City Settled Charley Allen's Flume Patent Claim
Mayor Hunt faces accusations of conflict of interest and patent infringement after his own foundry manufactured parts for a municipal project.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
In speaking of the suit brought against the city by Charley I. Allen for the infringement of his patent in the building of the Worley flume on East Alder street, the Union notes that the city settled the claim upon legal advice, paying a significant sum. If there was no infringement, why did Mayor Hunt consent to the payment? It is known that the city paid Attorney W. H. Upton $75 for the advice to settle. Several months before the contract for the Worley flume was let, Mr. Allen visited this city to warn the water committee not to use his patent without consent. In the face of this, Worley was allowed to infringe on the Allen patent, and the iron rods that constitute the patent fastening were made by the mayor's own foundry. The Gilbert Hunt Company was paid over $500 for these parts, a clear violation of state law prohibiting city officers from being interested in city contracts. The result was that the city was forced to pay out hundreds more to settle the infringement suit—a penalty for the mayor's disregard of the laws he took an oath to obey.
“Either horn of the dilemma leaves Mayor Hunt impaled in a position from which he can not easily extricate himself to the satisfaction of the taxpayers.”
Conflicts of interest in municipal contracting remain a core concern in local politics. This 1903 dispute echoes modern arguments about transparency and the ethical boundaries of officials owning businesses that contract with their own cities.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.