New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-08-08

TIE COMMITTEE ON STRENGTHENING
The Committee Of the Board Of COuncilmen met
Yesterday afternoon ct o'clock, pursuant to adjourn
| moDt When the hour for business had arrived, the
! Chairman said that it seemed to be matter Of i'm
possibility to procure majority of the Committee.
At tie opening OF the proceedings Councimen Cooper
/ lCbarmsnD and Coleman only were present The
Chairman considered that it was the duty Of the mi
monty to take The evidence 10 be afterward approved
OF rejected the majority thought fit.
The fret witness called was A. G. Flagg, Esq t,
Controller who having been sworn, was examined by
the Chairman. lie testified sfoIoEs: Was present
at tie opening of the bids for the STRENGTHENING con-
tract: some Of them were informal ! had no opportu
nifty Of allowing them to be corrected, as they were
not in my pOssessiOu they were in the custody Of Mr.
Ebing of the bids of Smith, Seckel n Co. were
informal; II is not uncommon 10 allow bids TO be cor
rected after they received; ] do not OF my o Tn
kIOWlcdge know of any other bids previous 20 this
that were informal, and which were af,erward allO vel
10 be corrected by the heads OF departments would
prefer 10 leave the question as TO whether such bids
involve in form error in substance to be
decided by legal gentlemen; have no recollection OF
contracts being awarded to any parties wh;h were IT.
regular in tits way.
The testimony Of Mr. Flagg, in the main, tended to
exculpae the different heaos of departments from any
regularity in receiving bids.
Robert Walmsley was The next witness called.
He saw the bids opened; Mr.. Seckels bids were not
sworn to; this, he thought was the reason why they
were rejected; witness is contractor; none OF his
bids were informal; | might nave seen clerical errors
corrected after the bids were accepted; three blds
of Garret E.Wnans were thrown oa before decision
was arrived at.
BERNARD McCaferty, sworn. Said that he was a
bidder and put in estimate; thinks that the first
twenty bids that were offered rejected because
the signature not attached TO the oatn Is accus-
toned to contract for the Corporation, and see bids
opened: recollec;ed a case about tive months ago,
when bill was accepted which was correct on tue
face of it but the affidavit the Other side was not
Gated the contract however given 10 the party;
does not think that the heads of departments would
award contracts informal BIDS the Cr0tOn De
pertinent would not look al them.
l.. BOwtOn testified to never having known an in
formal bid 10 be received or any other than clerical
error TO be corrected, but wherc certain net was
omit ed that the ordinance required to be done caused
the not TO be receivet so far as the receiving OF
informal bids, he never knew bill to be received
that not TO, or TO which the names of the
surcties were wanting this the only instance IN
which lid was received which hsd not been sworn
to- aud il was matter of surprise 70 him that the
Controller usually so punctiiious, should have al
lowed II 10 escape his notice.
Mr.. Smith, one OF the firm Of Smith, Seckel y Co.,
made the following statement, viz. Our aiidavits
were sworn To, but the Commissioner OF Deods before
whom they were sworn, had not Tine owing to the
lateness OF the hour, to attach his signatures THIS
delay from the detention OF one OF our firm IN
Philadelphia longer than was expected; the COmna-
eiouer called at Mr.. Ebhngs Office next morning to
afx his signatures that gentleman informed him that
il was not requisite the Counsel 10 the Corporation
had decided II 90 be an informally, and that we hid
right 20 correct it, and that would be better TO make
q new affidavit; We old so immediately, aud expressed
our desire TO do everything proper.
No other persons appearing to offer evidence, the
Chairman, after having stated that an early report
would be presented, announced thai the Committee
Adjourned