswork and paper of it. I at once recognized the oversight, and saw that Mr. Senecal was entitled to be credited with the difference between his price and Mr. Lovell's on that item, but as my report had been completed I conveyed the information to the Committee in a postscript, and fully explained its effects. Mr. Lovell, on his part, having heard of the charge, called soon after and asked if I had any objections to allow him to inspect the two Specifications, for 71 For Fair Play ! For Justice ! ! ! 56 !ter and ons, for his own Batisf action on the point, and seeing no good reason to refuse it, I allowed him to do so. This, and this alone, is the ground of the above charge. But while it is true that none of the tenderers saw the tenders of the others in my presence or with my consent, or even asked for so unwarrantable a privilege, it is worthy of notice that Mr. Perrault, in his Protest, criticises the prices, explanations, alterations (so-called) in the tenders of Messrs. Senecal. White, and Lovell, specifically alluding to a great many items by number and page, and pointing out the result of these as compared with his own. It would be interesting to find out by what process of intuition Mr. Perrault became so familiar with them. Finally. — Mr. Perrault accuses me of partiality against him. Aiinwer, — Should the foregoing explanations not be sufficient to remove this accusation I might add, generally, that Mr. Perrault has been treated with at lea as much consideration as any of the others. Both he and Mr. White appeared to consider themselves as hors de combat from the beginning, and I certainly did not regard either of their tenders as capable of such modification as would place them in competition with either Mr. Senecal or Mr. Lovell. Still, all were treated alike ; no explanation, either verbal or written, was asked of one which was not requested from all. These questions were not asked for the purpose of acting upon the answers, whatever those might be, as Mr. Perrault seems to assume, but for the purpose of getting all possible informa- tion first and then applying it in a reasonable and business-like way, in which each would be treated precisely alike. But while it is true that every facility was afforded to each of the parties interested with strict impartiality, so far as I am capable of understanding such a sentiment, it is moreover a fact that Mr. Perrault has the least reason of all for affecting such a complaint ; for, apart from his familiarity with all the departments, which gave him exceptional advantages, on which no restric- tion was placed, he asked myself personally for permission to see all corres- pondence which had passed between myself and the other tenderers. No such reciuest was made by any of the others, but, seeing no reason to withhold it, I handed him the whole. After examination he asked if I would allow him to take copies for his own use. I complied, and furnished him the necessary material, when he wrote with his own hand transcripts of all. He then a«ked if he might send his bookkeeper down to make a copy of a statement furnished by Mr. Senecal. I offered no objection, and his clerk spent the greater part of an afternoon in my office at that work. Anil this is tin- sri'i'tli'man who sorviireiitly arranged so that I should be kept ignorant of it till it had had its cffpct chnrK'ing me with partiality. I have reason to believe that the above written charges are but specimens of man y unwritten ones which have been industriously circulated of late, and with reference to either the one or the other, I ask hero and now, in the pre- sence of all the parties, the fullest enquiry or the complotest retraction. WILLIAM ROBB, City Auditor. 56 John LovelVs Expose and Appeal ■ ': i i ! 1 ' H 1 r m i i lI To the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Montreal : THE PETITION OF JOHN LOVELL & SON. OF THE CITY OF MON- TREAL, PRINTERS AND PUBLISHERS, Respectfully Sjieweth : That at a meeting of the City Council, iield on the 14th day of February last past, at which the question of the Contract for Printing and Stationery for the Corporation, and certain petitions and documents in relation thereto, came under consideration, it was Resolved to refer the entire question to the City Hall Committee, in order that the said Committee might take the subject into consideration, and make an investigation, and report thereon for ihe information of the Council. That the Jity Hall Committee subsequently met on two several occasions, viz : on the 3rd and r>th days of March instant, but the said Comm'ttee did not enter upon any investigation with respect to the tenders for the said contract, and the Chairman refused even to open or look at a communication Avhich Mr. Lovell, sen., respectfully handed to him on the I'th instant, with reference to a letter which the Committee had received from Mr. Perrault, and which had been read in Mr. Lovell's presence at the previous meeting of the said Cominittee held on the 3rd instant. That under these circumstances your Petitioners are compelled to address themselves again to your worshipful body. That your Petitioners respectfully represent that imputations of a serious nature have been made against them by Mr. Louis Perrault, in connection with your Petitioners' tender for the contract in question ; and more especially in certain paragraphs of a Protest served upon the City Hall Committee by Mr. Louis Perrault, in which he says : " Whereas, moreover, Messrs. John Lovell & Son have quoted Tracing and " Drawing Paper, on page 38 of Specifications, at $2, $2.50, $7-50, $9, and $11 '• per yard (Items 3, 4, o, (i and 7 of said page), which prices, for two Rolls of ■' each kind, would represent a sum of $8,9'.)8, which sum only would prove " higher than Mr. Perrault's tender, or if these prices of Lovell k, Son are " intended so much per Roll instead of so much per yard, then the meaning •' of the Specification is altered again. "Whereas there can bo no doubt in the mind of any unprejudiced person " that the items so quoted per yard in the said John Lovell & Son's [tender] " were so meant and understood by them, in the hope that they would be "overlooked, in order to make up for the very low and unprofitable charges " made by them for several of the items of said Specifications, and conse- " quently their tender should not be entertained." That while your Petitioners reserve to themselves the right to call the said Mr. Louis Perrault to account in a Court of Justice for the gross and malicious libel perpetrated in the above paragraphs (and which was deliher- For Fair Play ! For Justke ! ! ! 67 ately put forth by him after he had stated to several persons that ho knew all along that Mr. Lovoll's tender for said five items of paper was per Roll, but that to suit his own purposes he pretended to assume that our tender was per yard), your Petitioners are also interested in having the whole subject of the tenders for the said contract investigated and examined by the City Council, in order that justice may be done them in the premises, as they have already prayed by their former petition to the Council. We take the liberty to append a page giving Mr. Robb's and Mr. O'Meara's totals of Mr. Porrault's and our own tenders. Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the City Council may be pleased to appoint a Special Committee to take the tenders for said contract, and all the petitions and other documents relating thereto, into immediate consideration, with instructions to examine fully into the said tenders, and report thereon without delay. And your Petitioners will ever pray, JOHN LOVELL & SON. Montreal, 14th March, 1881. THE PRINTING AND STATIONERY CONTRACT. Thp. Tot'ils of Mr. Robb's Statement »how : — Total of Tender of L. Perrault & Co. for Ist column only of Speci- fications J or six years $f)0,965 Total of Tender of John Lovell & Son for 1st column only of Speci- fications for six years 44,464 Shewing L. Perrault & Co. to be the highest on 1st column by $ 1 ''..'lOl Total of Tender of L. Perrault & Co. for 3 columns of Specifica- tions for six years $101,957 Total of Tender of John Lovell & Son for 3 columns of Specifica- tions for six years fi8,304 Shewing L. Perrault & Co. to bo the highest on 3 columns by $:!8,(i.'):t If L. Perrault & Co. be allowed the benefit of interpretations repu- diated as absurd by the entire Printing Trade, the amount of their Tender, in either case, on 3 columns, would be reduced by $5,040. Shewing their Totals for 1st column to be $55,925 If John Lovell & Son be allowed the benefit of interpretations within the meaning and usages of the Trade, the amount of their tender in each case would be reduced by $1,632. Shewing their Totals for Ist column to be $42.8:{2 Leaving L. Perrault & Co. still the highest on Ist column by.... $1|U)!);{ And on the 3 columns highest by Xi.titi} i 'I i 58 John Lovell'a Expose and Appeal Mr. O'Meaba'b Statement, with nearly onp-hnlf of thn itemit* of thr, Spetti - fieotionK nfriinJi out and t?ir quantitieit in lunni/ canfx rcducrd, hIiowk for six years, giving L. Perrault 4" Co. the full benejit of their interpreta- tions as to Presstvork, Paper, Stitching, Sfc. : L. Perrault & Co $41,751 John Lovell & Son 34,587 Shewing L. Perrault A Co. higher than John Lovell & Son by 37 |04 It ia evident from the above statementH that our Tender is far below that of Messrs. L. Perrault & Co., and it is incomprehensible that the City Hall Committee, with those finfurcs before them, should have awarded t he contract to the latter. Fortunately the decision of the Committee is subject to the approval of the Council. We have been given to understand that the fact of our not being French Canadians was, in the eyes of some of the Committee, an obstacle to our being awarded the contract. We may bo permitted to remark that questions of nationality have never been considered in our establishment. During a residence of upwards of (iO years in the City of Montreal, the head of our firm has always been a large employer of French Canadian labor, and at the p resent moment fil French Canadians are engaged in various positions in our cstablishmeut. We trust, therefore, we are not expecting too much when we look for fair play at the hands of the representatives of our fellow-citizens. No favor is asked, but simply that the contract maybe awarded to the lowest tenderer. JOHN LOVELL & SON Montreal, Uth March, 1881. Mil. PEERAULT'S PEOTEST, On this day, the ninth of the month of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one. At the special instance and request of Louis Perrault, of Montreal, Printer and Lithographer, trading under the name, style and firm of " Louis Per- rault & Co.," Mr. Henri Alexandre Abdon Brault, the undersigned Notary Public, duly commissioned and sworn in and for the Province of Quebec, one of the Provinces of the Dominion of Canada, residing at the city of Montreal in the district of Montreal, Personally went and repaired to the City Hall of the City of Montreal for the purpose of meeting the Mayor and Aldermen of the said City of Montreal. Where being and speaking to Patrick O'Meara, the Assistant City Clerk, the undersigned Notary, at the request aforesaid, did declare as follows, to wit : Whereas the Auditor of the City has made a certain report misrepresenting the facts, whereof the effect should damage and injure before the public the * Such itema as Blotting Pads, for which L. Poreanlt & Co. tendered for 8:13 per gross— John Lovell & Son for $1 0, being $20 less than Perrault on this one item. Snch gross and corrapt diahoaesty is iu keeping with Patrick O'Meara's general conduct throughout this dirty busineaa For Fair Play ! For Justice ! ! ! 