New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-07-08
THE HEMPSTEAD RESERVOIR.

REPORT OF THE BROOKLYN COMMITTEE OF FIFTY
ALLEGED PARTIALLY IN THE AWARD OF
CONTRACTS.
The Sub Committee of the Brooklyn Com
mittee OF Fifty on the Hampstead Reservoir presented
report on Saturday, in substance as follows
After the Common Council had examined the water
WORKS. as shown in the previous articles presented
by u.s. the final passage OF the resolution adopting the
storage scheme moved, Notwithstanding the Mayors
Veto Considerable information has been given which
we are permitted to publish 1t will be remembered
that the of the Common Council the adoption OF
the resolution, stood II to s. July H. 1870 This was
vetoed by the Mayor Aug 22 and It came up for final
passage lover the veto) Dec. H. 1870 The Common Coun-
Gil sat at D. m. Fifteen minutes before this hour two
members the Common Council entered the City Hall
together One was Mr. Weeks OF the Twentytrst Ward,
and the other informant, who says that in answer
10 question which he asked Mr. Weeks the latter stated
he should certainly sustain the Mayors veto, and at
he would not be swerved from his purpose for
sidcration After entering the Council cbambe}, Mr.
Weeks was called out by some one and when lie re-
turned he declared to our informant that he had
changed his mind and should vote for reservoir and
agans the Veto Had he adhered to his intention, the
vote would have stood Il 10 g. not twothrds vote.
When the special act for the construction OF the reser
vOir drafted the public competition clause was nen-
ally omitted. The Committee were informed, Dec. b
ISL that contracts provision for the reservoir had
been maze. from the emcldl puDHcdllOu Oh INC
Board however it appears that the arrangements had
been completed Dec which resulted in theaward OF the
contract Kingsley Keeney for SllS72 the request
Of William Beard, experienced and responsible con-
tractor to examine the plans being denied Mr. Beard
on affidavit subsequently, declared that had he he en-
allowed hid he would have done the work for 1885, l25
less than Kingsley keeney The other bids, made "a re-
Spouse 20 circular issued by the engineer were nom H.
s. Wees, j. L. White, Edward Frel, anu James Nc
Donald.
Mr. White is dock builder. and had been extensively
employed subcOnracts under Mr.. kingsley, and was
portant work against Mr. Kingsley. Mr. Frel, we
understand the contractor on the FOurthaVe WORK.
which has gwen 10 much complaint. and was hen
and Is still connected with several contracts under the
neCted with work on the State CAPITOL or Whlch MI
Kingsley a Commissioner which work the Legislature
had under investigation for various alleged rreguarl-
ties. Whatever Mr.. McDOnalds relation to these may
be, and however unfortunate may nave Deen MS
connection with the Montreal and CharlestOwn
Water Works, it is quite certain that he was not
proper competitor for this work, against Mr.. kings
lev Under circumstances the fact OF the cXclu
sion OF Mr.. Beard, whose offer made several DAYS
before the bids OF these persons were opened by the
Water Board to throw very grave DOUBTS on the
prOpriey of the whole transaction, and puts the water
Board defense which they have yet made In any
satisfactory manner But IT appears from the Official
the of the specifications altered on the mate
rial item of excavations, item of over Sg75OO with
the knowledge only OF Kingsley keency, AID on
which their bid reduced and the contract secured by
them.
Reference to the Water Board records cOnclusiyely
evidence that without this storage reservoir nature
SUFFICIENT IN fact, for many years use, were II but
properly and economically secured The foregoing with
the letters Get forth last article and the published
ports at various times OF engineers McApne and Samuel
NcElrOy, far revive the question whether this
storage fsservoir they are engineering for water or
money