Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1867-02-02

| tract thhn ne was emitted 10. MS cop
les OF these estimates we could not OBJ
tain, so as 10 see on what they we're baseS
fully aud in detail, because he said HI
had kept no copies Of the original an,
was unable TO furnish any copies. Every
practical man, in his department, ought
by all means, in such cases as this, e
have been able TO furnish copies as re-
quired.
His estimates to the Jail Commission
ers, TO date, amount 10 Sl07, 1875. HIS
revised and detailed statement on the
same work makes the sum Of $500
showing discrepancy ofSl7 ,4SC between
this last revised and prepared estimate
and his estimate 10 the Jail Commissions
ers. Dealing with the facts in the case
only, We are not prepared, if II were
necessary, TO comment upon the above.
We had, however, thought from his in
| difference under the circumstances, or
inadequacy, we are unwilling to say, be-
cause not authorized by the proof, that
il is from any criminal intent on the part
Of Mr.. Cook but having committed such
errors il is not advisable for him to re.
main connected with the work, nominally
or otherwise, at the expense OF the coun.
~. Presuming such To be the fact, it il
question for the Court and not for this
committee.
Further reporting we find there were
numerous bids Tor this work. There was
one considerably below the bid accepted.
On inquiry it was found by the Commits
sioners that the requisite security could
not be given by the bidder. There were
four bids as follows Merz 4 Co, Louis
vile, Ky, $lG4500; Meach & Kelly,
Memphis, $ls7 600; Charles Jones, Mem
phis, 1925, 900; J. j. Powers & Co.,
$l42, 900; and numerous BIDS for part Of
the work, which we have been'unable to
obtain.
A manifest error in not making the
amendments and specifications before
the award was made was this: that the
advantage was obtained for the contrac.
tor, and cutting of, besides, the confu'
sion that has resulted from not 'stipulat-
ing in advance for the work to be done
and the price to be paid Simply shying
the contract rates would govern, was not,
and is shown now TO be not enough,
to prevent confusion and disorder at
least; possibly an endless, expensive
litigation and controversy.
We now proceed TO state the figures
which we base upon the contract work
done and the material on hand, as the
papers and proof furnish to us, and we
find them to be alterations made after
the awarding Of the contracts as refer
red to, aud, although beneficial, appear
nowhere, and we may add, in our opiA-
ion, appear to be without proper gu,bpr.
ity. The contract, it is true, included
additions and changes by the architect
and Commissioners, and the section Of
the code heretofore referred to in gene
raj terms, and empowered commission
ers to direct and have superintendent
Of the erection Of the new county Jail;
but the same section also directs them TO
carry into execution all such changes as
the Justices may deem necessary and
proper in the premises; and after the
contract and a specification with the
amendments, as heretofore made before
the Court, had been considered ratified
by the Court, that action became in law
the order of the Justices, and which only
the Commissioners were bound and had
authority to carry out.
We are compelled to recommend, be-
fore attempting to proceed further with
the work, If possible, that full under
standing be had as to what is yet TO be
done, and the price to be paid and we
deem it highly important that, in any
new contract that may be made, no ma
terials be paid for until estimated in the
building. And we further suggest to the
Court, us matter of great importance to
the county, that the materials now on the !
ground, paid for and not yet used, being |
exposed, are liable to injury by being
driven over; some for want of covering,
also exposed, so as to be'carried off and
stolen in small quantities, hence needing
attention.
Statements showing in kind and value
Of work executed to this day;
/. $50 900 brick laid in the wall, as
per estimates, valued-as per con-
tract as understood by this Commit
tee-at S2l per thousand sSl. 50 90
Stone work done lat fair valuation, say l,6S0 90
work, estimated as per ID.
Winters. 4,OOi 90
ron work. as estimated as per con-
tract by d. Winters. 9,77I 90
and whtewashihg, as per
estimate by ID. Winters................ liS %
'atntlng 10 w
Excavations, as estimated by the Com
500 90
Total 6js IS
statement in amount of the value of
things and materials on the ground, to
be used in the construction of the Jail
by the Commissioners, according to
the contract:
70, 900 brick, at $l5 per thousand....$ 4,l75 90
tone for cells steps and foundations
for cells. cement, lime, etc.......,.... $50 90
30 plates of wrought iron 28lZ by 80
inches, Z ofan inch thick, weigh
ing, by estimate by Winters, VI .2G0
pounds, at nine cents per pound. S,205 90 |
} cast iron frames for cells and win ,
dows. and 80 bars Of iron for cells. 500 90
|
Total....................-....... ,CG} 90
r. CAPI1ULATIOS.
otil value of work upon Jail, as per !
tlS 10
,ol, Of IA L. ]