59 interests of said Louis Perrault, inasmuch as the same has been printed, distributed and was reproduced by the newspapers. Whereas said report alluded to the prices and charges made by said Louis Perrault in his tender to obtain from the said City Hall certain Job Printing, iic, and that it is proper and necessary to establish the incorrectness and contradiction of said report by which the facts are altered and shown in a wrong or perfidious way. Whereas said Louis Perrault complains of the following entries and state- ments made by said City Auditor, viz. : 1. Statement No. 1. Item 52. Presswork — By which it appears that the charges would be two hundred eighty-seven dollars and fifty cents, while the same items calculnt^'d by Mr. Gen. E. Desbarftts. lat« Queen's printer, acting then on behalf of the City of Montreal, would be fifty-four dollars and thirty-eight cents. 2. Same statement. Item for paper No. 1 D. Demy — According to said City Auditor, one hundred and forty dollars for twenty reams of said paper, while said Desbarats measured the necessary paper for said reports to be only eight and three-quarter reams, amounting only to sixty-one dollars and twenty-five cents. a. Same statement. Item 58. Folding and stitching— According to the said City Auditor four hundred and eighty dollars, while the said Desbarats makes it to be only eighty-seven dollars, the above figures alone showing a difference in favor of said Louis Perrault of six hundred and eighty-four dollars and eighty-seven cents yearly, or a total for six years of four thousand one hundred and nine dollars and thirty-two cents. 4. Statement No. 2. Charter — According to said City Auditor the presswork would amount to eleven hundred and seventy-one dollars , while according to said Desbarats' calculation it would amount only to twenty-five dollars, making another diflference of eleven hundred and forty-six dollars. This last item added to the above ones for reports would make a total differ- ence of five thousand two hundred and fifty-five dollars and thirty-two cents to be reduced from said statement. Whereas the statements of said City Auditor contain many other errors of the same kind, and prove but partiality on the part of said City Auditor against said Mr. Perrault, and as a proof thereof said Perrault states that said City Auditor has written to the four different tenderers, asking their definition of items for presswork, folding and stitching so as to form a basis for calcula- tion for said items, but did not see fit to nctopt of his explanations by letter as requested to do, though the explanations given by said Perrault were clear, and upon which no misunderstanding could be had, as Mr. Desbarats under- stood them as well, and not only Mr. Desbarats but the said City Auditor himself, who felt so astonished when Mr. Perrault handed him his letter of explanation that he could not help but say, '• Do you mean to say, Mr. Perrault (taking out a pamphlet from his pigeon hole), that you would print this pamphlet for a dollar and twenty cents per hundred copies for presswork ? ' ' To all which Mr. Perrault replied, "I would be only too glad to do bo." " Then," he answered, " at that rate your tender might be the lowest." 60 John LovelVs Expose and Appeal Whereas Mr. Perrault further complaina of the following irregularities in Mr. White's and Mr. Sen^cal's tenders, which are of such a nature that they cannot be entertained and taken into consideration for the following reaHons : the former having altered the form and specification on page 38, by erasing with a pen items of drawing paper of which a quotation was asked per yard and quoting the same in writing per roll ; furthermore, the same party giving price of tape lines of various sizes in body of Specification, and making no extension of the same in the column to that effect in order apparently to reduce the total amount of his tender. The latter having not priced a number of items on pages ;?3 and 34 of the Specification ; for instance, on page 3."}, items Nos. 69, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, m, 86 and 87, and on page 34, Nos. 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 9C, 96, 97, 99, IDO, 104 and 105. These items being then opened to be considered as extras, ad to be charged at outside prices, while said Perrault has regularly tendered for the same. Whereas, moreover, Messrs. John Lovell & Son have quoted tracing and drawing paper on page !>8 of Specification at two dollars, two dollars and fifty cents, seven dollars and fifty cents, nine dollars and eleven dollars per yard items 3. 4, 5. f'> and 7 of said page), which prices for two rolls of each kind, would represent a sum of eight thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight dollars, which sum only would prove higher than Mr. Perrault's tender, and if these prices of Lovell & Son are intended so much per roll instead of so much per yard, then the meaning of the Specification is altered again. Whereas there can be no doubt in the mind of any unprejudice. How can the upright George E. Desbarats account for or explain the recklessness of his extraordinary certificates ? Mr Perrault's tender gave him $1.75 a hundred for the covers and doing up, but he seems to have nearly doubled the charge. I hope he will adhere to the voluntary offer made in my presence, that if he was proved guilty of making any overcharges he would refund the amounts as he had plenty of money. I could not help telling him then that he would have ft good deal to refund if I was to judge by the positive proof in my pos- session. As he seemed very anxious to see the pamphlet on which I accused him with having made an overcharge of $84.57, I said to him that the best way to find it was to begin from the first pamphlet he printed for the Corpor ation up to the end of his contract, that he would be sure to find it ~d as, he had become so virtuous as to promise to refund all his overcharges, I thought he would get rid of some of his ill-gotten wealth. Of course he could not have succeeded in getting a dollar over what was justly due to him if Mr. George E. Desbarats and Mr. Patrick O'Meara had not proved ready tools to further his purposes. But I shall not enter further at present into this un- savory matter, as I purpose setting a statement of my treatment by the City Hall Committee before the public at an early daj', with full particulars of the mouv *v which the city exchequer has been depleted by designing men. I may add that you are at liberty to make such use of this communication as you see fit. Yours obediently, joins' LOVELL. 1881. prevented tilet as to $84.57. I aion even :. Perrault a question ave it, and . insist on vero called 3t the con- nileg made b liberty to mtting pages, are mt for or and doing I that if he ^e amounts he would in my pos- I accused at the best Corpor d asj he thought could not im if Mr. tools to this un- the City irs of the jn. anication VELL. For Fair Play ! For Justice ! ! ! 63 THK PRINTING CONTRACT. The City Auditor's Report on Mr. Perrault's Cliarges. The following is the report made by ]\Ir. Win. llobl), City Auditor, in relation to the prices charged l)y Mr. Perrault (hiring the last five years, The Finance Counnittee retained it, without action, till the 7th Sei)t., instant, 1881. To the Chairman of the Finance Committee : SiK, — In compliance with the resolution of your Committee, directing me to examine all accounts paid to Messrs. Perrault, to compare the ^jrices chaiged therein with those of the contract, and to report any departure from the conditions thereof, I beg respectfully to report : — 1. That notwithstanding the voluminous nature of the speci- fications the greater portion of the articles which have been furnished have no corresponding description therein, and con- sequently a comparison of their prices cannot be made. 2. Tiiat a clause of the contract provides that where articles extra to the specification are required, tiiey will have to be furnished at j3<"0 rata rates. 3. That enquiry shows that such articles have been charged at the ordinary retail prices prevailing at the time. 4. As -examples of departure from the ^^''o rata principle I append the following : — a. The contract price of Stephens' Eed Ink is S6.50 per doz. for quarts. The whole of the supplies have been in pints, at 35. 5U per doz. for pints. h. 150 copies oftlie Mayor's speech in 187G amounts per con- tract to S27 ; 30 extra copies in advance with proofs to papers are charged $20. c. 250 posters are charged S20, which is the contract rate of SB per 100, but an extra charge of (§10 is made for printing in red instead of black ink. d. Factums which are not specifically mentioned in the contract, are charged $2 per page, not at the regular rate of press-work. 5. As examples of direct departure from the conditions of the contract, I submit the following : — The contract price for folding, stitching and covering pamphlet ■•vork is Si. 75 per 100. $1.75 has been allowed for folding and stitching, and $1.50 for covering. The contract price for Carter's Ink is $7 per doz. The supplies have been charged at and $10 per doz. I 'I If 64 Juhn LovelVfi Expose and Appeal. Th(! contract ])vice for Fal)er'8 pencila is $5 per gross. The su]»]ilies have been churged at !?7. The contnict price for blue ami red pencils is il2 (Dickson's). The supplius have been diargcd $1") (Falicr's). G. As cxiimples of some of the miscellaneous items which ai)i)ear to call lor explanation, as being excessive, I append the following: — ^ ream of white hd Id paper ruled and printed. (I have not been al)le to trace what this is.) $35 00 3 boxes manilla envelopes. (SI. 75 p. m. is the only corresponding item in contiact) 10 80 3 tin boxes for papers 44 00 8 desk-puds, 2i x 2, Barreau's patent 20 00 150 pamphlets for the Water Dei>artment (valves and stopcocks), partly bound in linen and partly in leather. (Or over $2 each, which ajipears very high) 318 (33 As regards the more important item of " Tresswork," includ- ing, as it does, composition and paper, I am not in a position to speak, as it can be veritied oidy by a practical printer. I i.jnt a quantity of the work to two of those who had not themselves been tenderers. One, after