Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1875-07-14
The New Fire Alarm Telegraph.
az APPLICATIoN ZOE NJUNcTIoN.


Yesterday, Messrs. John Esputa, Iohn
Thomas Young and CbaS. Stewart, by Cen
eral =. =. Henkle. filed a bill against the Dis
trlct Commissioners and Messrs. GameWell
q Co, 10 enjOln the construction of the new
fire alarm telegraph, and Judge Wylie set
the 23d instant for hearing the application
for the injunction. the bill, after the usual
TecllatOns as TO the position and residence
of the parties. states that for a considerable
time the construction OF new and improved
fire alarm telegraph has been deemed i'm
pOrtant: that the legislature passed an act
making an appropriation of $4,000 for the
purpose. but no definite action being taken
the act became imperative and void; that
bills were introduced at the late session OF
Congress to extend the fire alarm telegraph,
apprOpriating $4,000 therefor, and passed
both houses, but In consequence of clerical
errors or otherwise il was not enrolled and
failed To become a law, and no apprOpria-
ton was made, nor has Congress before or
since made any appropriation for the pur
pose; that no authority existed on the 18th
of March last or has subsequently, existed
for making contract, yet in May the Com
miSstOrers authorized Joseph Williams
President of the Board of Fire Commits
SlODerS, Martin CrOnin, Chief Engineer, and
Ii. X. Miles. Superintendent, 10 invite and
receive. proposals for the reconstruction and
extension of the fire alarm telegraph, and
they did invite proposals, the Commits
SiOners being without power and authority,
Yet they illegally assumed IL, and designated
said Williams, CrOnln and Miles as COM
mtttee TO prepare and determine specifica-
tons for the work; that proposals were re-
ceived from Gamewell Il Co, s. Chester,
NJ. GurnSey and Mr.. Mccullough. and the
Commissioners entered into contract with
Gamewell 4 Co to do the work. the amount
being as they (the applicants) are informed
$1,000. The cOmplainants charge that
although the existing fire alarm apparatus
* not so perfect as it should or might be, ft
Is not so defective as TO require its abandon
ment and the Immediate construction of a
new system, and on information and belief
they say the proposed construction is not
the Jesuit OF any immediate necessity,
but Is largely for speculative purposes and
Tor individual gain. They also state on in
formation that the systems of Chester and
Gurnsey are superior to that of Gamewell &
Co, and they received so little and imperfect
consideration that their real merits were not
fully and fairly determined on and that a
determination existed TO give the contract to
Gamewell x Co. from the commencement OF
the illegal action OF the Commissioners in
reference To the subject; that the contract is
made "for Inferior and imperfect apparatus
and machinery, but in view of the work pro-
posed TO be done at prices extravagant and
could be secured for" that the contractors
nave no complete or perfect title to the pa
tent or machinery which 1t is proposed TO
the intention OF parties interested 10 contest
their right to the same, and heavy and extern
sive litigation against theDistrict may ensue;
that all the facts cannot be stated, and can
only be fully known by m cans of a discov-
cry. They, therefore, ask that the defend
ants be required TO answer whether or not
they have made a contract with Gamew ell
q Co., when IL was made and signed, and it's
terms and stipulations; who have been di-
rected TO superintend the work; was any adj
Nertlsement made for proposals; by what
authority were Williams, Cnonin and Miles
appointed To receive bids, and how and in
what manner they proceeded To do so; 10
what extent did they examine tbs several
systems where does Gamewell reside and
what intimacy or acquaintance exists be.
tween the defendants or any member of the
frm, is the system OF Gamewell superior 10
Chesters or Gurnsey's, and In what respe CT:
and l. the amount in the contract sufficient 10
complete the same, and IL not how much ad-
ditional will be necessary? They ask that
defendants be enjoined from executing the
contract or allowing IL 10 be done; that IL be
declared null and void.