New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1866-03-27

% Y a
v-rosc If prevcnt.nc aud eupfFcSsinr rather than 81
slirc nm investigation haze participated m the pr"
ccfdircs rot with thc expectation that any Satisfactory
resulf would be attained, ont because l deemed u "a
d+v IN uroceed with the matter however uniayoTabe
and adverse the circumstances might ne. nav NV
fore attended before the Committee and whlie taI.
10 thank you or personal courtesy tahe ,no i ~
calling your attention 20 two or three points WHICH, al
nv INDICTMENT have prevented iair eAamlnalion'
wis invest! cation las beeIicOnrc!ed and directed
by those against whom the charges were maze. -, =
2 The Committee in violation OF every principe OF
law and iDstcp refused to give me Suhpenss 10 cOMpeI
the attendance Of Witnesses ond DECIDED that 10 per
son should be summoned until his name ana What wa
proposed TO he proved by hin, was hTst Known 10 'e
Tie Committee refused 70 let me prove by the ar
ctect that the iron, marble and olcks IN inc bulnna
do not correspond with tie quantities when nave peeh
paid for cut of tle public treasury. -
a. The examination Of Witnesses was conducted WIN
ont regard 20 any fixed rule. single instance may We
cted Inv way OF illustration. Nr g.. r. Jackson, VINO
IVES permitted 10 bid for the iron work, and Nh Cbos
Fowler who was not permitted TO hd, both HAD CON
versatious upon the subject with the aTchtecl Oot u
fore ana after he contract was awarded. ar; Jooh
sons conversations with The architect were adll''c"
as evidence. Mr. POWERS conversations WIN lhe ar
chtec under precisely similar circumstances were eA
The peculisr ruling Of The Committee confined The
examination within very narrow limits the most l'u
uoriant testimony and everything having ten1eAcy 10
show fraud by the contractors or colusoh DeINeth
fhon and the managers Of the Courthouse pene sum
1n,rilv ruled out The Witnesses who were examined
in reference 10 the iron COnclrlcd IN tuer stal'cl
that the contract made without advertisement or
other publicity az prices which were from 40 10 uV per
cent above the market. Nh. Fowler lhikland foW4ef
a Coz who constructed the dome and the IRON
work Of The Capitol NJ Washington My. James
/ Jackson Nh Nathaniel Cheney, ana NJ =
~ Raider of the Architectural Iron WORKS, all TESTIFY
thai they would willingly have taken the cohtiacl .,
urices which are One-lhird less than those NJ Who
1t awarded This would nave sayeu lne
least $500 0OO this cin as the ron eon'I uu''
edlv involved an expenditure approaching <LtViVW
The defense introduced nUmbero OF Witnesses Prov
that during the past Two years that is s!Hce NIol'
1900 the price Of iron as greatly advanced; mt tls has
nothing 10 do with the bids which were made IN sep
TENDER 1903 six months previously, between WhlcH
periods iron had enormously increased in Vaite.
The witnesses stated that il was CUSTOMARY 20 MAKE
contracts az the current market price, ana Nhon
large lob was secured thcy made suncontract im'
medo;ov Tor the materials they required 70 execute
il as far as practicable. Proposals were invited by
the Commissioners u The Summer Of 1862, Tor the sup
ply Of rough marble large number OF BIDS were -
ceycd Varyin- greatly u amount tne TWO I0Wesi were
1894 500 srd Sljs,39O aad tie Two highest were EN-
J6s and S43l sos.
As shown by siavor Oplytes veto, disagreement n
awarding this contract stopped the wolS ioF yea nu
then contract was modc with The two highest bidders
nv the cubic foot instead Of one fixed sum. MdItlc
did not materially increase IN value between TIE sum
mers OF lsd2 and ls& and yet the Controller DOCKS
show that about $4,000 had been expfEacd Tor Iolgh
marble uader these contracts, and the amount stu 10
be furnished viii make The aggregate 81 4cast
$4,000 about four tines as much as tne
was examined with regard 10 the marble, he stated
that he arranged for The iron contract but had nothing
TO 90 with the marble he SAID be could estimate
The quantity OF marble actually IN the DuldnE. SUI
teie,tlv near Tor an practical purposes. theICnpon
requested lie Committee 10 have him furnish such
statement. The Committee refused io 90 so.