retaining it about ten days, returned it with an apology for being unable, through i)ress of business, to overtake the work, and the other, at the end of a couple of weeks, had been able only to do it so partially that I concluded to leave that portion of the contract to be dealt with by your Committee on the evidence which is already before it in the protest of Messrs, Lovell & Son, who have submitted iigures claiming that it has been greatly over-estimated. The whole, nevertheless, respectfully submitted, WILLIAM KOBE, City Auditor. City Hall, Montreal, 26th July, 1881. In this Report of Mr. Hobr's, I notice that Mr. Perrault will ^ tliat he will liavc to refund. Never mind, he has plenty of ninin'v Fellow Citizens, stcuro for me an examination of L & Co.'s Accounts (under Contract) against the Corporation tlie Cil of Montreal, and 1 may place before you some startling ovcrciiari:es, and, perhaps, charges of anotJier nature. Your obedient servant, JOHN LOVELL. Montreal, 27th September, 1881. I. The kson's). .3 which )eiul the $3.5 00 10 80 44 00 20 00 318 63 ' includ- (sition to had not ten days, I j)ress of enil of a ly that I alt with before it ibiuitted iditor. wilK the (Jil. Ir-charL'es, ^ELL. THE CORPORATION PRnTHG. The City Hall (^)iiiiiiittrc luld a niwtinu; yostcrilay to consider the TcikKth flir the City Printing ibr the couiiiijr six years, wlicii temlcrs were npeiied tVoin the follow iiif; establishineiits : L. Perrault, Gazette Printing; Co., Sem'fal k Co., and John Lovcll & Son. Messrs. LovoU'a Tender vv»s by far tlie lowest, but it was explained by Mr. O'Meara, Assistant City Clerk, and .Mr. Robb, City Auditor, that there were great diffireiices bitween the tenders in the case of some items, and at their suirjrestion they were directed to lfH)k into the tenders and decide which would bu most advanta<>( ous for the city, and to report to aa adjourned meeting of the Committee cm Tuesday next. With the view of assistinir the public and Messrs. O'Meara and Kobb in forming a corri!Ct opinion, wo publish bih)W a tabb; showing the figures of each tender. The ordinary business ma n would have little d ifficulty in deter- mining which tender should be aeci'pted. and it is to be suppo.sed that Messrs. O'Meara's and Robh's investigation will simply be as to whether the work and security of the lowest tenderer are satisfactory. The table shows that, by giving the contract to the If)wcst teiulerer, the city will be saved 811,016 in the six years over which it will extend. A hint to the Committee will not be out of place. Messrs. Perrault's contract expired D ecember 1 4th, and since that time the y have been doing the city work presumably at their own price ; therefore, the q uicker the matter is decided the better it will be for the city. For One year. Ist column. 2n(l column. 8rd column. Aggregate. L. Ptnault $7,805 S4,G50 $2,119 $14,574 Ga/ette Printing Co 7,912 3,482 1,195 12,589 Seneeal & Co 6,7.^4 2,952 992 10,G78 John Lovell & Son 5,475 2,580 787 8,842 For Six Years. l«t column. 2nd column. 8rd column. Aggregate. L. Pen, ult $4G,830 $27,900 12,714 $87,444 G izette Printing Co 47,472 20,892 7,170 75,534 S'-'eal&Co 40,404 17,712 5,952 G4,0C>8 J. I.uvell&Son 32,850 15,480 4,722 53,052 ' V :; tii.'t t .Tolm Lovell & Son's tender for six years is lower by $34,392 than 'erranlt: $22,482 lower tlian Tlic Ga/ette Printing Co. ; and $11,01G lower tn Seiiecal & Co. — Daily Star, Jan. 12, 1881. T '■p m 66 Statement of the Tenders for the Printing and Stationery WIRE PULLING. CORPORATION PRINTING AND STATIONERY. The following are the Reports and Statements which have been sub- mitted to the City Hall Committee, in this matter, at their meeting, held on 28th ult., to come to a decision as to which was the lowest tender. REPORT OF IVm. RORB, Knq., City Auditor. To THE Chairman and Membeiis City Hall Committee, Gentlemen, — The undersigned, with reference to the Printing and Stationery " Tenders," begs respectfully to report as follows : — In the original tenders, as submitted by the tenderers, the first column was supposed to represent the full cost of each item, and the total addition thereof was regarded as representing the aggregate yearly supply. It was found, however, that items No. 51 to No. 59, on page 12, to wit, "Composition," " Presswork per 100 Impressions," "Paper," "Folding and Stitching per 100," and "Covers," were extended, not at the aggregate cost but .-imply at tlie " Rate " per 1000 ems, &c., and to ascertain which tender was really the lowe.«t it became necessary to extend the quantities of these at the respective rates of each. Some difficulty was experienced, however, as to the interpretation of the second and fourth of the above items, and in order to solve it a note was addres.sed to each tenderer, asking for a definition. Relative to the first of these, " Presswork, per 100 Impressions," Mr. Perrault replied that "it means 100 copies of each Report, Pamphlet or Book of any size." Mes,srs. White and Sen<5cal considered it as " 100 copies of a form of eight pages." Mr. Lovell says he regarded it as a '• Token " or 250 Impressions of 8 pages (equal to 100 copies of 20 pages). Inasmuch, however, as 100 copies of 8 pages appeared to be the most generally accepted meaning in the trade, I have calculated all on that basis. With regard to the other item, viz: "Folding and Stitching per 100:" Messrs. Perrault, White and Lovell consider it as applying only to such portions of the City work as uiuy b^; renuired in tliat form, while Mr. Senecal ins'sts that it applies to bound books as well, and that his price for binding does not include the cost of " Folding and Stitching," in other words, that hi.s tender supposes that the quotation Required hy the Corporation of the City of Montreal. fi7 for " Folding and Stitching " would be chargeable over and above his quotation for binding. Mr. Porrault, uioreovor, considers the qunntifi/ as 100 full pamphlets of any size — Messrs. White, Senecal and Lovell as lUO ciglit-page forms. In order to arrive at the amount of composition 1 Iiave taken the quantities certified and paid for during the previous year, and added about a quarter of a million ems to cover a margin. Statement No. 1 shews the estimate of items Nos. 51-59 made up on this basis, which have to be added to column No. 1 to shew the total of the year. Statement No. 2 shews the estimate of the proposed publication of the Charter, which has to be added once during the six years. Statement No. 3 shews the final result, by which it will be seen that Mr. Lovell's tcndirr is the lowest, and inasmuch as the interpretation put on the items of " Composition " and " Presswork '' tells against him all through, it is uimecessary to shew separate statements in detail on the other supposition. Suffice it to say that, if Mr. Lovell's own interpretation were applied to his tt nder, it would reiluee his figures about $1200 more in the course of the six years (or §200 per annum), and he states, in writing, that such was his Intention, and he intends to abide by it. The whole respectfully submitted, WILLIAM ROBB, Cih/ Aiulltor. Fosf script. — Since writing the above, my attention has been called to the fact that the addition of the l,> Computed as we meant in tendering, 375 tokens at i)Oc S37 uO Reduction in Charter SOti 25 Total reduction on presswork in our tender computed accortling to wliat we meant as declared in letter to Assistant City Clerk SI25t 49 Then again on the item of Composition in tenders we take exceptioji to the quantity estimated as likely to be required by the City for 1 year. It is esti- mated at 2,2.50,000 ems. This is fully 400,000 ems in excess of whai will be required, taking the year 1880 as a basis. If quantity bo placed tlurcfore for this item at 1,850,000 ems, this item in our tender will be reduced ns follows : E-itiniatod ([iiantity. . . 2,2'>0.0()() ems. Required iniantity I,S.")0,()00 Ht'lU'tinn 401,01)1) at .")0c S-'O') Our tender on this being reduced in one j'ear §200 and for six y( iirs the reduction would bo $1200. We might also mention aootlier item on which we are exceptionally low as compared with another tender. Our tender for Letter I'onks is for 1000 pajj^e 4to b'loks $2.r)0 per vol., and for 500 page Ito books !?1.7."J per vol., while the other tender asks §15 and $7.50 respectively for these items. If these items were computed at the (juantities required, the difference in our favor and against this other tender would be increased by fully $500 in the six years. We believe these items are now merely computed for I vol. of each. We have taken the liberty to prepare statements A, B and C. which we submit as a fair comparison of the tenders of Messrs. Senecal & Co. and ourselves. I 44,464 ' '' '■ t( 1 11 ' 1 i. r 1 72 Statement of the Tenders for the Printing and Stationei^ We also beg to draw your attention to the fact that on page 38 of Speci- fications, for items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, we have tendered at so much per roll and as Mr. Senecal has tendered at so much per i/to'd, we claim to have the amount of our tender reduced by putting us on an equal footing on these items. The reduction thus eifected in our favor amount, on these items in one year, to $30.()2, and for six years to $183.72. We have also reason to know that a number of items on pages 33 and 34 of Messrs. Senecal's tender are not priced, in leaving those items open to be considered as extras to be charged at outside prices, and for which we inserted in every case actual prices, to wit : page 33 of Specification, Nos. (!!), 78, 7".) 80, 81, 82, 83, 84,8.5, 86, 87 ; and on page 34, Nos. 8!t, <)0, it], 92, 93, 94, 'Jo, 96," 97, 99. 100, 104, 10.5, being left in blank by Messrs. Senecal k Cc. In the matter of paper for the Charter, the quality on which the present computations are based isNo. 1, 42 lb. D Demy. The quality really intended to be used is 60 lb. D Medium. Below we show a comparison which increases the difference in our favor against Messrs. Senecal & Co., on this head : Paper for Charter now computed as No. 1,42 lb. D.D. Seiiftcnl &Co.,50renm8ot$fi.30 $;!1.') 00 John Lovell & Son, 50 rcamsat $6.50 . !!2.") 00 Paper to be used for Charter, Donble Medium, 60 1b. Senf. Ill ii Co., 50 reams at $12 $iiO() 00 John Lovell & Son, 50 reams at ^!) . . . . 4:m 00 In our favor &\r>0 00 Against us S 10 00 Leaving $140 in onr favor on this item. Yours obediently, JOHN LOVELL & SON. A Estimate of Items 51 to bd, pnge 12 of Specifications. John Lovell & Son : No. 51, composition at 50c. per 1000 ems, 1,850,000. $925 00 52, presswork at 90c. per token of 250 impres- sions of 8 pages, 92 tokens 82 80 53-57, paper at $5.50 per ream, 20 reams 110 00 58, folding and stitdilng at 30c..2.30 69 00 59, covers at $2.50 per 100, 5,000 125 00 -$1,311 80 Estimated cost of Charter and By-Laws. John Lovell & Son : Composition at 50c., say 900,000 ems $450 00 Presswork, 90c. per token of 250 impressions of 8 pages, say 375 tokens 337 50 Paper 60 lb. D. Medium at $9 per ream, say 50 reams 450 00 Composition for French copies 450 00 -$1,G87 50 Required by the Corporation of the City of Montreal. 