Music Trade Review

Music Trade Review -- © mbsi.org, arcade-museum.com -- digitized with support from namm.org
THE
s
MUsic
TRADE REVIEW
The Other Side.
WALTER HOLMES HAS SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT THE JERSEY CITY PIANO ROW
THAT EXONERATES THEMSELVES
A COMMITTEE
WHAT THE LOCAL PAPER TERMS A WHITEWASH.
In every contest it is well to hear the ar-
guments brought by both sides, else a one-
sided view may result.
In the Jersey City piano war, a number of
the papers have given one side only of the
case, evidently forgetting that fairness
alone should entitle Mr. Walter Holmes to
a proper consideration.
In their evident haste, to censure Mr.
Holmes they have overlooked the most
important feature of the case.
It was well know.n in Jersey City that
the Board of Education desired to purchase
a number of pianos and all the local dealers
were anxious to put in bids when the
proper time came.
Walter Z. Holmes, manager of the
Bradbury branch, was, among others, in-
formed that he would be afforded ample
opportunity to submit his proposition to
supply the schools with pianos.
He ap-
plied directly for that privilege. But that
opportunity never came, and the first
knowledge that Mr. Holmes had of the
fact that the schools of Jersey City had
been supplied with pianos came through
the public print.
He was naturally" indignant that he had
been passed by, and he claimed that the
spirit of the law had been violated by the
Board of Education in ignoring the law
which prohibits the purchase of any sup-
plies which cost more than $joo, without
open competition.
As a resident tax-payer of Jersey City
he was exercised at the course of procedure
adopted by the Board of Education. He
wrote a strong letter bearing upon the sub-
ject to the Mayor. His denunciation of
the illegality of the Board aroused the
Mayor who called Mr. Holmes before him,
where he met Mr. Turtle the agent who
sold the pianos to the Committee. Some
arguments followed before the small party
present during which Mr. Turtle spoke
deprecatingly to the Mayor of Mr. Smith
and his pianos, naming a ridiculous price
at which he alleged he could purchase
them. Mr. Holmes said half in jest that
he could supply just as good pianos as Mr.
Turtle had furnished for $200.
After the session was over and he had
protested against the action of the Board,
Mr. Holmes supposed the incident closed.
It was not his desire or intention to take up
the matter of price. What he desired was to
have what he considered a wrong righted.
Had it not been for the Mayor's action the
matter would have ended there and never
have assumed national importance.
A short time later when sending some
communications to the Board, the Mayor
stated that he was waiting for Mr. Holmes
to produce just as good pianos for $200 as
the Board had purchased. His remarks
appeared in the papers and Mr. Holmes
was dared to make his statement good.
His friends told him that Mayor Hoos had
called him down and virtually demanded
of him to make good a promise which
never should have been made public.
Mr. Holmes says:, " The way the matters
stood, I had to produce the piano to prove
that I was not bluffing.
"I went to Chicago, called at the Bush &
Gerts warerooms with my friend, Lester
W. Stevens, who is engaged in the bicycle
and photograph business in the McVicker
building.
"He presented his card but not until after
the sale was made and we wished to give
the shipping address, which was his own
residence in St. James Place. All this talk
that he claimed consideration by reason of
being a bicycle manufacturer, is the veriest
rot and absolutely untrue—as false as the
statement that I represented myself to be
Stevens. Wh) T , Stevens was with me in
flesh and blood—a six footer at that.
" I was dared to produce a Bush & Gerts
piano, and I did not know any better way
than to buy one. This Mr. Stevens did
for me, and you can read what he says in
his sworn statement. I had no idea that
this matter would end as it has, but I felt
that I was doing right, to expose the action
of the Board. I certainly had no feelings
against Bush & Gerts in the sale, and it
should be borne in mind that it was not I
who made the matter public. It was to a
large extent a local affair. I asked that
the Board be compelled to act in accord-
ance with law, and had it not been for the
other side the whole affair would have
been confined to our city. I have kept my
promise to the Mayor, who could, with
just as much consistency, have demanded
of Mr. Turtle to make his statement good.
"The people here have been much in-
terested in the case."
Mayor Hoos appointed an investigating
committee, who made a voluminous report
exonerating themselves.
The Evening Journal, the leading pa-
per of Jersey City, prints concerning it:
" It appeared upon examination that the
Board of Education had purchased twelve
pianos, and had paid $4,611 for them,
without regard to the law which provides
that contracts shall be made after open
competition for all supplies costing $500 or
more.
"The Board of Education decided to in-
vestigate itself, and appointed a committee
to take testimony.
The report of that
committee was published in the Journal
yesterday. It goes almost without saying
that the committee exonerates every one
connected with the transaction.
The
Board approved of the finding of the com-
mittee. If it had not done so, it would still
have had a margin for further explanations
because it approved the purchases and or-
dered the bill paid.
*
*
*
" I t must be admitted by all who have
read the statements, that the committee's
report is what is commonly called 'white-
wash. '
" T h e facts alleged in the Mayor's com-
munication are admitted, it is even admitted
that the furniture committee evaded the
law relating to contracts, and that Mr.
Turtle had made a good bargain, but it is
claimed that the committee meant right,
therefore the Board stood by the commit-
tee.
"What other outcome could have been
expected ? "
The action of Mr. Holmes has created
much interest in Jersey City. The papers
have devoted much space to it and as a direct
result there has been an overhauling of a
number of departments. The Journal,
date of Dec. 27, under the caption "The
Piano Scandal," says the following editor-
ially:
" The committee that examined into that
piano scandal made a mistake when it
decided to hold a secret investigation. The
members of the committee are public
officials and the pianos were purchased for
public use with public money.
"If the committee decided beforehand
that there was something wrong they
reached the conclusion that was reached by
every other resident of the city and by
making a secret investigation the committee
seemed to have decided that their business
was to cover up the wrong, no matter what
it was. There does not seem to be any
escape from this inference.
" In presenting a summary of the testi-
mony elicited, the committee blundered.
The testimony should have been presented
in full. The committee by exercising its
power to suppress part of the testimony,
took upon itself the labor of selecting what
should be published and thereby showed a
disposition to screen the actors in the trans-
action ; that is, it assumed so much of the
blame for whatever of wrong there was.
" T h e committee, by stating that all but
one of the piano dealers called upon to
testify before it to the value of the pianos,
had refused to testify on account of pro-
fessional courtesy, showed that there was
something wrong. If the transaction had
been an ordinary business affair there
would have been no reason for such hesi-
tation on the part of other dealers. The
committee says that the other dealers
spoke quite frankly in private, but would
not make public statements.
It would
have been better if the committee had
made a summary of the statements
made by these dealers, even though
their
names had
been
suppressed.
If these dealers refused, out of kind-
ness of heart and professional courtesy,
to make public statements, then their
opinions were adverse. If they had found
no irregularity, they would have had no
hesitation in speaking. This fact the com-
mittee has made quite clear in its report ;
therefore the finding of the committee is
not in accordance with the evidence con-
tained in its summary.
" I n the testimony of Mr. Dressier, as
reported by the committee in its sum-
mary, the committee shows that the Board
of Education paid about $1,200 more for
the pianos than it should have paid, and
the committee itself says the pianos could