From his ] an ipduccd ~ believe that iGT eXamihs'
tion will disclose large deficiency
The third Of he four items to which tie invcsea-
sion limited vas The srick. The vouchers On hle
show that between 100000 ana Zoo 900 Of bricks
have no Maid Is A
for an architect TO compute from the plans how many
cubic feet Of solid brick work, and consequently how
many bricks are actually IN buncing. On ;he hIst
day OF the Investigation asked toe Chairman Of the
Committee 20 procure such computation from Tue
architect st ~ subsequent meeting (March ID, !
asked whether Mr. Kelum had responded TO the cues.
tioni The Chairman replied. Mr.. kellum stated
that he IS preparing statement Of the number Of brick.
He saws he viii give the statement Of the brick used
soon as possible" Two days fterward the Chairman
said he bad determined not to have Mr.. Keum furnish
the statement the bfck and Other materials IN the
edice and VI lea Mr.. kcllum examined as a wit.
ness all questions designed 10 prove re deficiency OF
material was objected 10 by he counsel ior tie de-
fense and the objections sustained by ihe Committee.
The fourth itcm--ihe payments for prTsonal serY.
lccs-needs Dui N'ie Comment AAe CON! -l.ai"u ~
the Superintendent VINO originally devoted ms Wfue
attention 10 the work fDT 5000 per anngm was on the
list Of Uue last raised iyc per cent The cost OF
construction, which gave him So 400 - ior Lls services
from that 10 the end OF the wear period Of seven
months And the architect WHO did not furnish the
original design and plans Of The building and who las
no abOrious duties 20 discharge. was paid about 40
0OO during the 1861 ard cbi being three per cent
on the oxpenditnlos Several witnesses who have re
Gently erected large bindings for different institutions
testified thai they paid tie architect three per cent Dut
they paid 10 Superintendent, and the amounts were
small. compared with the Court House upon which
S7OO 600 expended in Zoo The Court House Com
mittee pay their two employees eight per cent, which
will take 900 from the $4,000 which has Just been
placed in the tax lew 10 carry on the WORK lr the
present year. That these salaries are extfavagant
and unnecessary was sufficiently proved by the Chair
man Of the Committee, who testified that he was
aware that of these employees had paid $1,000 out
Of his CogrtHOuse fee. TO another person. Any sal.
aIy which VIII admit Of this must be excessive and i'm
proper. The witness also testified that il not the
design Of the contract with The Superintendent that he
should De- paid five yr cent the architects saary
but the records OF tie Finance Department show that
this five per cent 90 the Architect three per cent has
been regularly paid from the County Treasury. The
greatest wrong, however. contained IN This contract
with the Superintendent executed under seal ~ that IL
binds tho County OF wNoIk 10 keep the entire man
agemcnt OI he tOurtJOuse, including all purchases Of
materials and employment Of wOrkDen in his hands un
I'll it j. finally completed and fitted upcyen u the Board
Of Supervisors should be abolished by me Legsiaue
There two other points 30 which desire 10 call your
attention. In Is62 million OF bonds were au-
tho,ed 10 pay the lands and construct the building
and the act provided that lie said land and building
should be reyOcably pledged for Tie payment OF tue
bonds OAc.tnird Of this million Of bonds were taken
by personal friends and By an Institution VI which am
an officer. believing Them 10 be f.t mortgage on the
premises. Two years JltcrW8id these bonds were IN
creased 10 81 800 coo in bad Iaith those WHO invested
in The first issue. Last year the Legislature passed
special sun Of $500 90 for lie COui-ouse with the
positive restriction tha portion 0. II should be used
except IL payment for materials furnished under con-
tracts Ibis prohibition was dsregarded and tho
money placed in tie general account The cost OF The
building was estimated by the architect who drew the
original plans ~ not to exceed ssnO0). Since
then the plans have been altered By adding
d large amount Of ornamental work end placing
upoD It an enormous iron come wlicn VIA
cost an ncdcnabe sum. These additions were unGcces
say. 1se present architect when examined could not
e,i.ae iog ncor to comrlei"n me building was, nor
what would I've T. probable cost thlnk reasonable 70
say Thai II Is little more than half coLr-,vd. -.
roof lie dome the porcoes and al the interior con.
strncon mo vet to be doye. Thus faI the ground he's
cost $4,000; Labor and material. sl,r.GgOO beside
sG2 sol 81 raised by tax and paid fox interest on
money borrowed making present 'oai Of over - 49,.