73 Estimate of Items 51 to t)^,page 12 of Specifcations. E. Senecul ik Co. : No. 51, composition at 35c. per 1000 ems, 1,850,000.. $647 50 52, presswork at 16c. per 100 impressions of 8 l)a^es, 2;}0 34 50 53-57, paper at $5.04 per ream, 20 reams 100 80 58, folding and stitching at 3ic., 230 8 05 59, covers at GOc. per 100, 5,000 30 00 $820 85 Estimated cost of Charter and By-Laics. E. Scneeal d: Co. : Composition at 35c., say 900,000 ems $315 00 Presswork at 15c. per 100 imi)ression8of 8 pages, suy 9;i7i 140 00 Paper 00 lbs. at $12 per ream, say 50 reams COO 00 Composition for Frencii copies 315 00 Folding and stitching (he states lie expects to charge this in addition to binding) 937A at 3ic 32 80 $1,402 80 B Statement of Reduction affected by compvtlng Items 3, 4, 5, G, 7, on page 38 at per yard instead of as we tendered, 2)er roll. Per Roll. Per Yard. Diflerence. No. 3— 2 50 12 2 38 4— 2 00 10 1 90 5— 7 50 32 7 18 G— 9 00 38 8 (•)2 7—11 00 46 40 54 32 00 1 38 30 62 in one year. 1 38 30 62 reduction in our tender, in one year. $183 72 " " *' in six years. E. Senical & Co. : let Col. — Original tender, less rates, 51 to 59 $6,680 00 Add items 51 to 59 820 85 7,500 85 X 6 years. 45,005 10 Add Charter 1,402 80 Total for 6 years $46,407 90 W i i ■ iiii PJ 74 Statement oj (lie. Tenders for the Printing and Stationery John Lovell ?>f^ 02 Annual Keports 1,00(J 03 (;,343 bh 38.061 30 Once in years 7'2() ()() Printing Cl'ifirter 1,714 (Kt Plain Binding T^O 00 Gilt do 500 00 White. 41,751 90 Ordinary work 4,758 27 Annual' Reports 880 45 5,r>;i8 72 33,H;52 32 Once in fi years lll)2 (iO Printint,' C'liarter l,(;il(i() Plain Binding '.100 00 Gilt do 750 00 $38,055 92 Senicdl. Ordinary work $ 4,737 50 Annual Reports 777 85 5,515 35 33,0t>2 10 Once in fi years (;i5 00 Printing Charter 1,8'27 60 I'liiin Binding COO 00 Gilt do 500 00 Lovell, 3G,634 70 Ordinary work 4,059 35 Annuaflleports 1,174 27 5.233 62 31,401 72 Onee in fi rears. 544 00 Printing Charter 2,lfi7 20 Plain Binding .^500 00 Gilt do 175 00 $34,587 92 After reading the above it i.s .simply astounding that Mr. O'Mcara should liave added a supplementary statement, prepared only a few minutes before the sitting of the Committee, clearly intended to create a false impression on the minds of its members. This calculation was made on the ridiculou.s basis that John Lovell & Son's price pt'?' roll was intended as their price per i/ard lor items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, although the Specification read per mil of 24 i/ard.'i in each case. This evidently false and claptrap stateuunt had the effect of determining the Committee to ask for new t<;ndcrs in order to give their favorite another chance for the Contract. Such a piece of trickery should not be allowed to prevent a just decision being come to in this matter; and we trust that the Petition which John Lovell & Son ■J I ■i! 76 Statement of the Tenders for the Printing and Stationery purpose presenting to the Council, at its next nieetinj;, will liave the desired eflfect. The Tiix-T'ayers will be uuiused with Mr. O'Meara's imafriiiation. The following is the extraordinary Report of Mr. O'Meara, in con- nection with the statements submitted. The ridiculous assumptions therein contained would be amusing if they had not led to a serious act of in justice being done to the lowest tenderer: To THK CHAIHMAN AND MiaiBGKS OF THE CiTY HALL CoMMITTEK, Okntlkmen, — In preparing the statcmeut hereunto, Mr. LoveH'M prices for items i\, 4, 5, (i and 7 of the Eugineer's Dcpartmeut are calculated at the rate per yard, ou the suppoKition that the price put down in his tender was per roll, although not specially bo mentioned, * as is the caso in Mr. White's tender. If the Committee should decide that the figures should be taken as put down in Mr. Lovell's tender, it would very materially alter his prices ; a statement of this calculation is also submitted. If, on the other hand, Mr. Seuecal is prepared to supply Bond Paper at the rate mentioned in his tender, $1 per ream, and that the Committee authorize mu to order this paper in preference to the one generally used of a far inferior kind, and for which that gentleman asks a greater price, I have no hesitation in saying that Mr. Senccal's tender is the lowest. The whole respectfully submitted, P. O'MEARA. 28th January, 1881. f Items Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 1 of the Engineer' s Department computed as set down in tenders. LoveU. Senical. White. Perrault. No. 3, 55 00 3 30 2 25 7 70 4, 44 00 2 20 2 50 6 CO 6, 170 00 8 40 7 00 9 60 6, 21G 00 10 08 9 00 12 00 7, 264 00 12 00 12 00 14 40 749 00 35 98 32 76 50 30 2 Rolls each. 1,498 00 71 96 65 50 100 60 6 years. $8,988 00 431 76 393 00 603 60 * This is a wilful lie. John LoveU ii Son wrote In pencil opposite their prices, Per Roll When their Tenders were returned to them thpy noticed that the Per Roll was rubbed out, but eufflcicnt was left to show Patrick O'Meara's treachery. f These items computed as tendered for by John Lovell & Son would only amount to $334 instead of $9,988 as shown by Mr. O'Meara. This fact was thoroughly well known to Mr. O'Meara when lie prepared the figures. Required by the Corporation of the City of Montreal. 77 Per Roll '. out, but would This ed the At the mectirif:; there were present JMessru. Robert, Chniriiian ; Joan- nottc, Dubuc, Wilson, and Holland. Afler the readiii'j ; of tlu! various n-p orts, ]Mr.' ITolland niov( d that the contraet be awanlcd to Messrs. .Tohii Lovell & Son. It was then moved, in amendment, by !Mr. Jeannotte, that new tenders be called for. The amendment seemed to find immediate favor with the Committee, although no valid reason was offered which could justify such a pro- ceeding on their part, utdess, perhaps, they saw in this another chance for their unsuccessf ul favorite ( who has boasted that he had all their influence at bis back in this matter ), not seeing their way clear to award him the contract on account of the high figures of his present tender, bein g S1(),0(I0 higher than the tender of John Lovell & Son. The whole affair smacks strongly of Wire Pulling and other manipulations which arc a disgrace to our Civic Government. — Daili/ Star, Feb. 5, 1881. THAT PROTDG CONTRACT. The matter of the Printing Contract, in which the City TIall Comm ittee has been so remiss, excites considerable comment at the City Hall, not only among those intevosted but among other contractors who visit the building. It appears that the sense in whieli .Vlr. Senecal's contract was pronounced the lowest was in that he agreed to furnish " Bond " paper at one dollar, which is worth considerably more than that amount per ream. He had not tendered at all for many of the articles named, and taken all around the tender of Mr. Lovell appears to have been the lowt'st. But by manipulation of figures it could easily be made to appear as if thi; highest. A very good rule for committees who ask for tenders would be to adhere to the specifications, and to refuse to recognize the tender of any tenderer who had not conformed to the specifications. Had this been done Mr. Lovell would likely have received the contract. Another matter animadverted upon was that the City Attorney was dra gged into the room to give his o pinion. Usually an opinion from that gentleman is not taken unless in writing, but he was present in person at the meeting, and gave answers to all questions put to him. Whatever may be the result of the Printing Contract, one piece of information has been gained by the public — that this Printing '< ii 11; ii ! 78 Statement of the Tendertt for the Prlntinij avd Statlunenj Contrnet is for hIx years, and that its prantinp; Ih attoiidcd with uiori! or losH jugglery in nianipuhition. Pirhapw it will rcsnlt in buiu'fit to tlio city ut'tor all by urou.siiij^ among the printers of JMontreal a npirit of competition and iu lower rates in future. — Daili/ Witness, Fttt. 2, 1881. THE CORPOllATION PRINTING. The Eiif^linh press seems to be devoting a good deal of attention to the City I'rinting Contract, altliough its information on the subject is not very accurate. The facts arc as follows : The four parties who tenchfred were Messrs. White, Seu(5c il, Lovell and Perrault. Messrs. White had struck out certain items in the estimate form, substituting tlierefor in writing what they intended to oifer. The Committee considered this irregularity sufficient to set aside their tender. As Mr. Senecal had forgotten to state his price for several items, they had the right to ^o the same in his case. 'I here then remained Mr. Lovell's tender, which was apparently tho lowest of all. But at the hist moment it was discovered that Mr Lovell had asked from $7.50 to 811 a yard for drawing paper, whereas tho others were satisfied Avitli from 20 to 30 cents. His ti iider was cou- gcqueiitly increased by i:8,9()0 more than it had at first been nekoned at. Mr. Pioy, the City Attorney, was then summoned to the Cummittee room, and asked if, in his future accounts, Mr. Lovell could legally (in case his tender were accepted) demand so high a price for that article. As the printed estimate was perfectly clear on this point, 31 r. Hoy naturally replied tliat Mr. JiOvell would have the right to do so. The Committee were then free to accept the tender of Mr. Perrault and to reject the others, but, instead of taking that course, they decided to call for fresh tenders. — La I'afru; Fcln'uarij 3, 1881. To the KiHtor oj"Lk Patuik. Sir, — In uu article ou the Corporation Printing iu your issue of yesterday, you write as follows ; "There then remained Mr. Lovell's tender, which was apparently the lowest of all. But. at the last moment, it was discovered that Mr. Lovell had asked from $7.")0 to $11 a yard for drawing paper, whereas the others were satisfied with from 20 to 'M) cents. His tender was consequently increased by $3,1)00 more than it had at first been reckoned at." Nothing could be more incorrect than this conclusion. The statement in my tendor, which was quite legible, was 2)er roll of 24 ijnrdK and not per 8inH:le yard, as you say. Besides, I had explained the matter to Messrs. Robb and O'Meara, who were to revise each tender before making their report, and Required by the Corporation of the City of Montreal. 7r> thoHo ((ontlt'ineu loft mo uudor the imprciHHiou thiit thoy undcrftood .,iiito well that roIlK aiitl not yunlii wciro iu «iiu!Mti(iii. Thcrofore, inst<'atl of roaohinj? the round HUin of $.s,'.i(«», as you Imvii wtatod, tho untiro prici; of tho drawing papor would not amount to more than $;i:U for thu hIx yuarn r)f the contract. Hoping that you will jyivo those few words of explauationi tho uecesHary publicity, I have tho honor to he, Sir, Your obodiont servant, JOIIX LOVELL, MoNTUKAL, 4th Feb., 1881. THE aP'MRATIOX PRIXTIXft. The City Hall Coniinittoc, ttctin^j; on tho report of the A.'