Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-12-12
MIR. o'BRlEN,s BRIDGE CONTRACT.

nc -EsCD6Otu8 W nv no N9lTJen QeTe0 " 70
Other Parties.
To the Editor Of the Globe.
ST.. PAUL, Dec. 11.-Your article on the
Fort Smelling bridge in this mornings
GLOBE does nae an apparent injustice in
this: You say that in receiving the award
of the contract my trouble began. You do
not say what trouble. but the inference seems
to be from this, and the whole tenor of your
article, that the bridge commission were in
some way dissatisfied with my work, which
occasioned disagreements between us. for
you further say: "Much trouble ensued
about this time, owing to Engineer sewall
permitting the contractor to depart from the
plans and specifications.
Once again the commission found its soul,
or five souls, vexed by the inability of the
contractor to do the work, SO on October
26th the work was transferred to
Mcintyre & Steele" Now the fact
is, that never had the slightest
trouble with the bridge commissioners, and
the portion of the work performed by me
gave them, as believe and have been told
by the members Of the commission, COM
plete satisfaction. My withdrawal from the
contract before thework was completed was
not caused by any inability to complete the
work, but was dictated by the advantageous
terms offered by Mcintyre & Steele for my
interest in the contract. The contract was
not transferred by the commission to Nc
Intyre & Steele. but they we're substituted
in my place in the contract at my own re-
quest. This change was reluctantly made
by the commission, and only upon my re-
peated requests. -
mention these facts to rebut the pre-
sumption that might be drawn from your
article that because of troubles between my
self and the commission and because of my
inabilsty to perform the work the commits
sion took the contract from me.
The following response, made by the
commission to my request that Mcintyre
& Steele might be received by them in my
stead will substantiate my statements:
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE
Fort SMELLING BRIDGE.
ST. PAUL, Mimi, Oct. Is, 1878.
Michael OBrien, Esq. {: .4,g..a IL.
Dear Sir-At meeting of the bridge COM
resolution to notify you that the commission
would not consent to accept Messrs. MoIntYre
Steele & Co. in place of you upon their pre-
senting satisfactory bond. Respectfully
yours, THOMAS COCHRAN, JR.,
Secretary of the Fort Smelling Bridge Commits
sion. -=n--' '-~. T.. f..
It only renains to be said about the
change in the plans and specifications you
speak of Sewalrs permitting me to make,
that no such change ever was permitted.
Whatever difficulty there was existed in the
plans and specifications themselves. The
plans required the foundation for the pier on
ho 81 Ia - &l.o -. I, 10; E.
deep, while the specifications require them
to go to the sand rock, which is depth of
about twenty feet. As both of those re-
quirements could not be complied with and
q choice had to be made, was directed by
MI. Sewall to comply with the plans and lay
the foundation only five feet. It was to this
that Col. Allen objected, he insisting that the
specifications should be followed. OF course
it would be to my interest to have the foun-
dations go to the center of the earth, if pos
sible, as the more masonry laid the more I
got, as I was paid by the cubic yard. Yours
respectfully, MICHAEL O'BR1EN.