New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-01-12

certified copy there0fso be made Tor the purpose VI
public use"
Recrlatipg and grading Fhfty-seventh street nVu
It'd 20 EYith avenue pursuant to advertisement oy
Jsn,es Furev Street Commissioner, fifteen es,Iin9es
ver. received. The only items OF WORK sPeciheu y,
estimated for were rock excavation, EARN hIuhs quo
culyert John O'Nale was the lowest bidder sna ,,,e
cos, ~ The work bv his estimate would b. sl3S9l 10.
Contract however was made July -, 1914 win 'onn
Ouip whose estimate was fourth from the owes', auu
the cost of the work BY il would be 80 ~ - "olA
to be completed BY July ~, ioSl Jonh re'ts' NJ
and Terence Mcclure became his surenes. T. H.
Dreyer Surveyor and j. b. Hslsey, Inspector were
appointed on the work. Quin subsequently assigned
his contract to the Bowery Bank, but continued 10
perform the work until his death; OHgina con,rsc.
and assignment were duly fled with ControIer At'er
Gums decease the Bank employed Charles DeVIin 20
finish the work. While the work was IN progress
James Furey's term OF office expired, 6nd Joseph -
TAYLOR succeeded him Street Commissioner, ana
snheouently caused the contract 10 be altered on the
contrect-b,ok in his office by inserting the following
aem. Retaining per cubic foot, l. cents
(which is equal 10 50 "a per cubic yard, whie iar
rate for such work would be from 80 cent 10 ~ per
onIsc varril. The Surveyor reports that several
months more time will be required to fnish the WORK
TIE 20 per cent already PAID on the contract oy 'ne
Controller up to the 18th day of September iast Is
S}5 G7 (which is equal 10 total cost up to that Date
=, Sil asA and he has in hand, which ne has not YET
mad hills recently rendered for about SO wv more.
In this case there appears, frSf, aIv:1 1I "a 40"
in not giving the contract 10 the lowest o'uue''
nc ,brebv loss 10 the property-owners aSseSseu io
.Is ~ If about s6 OO0 Second Illegal II not
tardrlent alteration Of the recorded contract IN IT.
srect TO retaining. wall, by which act j. cauSeu
further loss to the pvoperty-o"nerS' aS aFe"uy M
Gated Of about gu when 20 III or vet 70 be
n.rtormed The grand total of cost - hhey' tnete-
fore 10 exceed the contract estimate by not less '
$50 Geo. Third the large excess OF TWO anu nan la,
wears time in the execution OF the "o'A' WIZ "''
NJ an
rronertv owners interested, and may also prove
tax upon them in the way Of Inspector ices 81
Al 30 per day.
po,.,,.,;rc and Grading Third avenue from Eighty
s,tb 70 -and-tenth street. Pursuant |"
advertisement by Jos. ). Taylor, fourteen estimates
were received and the work awarded ana uuIy con-
frmed by the Common Council ana Mayor 10 a.
From- the lowest bidder. The cost OF the WORK
by his estimate would be $3SoIl VI. Inc cohtra e
however, was made with John Pettgrew, Aug; q,
1856 Cost of the work by his estimate wouiI ,o DC
s5l 3l6 S2-work to be completed by May % iooI'
James Humes and John Is. MoTeu are MS sui'''''
The work is not yet completed .,.. r -,
In This case there appears the same vioston OF Jaw
aud that too in the face OF full comm VI tlo
Common Council and Mayor, in not giving tne con-
tbe property owners to be assessed OF about slvo
There appears also an excess OF some seven months
time in tile execution OF the work.
CASE
Regulating and grading Fitty-siuh street, from
Fourth 10 Fifth avenue. contract was du'y mace
sent Is 1856, with James Reilly, the lowest bidder
| Cost of the work under his contract Would DC
$63J7 80. James Saxton and CornsnHs Ne ,Sn
6.rame his ruetiee. Time tor completion OF the
work one year. While the work was IN progress al
alteration was made in the recorded contract by in-
sorting the following, viz: Retaning-wall per cubic
| foot L.. cents.
In this case ss in case No there appears the per-
peration of the same illegal and fraudulent alteration
OF the contract on the contractbook by inserting the
| item Of retainng-wall at exOrbtant rate, while
such work not specified in the original advertise
ment nor in the estimates submitted, il neces-
sarv or intended 10 be included in the work performed
and if the advertisement had called for bids on the
item Of retainingwall it would have been estimated
for readily at apnce % per cent below the rate a.
lowed by the alteration of the contract. The work
being yet unfinished there appears also an excess OF
| three months time IN it's execution.
CASE Nv.
Regulating and grading Fifty-secOnd street from
Fourth avenue East River. The work having been
duly advertised, nine estimates were received The
work awarded and duly confirmed to ). Foster,
the lowest bidder by the Common Council and Mayor
Nov. H. 1856 Cost of the work under the estimate
| of Foster would be $ll,T5. But notwithstanding,
and while the confirmation TO Foster was pend
ing in the Common Council, the contract WAS made al
| the Street Department with Charles Deyin, under
date Oct. 80, 1885, under which contract the cost o
| the work would be- $l6,i50 Time allowed for the
work one year. A copy Of the contract with Deylir
war filed with the Controller. Since then the recorded
contract has been altered by inserting as follows, VIZ
Retaining wall per cubic foot, II cents" equal ~
before stated 10 - 81 per cubic yard, rate al
least - per cent too high, even If the work had been
necessary and legitimaely included IN the contract
The copy Of the contract filed with the Controller
altered and therefore contains no such item OF
work To be performed retairungwall. The surete-
Of Devln in this contract John Fitzpatrick and
John Sullivan. Isaac L. Ludlam is the surveyor on
tie work. s. Foster, the party entitled to the con-
tract il doing the work under the Devlin contract.
Work not yet finished.
| In this case appears, first, most unwarantabe
disregard of and Interference with the action of the
| Common Council and Mayor, by making n contract
with party not entitled to it by law, while the con-
matiUn of the lawful award TO the proper party was
peudpg with them; and likewise at an increase of
5000 in the cost of the work Second the same
land apparently habtual) alteration OF the con-
| tract and in the manner and with q like pros
pecve increase of cost. Third an excess of time in
the execution of the work, with ts probable dI-ad-
yantages to the prOpety-owners; and lastly the tact
that the party FOSTER to whom the contract was
awarded but given is doing the work for Devlin,
and il may be fairly presumed at the price proposed
| by lin 10 the Street Department. The inevitable
conclusion therefore, il that the illegal action of the
Street Commissioner results, a. 1t was no doubt ill.,
tended by him and his contractor, in Oveaxing the
citizens interested in the work $ 0OO, for whose
berehr can readily be imagined.
CASE V.
Regulating Fty-seyenth street from Ninth to Eley-
enth avenue, and setting curb and gutter and flag
gug same, from Eighth TO Eleventh avenue. After
due adv eri-emeDt ot the work, four estimates
received. Work was awarded and duly confirmed by
Common Council and Mayor on the Dist Oct 1856, 10
&. {. Eli, lowest bidder and under whose estimate
the co-t of the work would be S26 44 90 Contract
however, made on the Sd Dec, 1856 with Oscar
Taylor whose estimate amounted to s39 OF o., being
800 70 more than Elss. Subsequently there ap-
pears upon the records of the Street Department an
assignment of this contract from Charles Devlin TO G..
{. Ellis, and another from {. {. Ellis TO Bowery
Bank but assignment previous from Oscar Taylor
| to Devn appears anywhere upon the books in the
Department Ellis II doing the work John T. Dodpe