^.siHtant Clerk oi' the Council, lias dceidid to call lor new tenders lor the Civic Printing and Stalionery for a teiui of .six years. The reasons lor this action, scan ely sufficiently excuse it, for whatever difterences of ojiinioa may exist a.sto the manner in which the s|)eci(icution,s of the work to be tendered for were drawn up, there could be no difficulty in their inter- pretation by a practical man. Upon a tecliniculity, howevir, the ucntle- man whose report upon the tenders appears to have been acted upon, expressed a doubt as to the actual amount of each, althouuh it was very apparent from the report presented, and absolutely certain from prac- tical knowledue, that not the slightest room for conflict of opinion as to the lowest tender could exist. That bein■„!/. Yours respectfully. JOHN LOVCLL * SOX. Montreal, Fob. "J, 1881. Required hy the Corporation of the City oj Montreal. 81 iMeara, MlMtlPAL JOBBERY. Scandalous Misappropriation of the Civic Funds — Awarding Contracts by Tjnder a F ircD — S3m3 Twenty or Thirty Thousand Dollars of the Citizens' Money Wasted, < r Worse — A Mysterious Caucus. As briefly reported in our last edition of yesterday, the City Hall Couimittec met yesterday aft(>rn(iori, the followini!; members being present : Aldermen Robert (in the. Chair), Jhibuc, Jeannotte, Holland, Gilnian, and T. Wilson. There were also present: Aldermen Allard, Fairbairn, Gauthier, and Gronier, who arc not members of the Coui- mittce. 'J'he Chairman explained that the object of the meeting was to give some further and more definite instructions with reference to the resolution of the })revious meeting, calling for new tenders for the printing contract. Mr. O'.Meara, Assistant City Clerk, said he had not advertised for new tenders, inasmuch as he had not been instructed as to whetK*:; -'r. should advertise that a dep(»sit wa^; to be made by parties tendering. Aid. Gilman wanted to know why the contract had not been awarded to the lowest tender at the previous meeting? The Chairman said that, owing to the ERRORS in the tenders before the Committee, it had been decided to call for new ones. Mr. O'Mear. said that His Worship the Mayor and hiiasclf had each been served with a Notarial Protest, by Mes.xrs. L. I'.rranlt & Co. The Protest here referred to will be f»mnd on pages 58, 51), 00, (il. Aid. Gir.MAN asked Mr. Robb, the City Auditor, if it were true that the parties tendering for the contiact had seen each other's tenders after they had been received by the (Vtuimittee'? Mr. RiiBB said the various parties had not had access to each other's tenders, with one exception arising out of the alleged ambiguity of a pirt of Mr. Lovell's tender. Aid. (ill, MAN moved, That the resolution of the previous meeting to • call ior new tenders be reconsidered. In a division the votes were three (Wilson, Dubuc and Gilman) for, and two (Holland and Jeannotte) against the resolution. The majority not bring suffieient to carry a reconsideration, the Chairman added his vote iu the affirmative, am. declared the motion carriid. 82 Statement of the Tenders for the Printing and Stationery Aid. IIoLr.AND asked if the Committee had the legal right to grant contracts for periods beyond their term of office. The Committee did not recogni.se any such limit to tlioir powers. It was moved by Aid. Jeannotte that new tenders be asked i'or on the new specification, a dejwsit of one tliousand dollars lobe made, as in the previous contract. The motion met with but one supporter, Aid. Holland. Aid. Jkannotte moved tliMt the contract be awarded to IMcssr,*!. Senecal & Co., but found himself with Aid. Holland in a minority of two, and then remarking that none of the tenders were projierly sent in, lelt the room. Aid. (Jll-MAN moved that Messrs. l,ovell & Co. get the contract, but also found only one supporter, Aid. Holland. It was then moved by Aid. Wilson, th it Mr. Perranlt be awarded the contract, his tender being the only legal one before the Committee. Aid. TIdm.vnu moved in amendment, that the whole matter be referred to the City Council. Aid. C 1 1. MAN b elieved tlu- Com n iUirr WAS THE ONLY COMPETENT AUTHORITY lo .iTlTTrth,' oKittcr""™'" The amendment was put and lost, Aid. Holla nh alone voting for it. A tie was the result of a division upon the main motion. ^Mderman Thomas Wilson and J)ubue voting lur, and Aldermen Holland and Oilman aii-ainst the motion. The Chairman gave his ('ASTL^Ct VOl'K in I'avdf of Mr. Perrault. The meeting linn bmke up A FKIKNDi.V r\l( US. A (^lucus meeting was held yestrrday niui ning at the residence of Alderman .Mlard, at wiiieii were pn'seiit Al
  • , a cdusideralile eoiitraet is iieiiially It, iiiid riiitMii^ Required ly the Corporation of the City of Montreal. 83 cntrust<'(l tti;ud that ^Ir. llobb will enter an action against Mr. Pcrrault for libel contained in the latter'.s protest. A PACKED COMMITTEE. Th<- opinion is pretty freely cxpres.sed that the resolution of y esterday was simply the regi.-t ration of a I'oregotie er.uelu.-i'in ; and, furthermore that tile proeii' (!on;position ()t' the Committee is due to a desiuo on the j)art of soniebiiijy t" he prepared fur the jireseut emergency. it is certainl y a fact tliat the Chairman, at the Caucus whic h struck the C(imiiiitte< >. eiidciivored to relieve AM. Ilulland nf Jiis se.it u]M)n this partieular one. A NrCE r.lTTI.K I'l.ttT. (1 way ■tually The otln r day a gent'.eiiMU ealled upon Mr. Lnvoll, and stated that fie \\i\- ,infhoris(d nn behalf of Mr. I'enault tu off. r him »Sl.rily of that hody that they cannot h' permitted to penetrate so uross a scandal as the awardin'jc of the Printing' contract as a favor, at an cxjienM' of several thousand dollars to the city. At a meet in;;' of the City Ilall ("ommittcc held yesterday afternoon the question of the tenders for city printing; was re-considered and the Contract awarded to Mr. Perrault, the hi£i;hest ten- derer of those who had offered. The pretence that the other tenders were not properly filled in is the sheerest nonsense. We ask the mendxrs of the Council not to allow themselves to be parties to so uidilushinj;- a fraud on all thnt is honest and respectable, and whicli will, if pcrsist"d involve an extra expense to the City of from $20,()0() to !i^;:>U,()l>0, The Gazrtte, Frh. 10, 1881. in. The jaunty letter from Mr. Louis Perrault, which appears in this mornin<;"s J/n-ald, does not relieve the City Hall Committee from its embarrassment, for it does not do away with the fact that .)fr. Perrault' k te)i(h r irns the highest and the ^lesurs. Locell's the lowest. — The Fust, Fehnuny 11, 1881. TTTE PETNTTNG CONTRACT SCAXDAL . Indecent Haste— Attempt to Complete tlie Scheme Before the Meeting of the Council— Reckoning M itiiout lour Host— Checlimate. The Pi;rrauU clique have been makinir desperate, almost frantic etforl- ui aecuiv tlw coujpleiion of the Printing Contract before Monday next, the luiivy being occasioned by the fact tha*^ the City Council ineet.>- on that day, the clique huving nothing to gain and iverything to loHt by tlie ventilation of the scandal before that august conclave. Required hy the Corporation of the City of Montreal. 87 ll Considerable pressure was broujrlit to bear upon His Worship the Mayor to induce him to si/j^n the contract, but never was there u <:riater waste of eneruy. His Worshij) is about the last in:in in this irood city to allow himself to become a party to such a business, and is, mori^ovtr, sufficiently astute to reco;t, wrote a letter to our esteemed contemporary, the /A'/v//a, calling Mr. Glackmeyer " the City Hall Bhmarckr There n(!ed be no fear that anythinir further will be done to compro- mise the City until the ('ity Council has met. Notwithstandint^ Mr. Perrault's assertion to the contrary, his protest was nut served upon either Ilis Worship the Mayor or the (,'ity Clerk ; in fact, for reasons best known to himself, his recognition of the Corporation seems to have be- gun and ended in the person of IVir. O'Meara, the Assistant City Clerk.— Z^^nVy Star, F,h. ll, 18S1. 'w The Corporation Prlntiiis Scandal. The acceptance by a minority of the City Hall Committee of the tender of Mr. Louis Perrault for the Corporation Printing for the ensuing six years is Municipal Scandal of no mean order. Nev r was there a more flagrant waste of public money; never was there -x more persistent and barefaced exhibition of the determination to fatten a political favorite at the public crib. In voting the contract to ^Ir. Lonis Perrault, notwithstanding that his tender was tlie highest of the fdur and fully $15,000 higher than the lowest tender. Aldermen liobert, Dubuc and Tommy Wilson have shown their utter disregard of tlie City's iuterest, and have disgraced themselves in the eyes of every hone«* "itizen. Nor has Alderman Jeannotte, who left the Committee meeting in a rage whtu Lis motion to give the contract to Sciit'cal& Co., V. 88 Statement of the Tenders for the Printing and Stationery the lowest tenderer but one, was lost, and before the contract had been disposed of Alderumn Jeannotte wonld have displayed more virtue by sitting f[uietly in the Committee, and, by his vote, preventin<: the job from being j)crpctratcd, than by flouting out in a professed passion when he found his favorite could not get it. No, Alderman Jeannotte, in your little act, you did not hold the mirror up to nature very succesisfully, and your virtuous indignation had no virtue in it. It would be interesting to know whether the four gentlemen named above ever tliiuk of their Aldermanic Oath, to serve the City to the best of their knowledge and ability. Do they know that their action in connection with this Contract is the talk of the Town ? Are they aware that their friend, Mr. Perrault, h&s boosted that he controlled the influence, not only of Mr. O'Meurii, the Assistant City Clerk, but of the City Hall Committee? If this boast is not warranted by the facts, it should not go unchallenged, if it be justified our municipal system is rotten indeed . What have the gentlemen to say about it? — Dai/i/ Stjtr, Fvh. 12, 1881. The following Petition was read from Mr. Robb, the City Auditor: — City Auditor's Office, City Hall, iMoNTREAL, 14th February, 1881. To Ills Worship the Mayor, The petition of the undersigned respectfully sheweth : — That tenders were recently received for the Printing and Stationery suppruis of the City Hall; , That several items in each of these were entered simply at the vntes of cost, and required to be extended in quantity to show which was really the lowest ; That they were submitted to your Petitioner (in conjunction with Mr. O'Meara) for that purpose, and were reported to the City Hall Committee, which thereupon decided to ask for New Tenders; That a subsequent meeting was called at which a " Protest " from Mr. Perrault (one of the tenderers) was read, in which the following words occur : — " Whereas the Auditor of the City has made a certain report mis- reprcseming the fucts," &c., &i'., " it is proper and necessary to estab- lish the incirrectntss and contradiction of the said report by which the facts are ultered and shewn in a wrong or perfidious way ; fl'ODl Required hij the Corpordthn of the C'ltij <>/ Mo)ifrcprived of an opportunity of controvertinji; it. Your Petitioner, therefore, prays that the said Protest be referred to a Special Comniittee for investieation, that he may have an opportunity of shewing the untruthfuliuiss of the assertion and proving the falsity of its conclusions. I have the honor to be, Your obedient servant, WILLIAM llOBB, Clt>/ Auditor. ME.MORANDUM. The specific charges in the above Petition (whic h are based on calcu- lations made by ^^r. Desbarats), are as follows :— 1st. Auilitor's statement Xo. 1, item f,2, sliews presswork $287 50 ilr. Desbarats' calculation of sa e tiling FA ?j'} 2n(I. Auditor's statement sliews No. 1 demy p.ipcr 140 00 Mr. De-sbarats' calculation CI 25 3rd. Auditor's statement shews folding and stitching 4t;o 00 ]\Ir. Desbarats' calci lation H7 00 4th. Auditor's statement shews Charter presswoik 1171 00 Mr. Desbarats' calculation 2.5 00 And Mr. Perrault claims tliat the dillerenee would amount to So-ioa ii2 in the course of tho six years. 