New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-07-27

without being fully advised in consequence Of being
alsent from the country at the time OF the previous
Teeirss took the trouble TO ascertain the !espon-
sjfilt, Of hi. Mr.. A., whc was - lower thsn Mr.
: a., wLcm II was propcsed 70 give the coftiact =
IL hoe been settled that Vi cannot tITnf W.-El - /
found bis qualifications and =, v'asiiI e. entlF =
,ai.stactorT ~ consulting his TT accs wt0 wee
ol.e Of the oldest and most !cspau r.C chants -
business Il, ~ ~ NE my.
was slso informed by Mr.. F.. a mersber of the
Building Committee that this Ar Strang hsd sent IN
L. ,s.irf,t, Z :. 1,cless than the amOCut proposed
~ the rsiity "a given "a ne other Mr.. 6: AMI he
MI L.. requested D." toS IN cal (Which dd) ior
2 Il ecia meeting upon this subject. one wss accord
iney called by tic President, at tie same Eoas and
place with tie regular monthly meeting CT Tuesday.
tie 18th inst II then and there thar asce-t.acd
that did not belong to the Building Commit ee-the
annual election having taken place in January last, III
nv absenee " len was left 0-w hich was not Known
or recolected by the Chairman of the Building Com
mittee who invited me 70 meet ard act with them.
which did before stated about the 2th june.
Therefore, am exOnerated from any responsibility in
regard to any contract made which may hereafter be
made ty said Building Committee. At that meeting.
the majority Of the Committee on Buildings reported
10 give the contract Ia Mr. s. at s. 200 than Mr..
Straug had asked aud stated that SIR. Srangs bid was
not in timc-thcy were committed 20 S.,-and that
they Che Committee) were authorized 20 contract;
but no such authority by the Legislature. BIZ law
resolution could be found: snc the Board could
did not accept their report 10 give the contract
tlis M $. 1t was however, referred back TO the
Committee with power to contract for the building;
thus throwing the responsibility back upon The building
Committee which J. with others, voted for-Peter
Coorer in the Chair, YOU your correspondent
states in your issue If the 2Ist.
Now admitting that the Committee acted in good
faith presumins they had the power 70 contract for
the building and acting under this erroneous impress
sion and had con mitted Themselves TO this Mr.. >, at
price $3.50 more than another man whom they sup
posed not responsible, and whose bid was in time but
eutse0u snty ascertained To be- responsible and at
price - 100 more than another responsible man who
they raw wac not in time but he might have been IN
tine had public notice been given OF the closing or
lad be been notified By the Committee others were
II has been argued by some that Mr. strang must
hare knorn the other bids and that he was governed
BY them in making his. Now, to my mind the best
evidence We can have that he did moi know the bids OF
others is the fact that he 1880 lower than the
lowest Why, if he knew their bids, did he make his
lid 81 Geo lower Would not $1,000 or $3.50 lower
have given him ust as good claim And why did
not the Committee the advertisement. or give
Lin notice they did others 10 hand in his estimate
on particular day II cannot be said that NJ
Strang is net responsible, his references are salts
factory and he well known AZ having built many large
and elegant buildings, among others the Rev Drs.
Pottss CheevoTs aud Muhenbergs Churches, with en-
tire satisfaction. Yours, SiIAs {. HERRING.