The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1858-01-12

legal sesrches and may SOON s.o' ovI1 yovc. 49,
alter in reference particularly tho boundaries OF land
that have been changed e the alteration Of lines caused
his condition Of the map and proas records IN the Depart
mrnt this following resolution introduced and partially
oversight or neglect was never fully enacted-viv
Ihat hereafter, in all cases where by law map pro-
nie is ned in the Street Department, the Street Commits
shall cause duly certified copy thereof 70 be made
for the purpose Of public use.
Regulating and grading Fifty seventh street, from
Third Fifh avenues, pursuant to advertisement by
James Furey, Street Commissioner fifteen estimates
received The only TENS Of work spe :ihed or estimated
OSale the lowest bidder, and the cost OF the work
by his estimate would be el3,S9l Sc Contract, however
made July o. 1884, with John Qun, whose estimate
fourth the lowest and the cost OF the work by
would be 69 o. work to be completed by July ~
1855. John Pettigrew and Terence Mcclure became his
suretes. p. II. Dreyer surveyor land j. B. Hasey, IN
spcctor appointed on the work Qun subsequently
assigned his contract To the Bowery Bank but continued
perform the work until his death Original contract
and assignment duly filed with Comptroller AFTER
GUMS decease the bank employed Charles Devn 70 hnsh
The work While the work ws in progress James
him Street Commissioner and subsequently cansea the
be altered the contract book in his once o
inserting the following item: Retaining wall per CUBIC
foot II cents (which equal 10 90 "a per cubic yard,
while fair for such work would be from 10 cents 70
months more time will be required 70 finish the work.
The per already paid the contract by Comp
troler to the 18th day Of september last 500 ~
(which is equal total cost up 70 that date Of SOL $685.
and be has hand, which he has not yet paid, bills re-
Gently rendered for aboat so 900 more
IN this there appears, FIRST violation OF law IN not
giving the contract to the lowest bidder causing thereby
the property assessed for the work, OF
about Sc Ooo Second an illegal If not fraudulent atera
ton OF the contract IN respect TO retaining
wall by which caused further loss 70 the property
owners already indicated, of about S41 GOO, which 70
further increased by some several months more
work vet TO be performed The grand total of cost is
likely therefore, exceed the contract estimate by MT
less than $50 ooo Third the large excess OF two and
half IN tha tim f
doubtless matter Of serious Inconvenience 70 pro
perty interested and may also prove further
tax upon them the way Of inspectors fees at 81 30 per
day.
Regulating and grading Third avenue, from Eighty sixth
TO 10th street. Pursuant 10 advertisement by JOS y
Tayo fourteen estimates were received and the work
awarded and duly confirmed by Common Council ana
Msyor TO A. C. From the lowest bidder. The cost OF the
work by his estimate would be 77 81 The contract
however was made with John Peftgrcw, Aug. %, 1856.
Cost Of the work by his estimate would be s5l 3l6 So
work to be completed by May 2s 1857. James Humes
and John Morrell are his surees The work not yet
completed.
that too in the Of full confirmation Of the Common
Council Mayor in not giving the contract TO the low
owners to be assessed of about 500 There appears
also, of some seven months time in the execu-
ton Of the work.
Regulating and grading Fifty sixth street from Fourth 10
Fifth avenue. A contract duly made September Is,
1856 with James Reilly, the lowest bidder Cost OF the
work under mis- contract would be 1857 90 James Sax
ton and Cornelius Frederick became his sureties Time
for completion of the work one year While the work
was in progress alteration made in the recorded
contract by inserting the following, viz -Retaning wal!
per cubic FOOT 1919 cents.