90 Sfatcmeut of (he TetnlcrH fov the Printing and Stationery Without entering into a eonHidt'nition of these here, I may simply point out that, even upon the assumption of their eorreetness, his tt-inler would still he the highest by over $I0,000 (Ten Thousand Dollars), the original %nri'S of my report sluwinij; it to he $1(1, (UK) (Sixteen Thousand Doliars over the iowest.) I m The Printing Confracf— Jobbery— The Cliaii man of the City Hall Conimitlcc gt^ts excited - An Inter- clian^^e of Compl iments. A nieetint^ of the City Council was held yesterday, when there wcro present Ilis Worship the Mayor, S. Rivard, Escp, and Aid. Allard, Donovan, Liviij;n(i, Oilman, Diibuc, J. C. Wilson, Thos. Wilson, Grenier, Keimedy, Greene, llobi^rt, Holland, McShane, Ilai^^ar, Laurc^nt, Mooney, Martin, Gauthier, Watson, McCord, Hood, Thibault, Jeannotte, and Proctor. Aid. Watson moved, seconded by Aid. Fairbairn. that the Mayor should nominate a .Special Committee to enquire into the Printing Contract and .Mr. llobb's Prote.st relating thereto. The fact that the question involved a saving to the City of SI 0,000 was, he said, a sufficient reason for this motion. Aid. Grenier thought the motion premature. He had in his hand a protest from Mr. Lovell, and he understood there were others ; and he thought it would be judicious to refer them to the City Hall Com- mittee. He had no doubt but the Council and the City generally would watch the proceedings of the Committee, and if they did not do justice to the petitioners then the Council might appoint a Special Committee. He moved that ail the protests be referred to that Comnuttoe, with the understanding that, should the Council iind at the next meeting the parties had not been done justice to, a Special Committee should be appointed. II.) thou.dit the matter should be thoroughly investigated, but he believed the C'ou.niitte.e would do their duty. Rviiii'nrd hi/ till' f'lii'pdi-dt'ioii o/ the Clfy of Mont inil . 91 AM. Watson tliim::lit tliat, as a i:cii( ral rule, his plan woulil lio r trvMimnn- viMrt jmwm objictiniiiildc, l)iit as tlio Cotimiitti'i' were tlu; parties wliosc niiiddct were iiuiiiii:iii'(l. lie did mit tiiiiik it cnidd ri'a.-mi.ilply Im- rct'rrrid td tlu'iii. Aid. RolSKIlT (ipposoJ the uintioii. which Ik- i;!ia;'actrrizi;d as out of order. Aid. riiiKNiKU said holiad no ohjeetioii to a notice of uiotion. but if the Mayor ruled Aid. Watsou'H uiotion in order he should move an aiuiiidnient. Alil. Faiiiuairv said it was not a luotiou at all hut a prtitioii, and they moved that it he referred to a special eominittee. Aid. (JiiK.viKR wanted all tlu; protests referred to the City Hall Couniiittee, not heiiiL:' satisfi -il tluy were in the wnniv, and not as yet seeing any occasion for a Special Committee. lie umU-rstood the Mayor had been .served with a Protest on behalf of Mr. Senccal. Aid. MooNKY rose to speak. Aid HoHEKT rose, ami said he would not sit down until the Mayor had decided the (jucstion of order. The Mayor ruled that the motion to refer the Petition to a Special Committee was in order. Aid. MooXRY protested ap:ainst Aid. Robert's attempt to choke the matter. The Petition was before the Council and they had to refer it to a (Vimmittee of some kind. The City ITall Com mittee wen- the parties charired by the Petition, and tluy emdd not, in justice to the r-T^-'mc'atsmrTwwmumi n.'LR parties involved, n'fer it to them for jud /; / O^S. J -(^ Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 873-4503 €3 ms ;V \\ ^^ .V ^^^ ^<. ^ ^ <*)*• 41^ M y. 92 Statement of the Tenders for the Printing and Stationery Hall Corauiittcft were not charged, and they had nothing to do with this matter of 31 r. Robb's. Aid. Fairbairn said the Petition was from one of the highest oflBcers of the Corjmration, and if he were guilty of what the report charged him with he was no longer fit for his position. The Committee gave the contract to Pcrrault on no other grounds than on those laid down in Mr. Perrault's protest. He seconded the motion to refiT to a Special Conimittee. Aid. Ali.ard said he was on one occasion set right by the Council when he wanted to do a similar thing ; if he was wrong then, his friend, Aid. Fairbairn, must be so now. When they refused to refer to a com- mittee a matter within their department they had no confidence in them. He had a document signed "John Lovolly" but he did not know if the signature were genuine. Mr. Lovell did not accuse the ( "ommittee of any knowing injustice to him, but he said the Committee had been put under a false idea by an erroneous report made by Mr. O'Meara. According to Mr. Lovell's idea the Committee should have taken no account of Mr. O'Meara's report. He should refer the matter to the City Hall Committee, and he hoped Mr O'Meara would be able to compel those gentleme n who had spoken against his repoii to take bitck their statements. He did nOt thinic any- thing had been said against Mr. Robbso serious as Mr. Loveii's statements about Mr. O'Meara, which were most uncharitable and malicious. If he referred the matter to a Special Committee that would not advance it, as the contract has been awarded and the Special Committee would have no power to alter that. They would report to the City Council, which could cancel the contract, but it was unlikely they would cancel what the City Hall Committee had done in virtue of a resolution passed by themselves.* Aid. Holland thought that to refer this petition to the City Hall Committee would be like referring the jud gment of a criminal to him- self. As to the statement that it did not reflect on the t ommittee he would read a portion of it. If that was not a charge against the < "ommittee he did not know what was. It was only fair t o Mr. Robb and to the City Hall Committee that the mat ter should be referred to a special committee. * By tim members, Aldermen Thomas Wilson, aud Dubuc, "rritli the casting, vote of their Chairman, Alderman Robert. Required by tic Corporation of the City of Montreal. 93 Aid. GriExlER said he had no hostile foelini; toward Mr. Ilobb. On the contrary, he had a high opinion of his conduct and capacity, but he had human nature as well as others, and was liable to make mistakes. Ho did not say he had done so, but he had confidonee in tlie City Hall Committee that they would do him justice. The Committ'e should have sent for Mr. Robb. [Aid. Tiio?iias Wilson — *' We did send for him."] Aid. Grenier was glad to hear that, but he believed it w(tuld be nothing but fair to refer the matter to the City Hall Committ«!e. Aid. J)oNOVAN was in favor of a Special Committee. They had Courts of Justice t^ review the decisions of other Judges. There was no sense in asking the Committee to rever.se the judgment they had just given. Aid. MooNEY observed that the City press bad charged the Committee with giving the Contract to the highest tenderer ; the statements hud been scattered broadcast. He made no charge himsolf. Aid. Oilman said the motion consisted of two parts, one to enfjuire into the Printing Contract. Now, that was not before the Council. Mr. Robb said iMr. Pcrrault had made false charges, and he elaimed just"ce ; and he had no doubt Mr. Robb would be as well satisfied with the City Hall Conmiittee as with a Special Committee. He (Aid. Oilman) would as soon have one as the other, only it was a matter of etiquette to refer it to the Committee to whose department it belonged. The former part of the motion was out of order, and could not be made without notice. Aid. Watson said, in regord to Aid. Allard's remarks about want of confidence in City Hall Committee, he thought he was doing them justice. Oentlemen having confidence in their own integrity would bo only too glad to have the fullest investigation. Aid. McCoRD was of opinion that Aid. Orenier's amendment did not go far enough. He moved an addition which would make it read : " That the letter of Mr. Robb and all other protests received in reference to the Printing Contract be referred to the City Hall Committee for investigation, and that no further procjedings be taken on the Contract for Printing until the Committee have made report to the Council and action be taken thereon." The Mayor said there was no Printing Contract before the Council, and Aid. Watson's motion would have to be altered. 94 Statement of the Tenders for the Printing and Stationery AUl. Kennedy said the same men would not be on the Coniniittce on the first of March. In the interests of Justice there should be the fullest Investigation. In the same interests the lowest tenderer should get the Con- tract| if a responsible man. He would like to know whether there would be another meeting of the Committee before the fir.st of March. [Aid. Robert : Yes, this week.] Then he would like to know whether the City Council would meet before the fir.st of March. The Mayor said he could not answer that question, because they could not compel the Committee to report before that time. Aid. Watson altered his motion so that it should read : " That the Mayor nominate a committee to enquire into and take up the Protest of Mr. Robb and all other protests or communications regarding the Printing Contract." Aid. Robert, in opposing Aid. McCord's addition to the amendment, referred to statements on the Contract which had appeared in The Gazette, which he said were inaccurate. After some further rcuiarks by several .Mdernion, Aid. (rreiiier's amendment with Aid. MeCord'.s addition was put with the following result : — Ayes: Aid Thibeault, McCord, Thoriuis Wilson, Dubuc, Giluian, Lavigne, Gauthier, Jeannotte, MeShane, Greene, Allurd, Grenier, and Laurent,— 13. Noes : J. C. Wilson, Kennmly, Proctor, Fairbairn, Mooney, Watson, Hagar, Holland, Donovan, and l\.ooA,—l().— The Gazette, Feb. 15, I8.S1. CITY HALL COMMITTEE. The City Hall Committee met at 10 o'clock on Saturday morning. Present — Aldermen Robert ((Jliairnian), Thomas Wilson, McShane, Jeannotte, Holland, Gilman, and J)ubue. Aid. Gilman presented the following report of the .«ub Committee appointed to draw up a report to be presented to Council, exonerating Mr Robb, the City Auditor, of the charges made against him in Mr. Perrault's charges: — " Your Committee respectfully report that, as directed by the Council, they met to take into consideration the letter of the City Auditor, com- plaining of charges preferred against him in Mr. Perrault's protest, of * misrepresentation of facts,' ' errors of judgment,' and ' partiality Required by the Corporation of the Ctiy of Montreal. 95 against IMr. Perrault,' in liis decision on the printing tenders, &c., &c., &c., and after hearing the explanation of Mr. Robb (Messrs. Perrault, Lovell, and Senecal being present and replying therctf)), your Committee came to the conclusion that the Auditor had taken groat, pains to place matters in a correct light before the Conimittoo, and was sustained in his interpretation by the best of proofs, and acted with strict impartiality thereon. " F. E. Oilman, " A. DuBUC." On motion of AM Oilman the report was adopted unanimously. The opinion of tlic City Attorney, .^Ir. Roy, on Mr. Lovell and Sent'cal's Protests and on the legality of Mr. Porrault's Tender was then read. Tiio first charge of illegality was that, when the tenders were returned, Mr. Perrault had not deposited his cheque of $1,000, as required. This, if true, did not affect the genuineness of the contract, for the reason that not one of the tenderers had deposited their.". The second was that the re.solution of the City Council passed last July was not in accordance with the law, for the reason that there was no appro- priation made according to the Council rule. The third, that the Committee had no right to give the contract without the consent of the Council, was sustained. Alderman CILMAN moved: "That the Contract with Mr. Perrault be prepared in accordance with the minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on the 9th February, I88l| and that your Committee having inquired into the allegations of the protests of Messrs. Lovell and Senecal, and taken the Opin- ion of the City Attorney thereon, they have con»e to the conclusion to report the matter to Council in accordance with the Opinion of the City At- torney." The motion was then carried, Aid. Holland alone dissenting. Aid Hollan d ob jected tn tlie term "Contract witii Mr. Perrault." He thought there was mic Cntnut with .Mr. IVrrauit, and he objected to the admi.ssion that there was. He said he had lost his election by working against Mr. Perrault. but he was not going to give up the contest, even if he were to lose five elections. The Committee had just adjourned, when Mr. Lovell presented a letter, which he asked to have read. The Chairman refused to resume his seat. He thought that, as the nietting was called to receive the City Attorney's Opinion, when that was doue the Committee ought to adjourn. 96 Statement of the Tenders for the Printing and Stationery Aid. Holland thought the matter should be thoroughly investigatod, and all letters in comuction with it should be opened and read. The t'liAiHMAN was willing to have the letter from Mr. Lovell read, if others were received from Messrs. Perrault and Senecal. Aid. McSliANK said everyone should have fair play. Aid. GiLMAN said he was willing to stay and have the matt'^r thoroughly investigated. Aid lloBERT still refused to take the Chair, and Aid. Gilman was appointed Chairman, when Aid. Dubuc, Jeannotte and Wilson left the meeting. Aid. Holland sa id the whole tr u th w as sure to come out, and, there fore, Aid. Robert should not be afraid of having the affair investi- gated. Aid. Robert said he did not need to be taught by Aid. Holland as to what should be done. After some further personalities Aid. Holland .eft the room, when the meeting broke up. — Moiitrecd Herald, bth March, 1881. •AOfh M:irch, 1881. SiB, — I understand that yon have in your possession a certified copy of the annual reports. It may be that I have myself lent you it, but in any case you would oblige mo by returning it at once, as it is my own property or rather my justification for the payment of the amount certified therein. Yours truly, P. O'MEARA, Asxistnnt City Clerk. John Lovell, Esq. Please send it to me before 3 o'clock p.m. Monteeal, 'Mst March, 1881. P. O'Meaba, Esq., Angutant City Clerk, Sib,— Yours of j-esterday did not reach me till between five and six last evening. AVith reference to the pamphlet you refer to. I have to s ay that Mr. Perrault told me on Friday last that neither the City Hall inmittee nor the Council would allow his accounts tt) be examined, consequently the pamphlet you refer to is of no value except to myself, and especially as I have publicly stated that an overcharge has been made by Mr. Perrault, sanctioned by yourself and certified to by Mr. De8h.,rat8. In case the matter should ever come up, I must respectfully hold on to my proof. Yours obediently, JOHN LOVELL. Required by the Corporation of the City of Montreal. 97 MONTBBAL, 3Ut March. John Lovell, Esq., Sir, — Yours of this date is at hand. In reply I most respectfully again request you to return me without any further delay the pamphlet in question, in order to avoid any further unpleasantness in the matter. I have not the slightest objection to give you a copy certified by myself or by the City Clerk of Mr. Desbarats' calculation. I have the honor to be, Sir, Yours truly, P. O'MEARA, Assistant City acrk. 1881. I six last Mr. to my SLL. The Printing Contract awarded to Perrault & Co. for one year ! ! ! A special meeting of the City Council was held yesterday afternoon, Aid. Mooney presiding. There were present Aldermen Stephens, Laurent, Watson, Allard, Beauchamp, Laberge, Proctor, Thibault, Robert, Fairbaim, Donovan, Hood, Kennedy, Hagar, Gilman, Brown, Thomas Wilson, Jeannotte, Gauthier, Farrell, Dubuc, McCord, and Provost. On motion of Aid. Robert, the Orders of the Day in reference to the Printing Contract were then taken up. The report of the City Hall Committee, referring the whole subject back to the Council for settlement, was read. The reading of the last Opinion of the City Attorney upon the question was next called for, Mr. Roy in that document concluded by saying that, in his opinion, the resolution of the Council of the 12th of July, 1878, did not authorize the City Hall Committee to give out a contract for six years for the printing and stationery without the previous sanction of the Council ; that, in consequence, the resolution having for its object the awarding of the contract to Messrs. Perrault was not binding, and that the Corporation would not be liable for damages should the Council annul that decision and give out the contract to other persons, or without tenders. Aid. RoDERT moved, That the report of the City Hall Committee be adopted, and the Mayor be authorized to sign the same. Aid. Stephens said that motion had no significance, as the report of the Committee contained no recommendation. He, there- fore, moved in substitution of the motion. That the contract of John Lovell & Son, being the lowest tender for the Corporation Printing and Stationery, the said contract be awarded to them for one year, and that the Mayor be authorized to sign the contract. Aid. Stephens G 98 Statement of the Tenders for the Printing and Stationery "^^beld that the motion of Aid. Robert meant nothing and should be withdrawn. Aid. Robert insisted upon his motion standing. After some grum- bling, however, Aid. Robert consented to withdraw his motion. By this time, however, Aid. Stephens had come to the conclusion that he would prefer his motion to come as an amendment to that of Aid. Robert's. Aid. Robert insisted on withdrawing his motion. Aid. Oilman insisted upon its standing. Aid. A Hard came to his confrere's assistance. He said his name had been used by Aid. Robert as seconder to the motion without his consent, and therefore begged to withdraw his name as seconder. The Chairman then ruled that the motion of Aid. Robert, having no seconder, must fall to the ground. Aid. Stephens proceeded to speak to his motion. He complained of the number of specifications upon which the contract had been based, and said they were prepared in a way as to convey different ideas to the tenderers. He showed that by a comparison of figures Perrault & Co.'s tender was, taking the three columns, 6j^8,653 higher than that of Lovell. Mr. O'Meara had shewn that the tender of Perrault & Co. was higher by $7,000 than that of Lovell, taking the three columns. Mr. Robb had also re ported Lovell's to be the lowest tender. If Lovell did not get the contract S^uecal was the next lowest tender, and should be awarded the contract. Gazette Printing Company was the next lowest tender, and that of Perrault & Co. was the highest of all the tenders. The speaker asserted that the reason Lovell did not get the contract was that the Committee was bamboozled by the stationery clerk.* An item of 98,000 was put into their tender for drawing paper which never cost more than $150 or $200 a year. A technicality in the specifications had been taken advantage of, although Messrs. Lovell had immediately afterwards rectified the error. He considered that the Council was in honor bound to give the contract to John Lovell & Son. Mr. Laberoe moved in amendment, That the contract of L. Perrault & Co., being the only correct tender 1 1 1 and the only tender offered in accordance with the notice asking for tenders, and the lowest tender III the Contract be given to the said L. Perrault & Co. Aid. Allard moved, in amendment to the amendment. That the City Hall Committee, having given the contract to Messrs. L. Perrault & Co., and they having already done a portion of the work, the contract should be awarded to them. He contended that the tender of Messrs. ♦Patrick O'Meara.— John Lovell. Lessrs. Required by the Corporation of the City of Montreal. 