traon Of illegal and fraudulent alteration Of the
contract contract book by inserting the item OF
retaining wall attain exoroant rate; wnie sucn ~ot DIX
estimates submitted II necessary or Intended 70
be included in the work performed and the advertise
ment had called for bids on the item o. retaining wall
would have been estimated for readily at price seventy
five per cent below the allowed by the alteration Of
the contract The work being yet unfinished, there ap
naars also an excess Of three months time in its execution
Regulating and grading Fifty second street from Fourth
avenue 20 Fast The work having been duly adver-
tised, nine estimates were received. The work was
awarded and duly confirmed 10 s. Foster the lowest bid
der by the Common Council and Mayor, November ii
1856 Cost OF the work under the estimate Of Foster
would be Sl 75 But notwithstanding, and even while
the confirmation TO Foster was pending IN the Common
Council the contract made at the sree< Department
with Charles Devn under date OF October 2 1886 under
which contract the cost Of the work would be $l6i5o
Time allowed for the work one year copy OF the con
S pylpr vas aS KIN the Comy,reeI cent? SSssc'
equal before stated TO 90 "a per cubic yard-s
least 70 per cent too high II the work hat
been necessary and legtmatey included in the contract
The copy Of the contract fled with the Comptroller
not altered and therefore contains such item Of worl
TO be performed retaining wall The suretes of Devlr
IN this John Fitzpatrick and John Sullivan
Isaac Ludam is the surveyor on the work s Foster
the party entitled to the contract, doing the work under
| the Devin contract. Work not yet finished
In this appears nrst, most unwarrantablc dsrc
gard OF and Interference with the action OF the Common
Council and Mayor by making contract with party
not entitled 10 BY law while the confirmation Of the
lawful award 10 the proper party was pending with them
and likewise At increase Of IS 600 in the OF
the work Second, the same land now apparently ha-
btua) alteration OF the contract and in the
and with ike prospective Increase OF cost Third
excess Of time In the execution OF the work with lis
probable Disadvantages 10 the property owners and
lastly the fact that the party oser) 20 whom the con
tract awarded but not given, Is doing the work for
Devln and may be fairly presumed at the price pro-
hv ~, tkp De-
conclusion, therefore. s that the Illegal aston OF the
Street Commissioner results doubt intended
by him and his contractor in overaxng the citizens
rested in the work s. 600, for whose benefit
readily be imagined.
Regulating Fifty seventh street, from Ninth 10 Eleventh
avenue and setting curb and gutter and Tagging same,
from Eighth 70 Eleventh avenue. After due advertise
ment o. the work four estimates received. Work
awarded and duly confirmed by Common Council aud
Mayor the 21st Oct 1856, 70 c. C. Es, lowest bidder
and under whose estimate the cost OF the work would b
s26, 3A 80 Contract however, made on the 81
Dec. 1890 with Oscar Taylor whose estimate amounted
$50 OF o5 being s7o IS more than Ellis Subse
oueny there appears upon the records o the Str De
parment an assignment OF this c.ptracl from Charles
bevlin 70 c. G. Ellis ana another from c. Ellie Bos
cry ns ou. 20 asgh.n' prevc9s ION oscar taylor
parinen Fills doing the work, John T. Dodge is the
Surveyor on the work and the suretes Of Taylor, c.
Devlin and John Fitzpatrick Work not yet completed
In this appears, first, the usual disregard Of law
and ordnance giving the contract 20 another than the
lowest bidder resulting a loss thereby Of nearly sl3
whom the contract awarded but not given. 4 dong
the work. and cannot be supposed a, larger price than
he estimated for himself ginaly which would Indicate
that after the 0 sundry assignments somebody
pockets nearly $4,000 for dong nothing.
Tagging sidewalks IN Fifty fourth street, from rhrd 10
Fourth avenue For this work three estimates re
ccived, and the work awarded and confirmed August n
1856 20 r. Gallagher the lowest bidder and whose
amounted tof GOO Nevertheless, the contract
given 10 George Mountoy, Jan 3, 1887 whose estimate
the highest and amounted 20 $3.50 One surety only
civ " \ an he no
work has been cone.
The usual disregard OF law and ordinance appears
@ 10 have been carried out for the benefit &c the
highest bidder ~ connection with this work II appears
by the list and surveyors return Of work
that sixteen los Fourth and Lexington avenues which
not on Tie line OF the work specified In tbecontrac
and consequently were not tagged, nevertheless
assessed some 81 215 for the work and the
collected also that property belonging 10 the Corporation
over assessed some 1900 measurement. by
the surveyor and the collected Thus abou.
VI BIS have been vrongfuly COLLECTED and paid
some one, without consideration and should the party
fail 70 return the amount thus wronguy assessed the
property owners the city will necessarily have TO do