99 Perrault & Co. was the lowest correct tender. Neither the tender of The Gazette Printing Company nor the Sen^cal tender could be enter- tained. The choice of the Committee was therefore confined to the tenders of Messrs. Perrault and Lovell. There was no anibiynity in Mr. LoYcll's tender. If the contract was awarded to Mr. Lovell he could charge $11 a yard for Tracing Cloth. If there waH a mistake in that particular the Contract was irregular, and should be thrown out. If there was no mistake Mr. LovcU's tender was the highest. Under these circumstances he thought there was only one way for the Council to act, and that was to award the Contract to Messrs. L. Perrault & Co. Aldermen Beauchamp, Robert, Jeannotte and McCord participated in the debate. The division was then taken, and the amendment of Aid. Allard was lost on the following vote : — Yeas : Laberge, Prdvost, Dubuc, Thomas Wilson, Robert, Allard and Laurent, — 7. Nays : Brown, Stephens, Fairbairn, Jeannotte, Hagar, Beauchamp, Thibault, Kennedy, McCord, Gauthier, Proctor, Watson, Donovan, Hood, and Gilman, — 1 5. Aid. Jeannotte then .moved in amendment to the amendment. That the contract be awarded to Mr. Sen^cal, the next lowest tender to Mr. John Lovell. This motion was lost on the following vote : — Ayes : Stephens, Jeannotte, Thibault, Gauthier, Thomas Wilson, Gilman, and Laurent, — 7. Nayes : Laberge, Brown, Prevost, Fairbairn, Hagar, Beauchamp, Kennedy, McCord, Dubuc, Proctor, Robert, Watson, Allard, Donovan, and Hood, — 15. Aid. Brown moved the following : — " That the contract for printing and stationery be awarded to Messrs. L. Perrault & Co. for one year from the first of May, 1881, then to expire absolutely, when tenders must be asked for and separate tenders made for printing and stationery." The resolution was carried on the following division : Yeas : Laberge, Brown, Stephens, Farrell, Provost, Jeannotte, Beau- champ, Thibault, Kennedy, McCord, Dubuc, Gauthier, Thos. Wilson, Robert, Watson, Allard, Donovan, Hood, Gilman, and Laurent, — 20. Nayes : Fairbairn, Hagar, and Proctor, — 3. Aid. Stephens, as he was recording his vote, observed that this mode of disposing of the matter was choosing the lesser of two evils. The Council then adjourned. — The Gazette, May 24, 1881. 100 Statement of the Tenders for the Printing and Stationery THE PRINTING CONTRACT. To the Editor of THE STAB : Sib,— In your issue of May 3 1 at a paragraph appears relating to Mr. Per- rault's decision anent the Corporation Printing and Stationery Contract, in which you state that Mr. Perrault is not satisfied with the decision of the Council, and intends to insist on the award of the City Hall Committee, that is, ho claims that he is entitled to the contract for six years. I do not propose on this occasion to dwell upon the gross injustice which has boon done to my firm by the proceedings in connection with this diHcrudit- able affair. I would merely say that, owing to my discovery of facts which will appear in due time, a notice of motion appears on the Orders of the Day of the City Council for a thorough investigation of Mr. Pcrrault's accounts for the last five years. I have no hesitation in saying that this motion is not uncalled for, and I cannot believe that the Council will offer any opposition to the immediate examination of Mr. Perrault's charges, notwithstanding his assertion to the contrary. When this investigation has been fairly carried out, Mr. Perrault's present pretensions will probably appear in a new Lght. At some future day I intend to bring the whole history of the Tenders for ihe Corporation Printing and Stationery Contract before my fellow citizens, feeling confident that they will take such action as will protect their interests. Yours obediently, JOHN LOVELL. Montreal, June 1, 1881. To Ghables Olackmeteb, Esq., att/ Clerk. Dkab Ste,— We beg to enclose for your information a copy of a letter addressed by us this day to His Worship the Mayor. In the event of His Worship being prevented from attending the meeting on Monday, may we respectfully request of you to lay the letter before the Council for their decision. Xouia obediently, JOHN LOVELL & SON. Montreal, June 4, 1881. To THE Honobable J. L. Beaudbt, Mayor of Montreal. Deab Sib,— Being informed that Messrs. L. Perrault k Go. decline to accept the contract for the printing and stationery required by the Corpora- tion, on the terms voted by the City Council on the 23rd day of May last, we beg to inform the City Council, through you, that we are prepared to enter into a contract in accordance with our tender, now before the Corporation, for the term of twelve mouths. letter Required hy the Corporation of the City of Montreal. 101 Ah we undcratand that our tender was rejected in oonHequence of a xnw- apprehenMion aH to the rate givon for the pupor required by the EuffinuerH Department, we now beg to Htato that our tender (juotcHl the rato jjir roll, and not per yard aH it woh inisconHtrued by the City Hall Committee, and wo are prepareil to furniHh it ot such rate, or (if the Council profisr) to abandon any claim whatever to furninh the paper of this description which may In* required by the Engineering Dtspartment. Pending the deciHion of the Council, wo are prepared in the meantime to execute the work on the Uirma Hpeciflod in our tender. Your obedient servants, JOHN LOVELL SON. Montreal, June 4, 1881. The Printing Contract Once More. A Protest was read from Mr. L. Pcrrault, in answer to a notification of the Corporation requesting him to sign the contract for one year. The Protest states th^t Mr. Perrault's tender for the printing was formally accepted; that on the 18th June instant he was asked to sign a written con\.ract containing a number of clauses differing in various essential pa ticulars from his tender; that he desires and intends to sign only a contract in conformity with the agreement submitted to and the resolutions adopted by the City Hall Corporation ; that he does not go m far as to say that he refuses to sign the contract on account of tht> limit of time therein mentioned, but reserves to himself the right to consider this point if justice is done him in other respects, and that he will hold the City Hall Corporation responsible for all damages and interests already suffered or that he may hereafter suffer from the said Corporation not conforming with its contract. — The Star, July 5, 1881. FINANCE COMMITEE. Tlie Printing Contract again under consideration. A meeting of the Finance Committee was held yesterday afternoon, Aid. Grenier in the chair. There were present : — The Mayor, Aldermen Mooney, Stephens, Provost, Farrell, and Brown. Aid. Stephens offered the following : — ** Resolved, That, pending the giving out of the contract for printing and stationery and the supply of stationery, the City Clerk and City Treasurer be authorized to order such supplies and printing for their departments where they can get them most cheaply." 102 Statement of the Tenders for the Printing and Stationery Tho Chairman asked the City Attorney if they had a right to pass that resolution. Mr. Roy said ho did not think the Committee had any power to interfere with the contract made by the Council. The Council had given out tho cuutract to Mr. Perrault for a year, and it was a matter for the Council to entertain. Aid. Stephens explained that tho Council had given out the contract for a year, but the printer had protested, and said he would not accept it. The oonHC(|uuncc was that they would have no contract until the City Hall Committee recommended some new plan. In the meantime they wanted some one to be ru<;ponsible for the supplies, and therefore they chose the heads of the departments. He did not think they should be played with in tho way they have been played with any longer. The Chairman suggested that a resolution should bo passed affirm- ing that if Mr. Perrault did not sign tho contract it should be taken from him. Mr. Rot suggested that the contractor should be warned that, if he did not choose to sign the contract by a certain day, other steps would be taken. Aid. Prevost thought the matter was one foi the City Hall Com- mittee to consider. It was not a subject for the Finance Committee to deal with at this juncture. Aid. Stephens wanted to know if they were going to allow Mr. Perrault to play with the Corporation any longer in this way. He thought the motion he had made was a perfectly appropriate one. Mr. Rot said that as the matter had been referred to the City Hall Committee it would be proper to leave it to that Committee, and if Mr. Perrault refused to sign the contract within a certain specified time they would recommend the Council to take the contract away from him. Aid. Brown stated that at the last meeting of the Committee they could not get a quorum. Aid. Stephens — I insist upon my motion. Let's have a little back- bone among us. Aid. MooNET did not think their hands should be tied in this matter. If the City Hall Committee would not act they should act themselves. The contract, for one year, which had been awarded by the Council should be signed at once. The Chairman was in favor of referring the subject to the City Hall Committee, and if the contractor refused to sign the contract, as directed, he would vote in favor of taking the contract from him. 'ationery ht to pass ittoe had oil. The year, and contract lot accept until the Dieantioie therefore link they with any cd affirm- be taken hat, if he would be [all Com- 'ommittee lUow Mr. ^ay. He ne. Dity Hall nd if Mr. Bed time rom him. ttee they tie back- i matter, mselves. Council he City tract, as Required hy the Corporation oj the City of Montreal. 103 AM. Stephens thought they ahould not bo humbugged any longer by any one man who went away, after fooling the Corporation, laughing in hia sleeve. Aid. Prevost moved that the action in regard to the printing con- tract nhould be poHtponed until the City Hall Committee had reported on the protest referred to them by the Council, and that the Mayor be requested to call a meeting of the City Hull Committoo for Thursday. Aid. Stephens — In the meantime we want supplies and printing. The Mayor — I think the first thing to be done is to call a meeting of the City Hall Committee, and if they do not meet wo can determine what will bo the best thing to do. Aid. Stephens — Will your honor make the subject the first Order of the Day for Monday ? The Mayor — I have no objection. Aid. MoONEY then moved in amendment to the amendment that the Mayor be requested to call a meeting of the City Hall Committee to report to the Council on the printing contract, and the protest referred to them, and that the question be made the first Order of the Day for Monday. Aid. Mooney's amendment was carried. — Tlie Gazette, July 6, 1881. The City Hall Committee Resolve that they have more Authority over the Printing Contract Matter than the Council. At the meeting of this Committee yesterday afternoon, there were present Aid. Robert (Chairman), Laberge, Brown, and Thomas Wilson. An application was received from Messrs. Perrault & Co. to be paid for printing 60 copies of the record of the Orange trial. The Committee ordered that they be paid at the rate of $2 a page of printed matter for 76 pages. Aid. Laberge moved. That the City Attorney be instructed to inform the Committee, in writing, if the resolution adopted by the Council at the last meeting annuls the resolution adopted by the Council on the 12th July, 1875, and if it was not necessary to reconsider this last resolution previous to authorizing the heads of the difierent departments to purchase their supplies where they wsmmmmmmm mm m 104 Statement of the Tenders fe notified I for any littee will 3 Council purchase Perrault ir to give given by Wilson, rown.