New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1879-08-09


of 81 065 70. Besides the above, there allowed
during 1S7S-'79 for liabilities incurred in 1874
81 015 40 and for 1876, S24. The Commissioners
had exceeded their appropriation on four separate
items. and consequently technically liable for
disregardng the city charter which says that no Off
Ger shall make the city Liable for any amount in
Appropriations. The report further shows that
=. Muiholland obtained contract on November 8,
S77, for building a sewer in Mott-ave., in the
Twcnty-third Ward. His bid was for 1892 SO,
while the twenty-five other bids for the same work
varied in amount from $2.1f5 70 to $19.S62 80.
The work. excepting for rock excavation was to be
completed in 100 DAYS. This contract, however,
was still in force on June, l. 1879, and theoonractor
had been paid % 726 80, although his bid was only
for S432. The Commissioner of Accounts alludes
to this contract, but gives no further explanation
L. Muluolland was awarded another cont, act Tor a
sewer on One uudTed-and tOrteth-st tOrf foI TO-
This contract is dated April 10, 1879, and requires
the work TO be completed y IN one day. II WAS
still I'm force on June ].
The history of the Improvement OF the KiVerSlde
Drive cons SITS of copies OF resolutions puDnShed III
The Ctr LeoOrd at various times. On October 4,
1876 the bids for the construction OF the drive
were opened. There were seventeen bidders for TINS
contract. william Harrison d Son were the lowest owes
bidders, and William {. Hunt and Thomas I. Conk-
lin whose bid was S494, 93S 10, were the next low
est. The next the bid OF Nicholas
II. Decker aud George W. Quntard. $5l0;-
Ambrose, for 81 .2O5, 937 so. The bids of
Harrison & Son and Hunt d Conklin were found to
be irregular. and the nOtares names attached were
either forgeries or fictitious names, consequently
the contract was awarded 10 Decker x Quintard,
IN accordance with an opinion from the Corporation
Counsel. John Roach and Harvey Kennedy were
the sUTeties in the penal sum of S2SO,OOO. The
work was to be completed in twelve months, with
damages for default of $50 per day. The pay or de-
parmcnt engineers, inspectors, etc, TO an amount
not exceeding 81 900 SO per month, was to be
charged TO the contractors. The work was ORDERED
10 begin on November 20, 1876 james e. AldnGh
and Thomas ii. LOOMS were appointed respectively
engineer and assistant engineer. The president was
authorized to detail six aboTers as watchmen on
the drive. The Finance Department atterward
withheld the payment of these labOrers. Ine con-
tractors asked TO be allowed 10 use other timber in
place seasoned Georgia pine, and also extra pay
ment for extra haul OF stone, aud on motion OF the
president their requests were granted. ON October
"a 1877 the chlet-englneer sent complaint OF the
slow manner In which the work was preceding
and also report INST request OF the contractors
for extra payment for building an abutment to the
bridge. Upon motion of the president, October
"a, 1877 the time tor constructing the drive was
extended to july, 1873. On November %, 1871
the experimenting engineer requested Instructions
as TO the deductions for nOn-fulhlment OF
contract in the time stipulated. The
president and COmmi ysi0ner COnOver moved
that the penalties be remltted. winch motion was
adopted. On January 10, 1873, Commissioner
Lane moved that the late president, William K.
Martin be asked to complete his report on the
drive and transmit it 10 the Department. On Feb
ruary 6, 1878 Mr. Martin sand that at the request Of
the contractors he DELAYED sending the report asked
for On motion of Commissioner COnovcr, Thomas
Franklin assi0taut-surveyOT was detailed 10 report
on the condition, etc, Of the drive. On February
10. 1873, Mr.. Decker, the contractor, appeared
with counsel before the Board. and claimed that the
estimates of the experimenting engineer were not
made for the full amount of the work done, and
that the contractors were entitled 10 about S4o,OOO
more than they had been pad. lie also complained
that the supeTnt tending engineer was too exacting,
and required work 10 be done better than was
led for by the specifications. At the next meeting
tha Uaarh ieGin (lOnnUar mnVp6 ia
experimenting engineer, Mr.. Aldrch, be suspended.
and summoned to appear for removal. This was
carried by O vote of 3 to l, Commissioner Lane ap-
pearinC in the negative for the first time. On March
g. 1878, by unanimous vote, thomas Franklin was
placed IN charge of the work of the drive III place
of Mr. Aldrlch. communication was recelI ed
from the Corporation Counsel stating that Mr..
Aldrch was not entitled 10 a hearing on causes for
removal. Mr.. Martin again communicated that nc
could not make "a report satisfactory 10 the
contractors, and asked 20 be relieved from making
the report. Mr. Lane then offered a long pre-
ambe and resolution reciting the differences be-
tween the contractors and the engineer, sta'lng
that the work was practically suspended and ask
ing that an Investigation be ordered, which motion
was lost. The Corporation Counsel was asked lor
his opinion several occasions as 10 whether the
Comniss Oners could make alterations ana allow
extra pay III the contract, but he gave IL rs his
opinion that they could not Tue penalties ior non
completion of the work were RENTED by tuil
vote of the Board on different occasions. he
president by request, asked the Controller 20 pay
the contractors percentage OF the reserve fund.-
who said II could not be legally done.
On October 8, 1878, Controller Kelly sent re-
port from Leopold Eldltz, alleging Irregularities
and fraud i'll the construction OF the drlve. This
report was referred To the supervising engineer
Commissioner Lane offered Dreamblcs and resOlu-
tiOns recting the facts and asking full lnvestIga-
tOn which were land Oh the table by vote Of 10 l.
experimenting Engineer Franklin replied to the
report of Mr. Eidtz, admitting certain parts OF IL
and denying Others, but claiming that the work
had been well done. On October 80. 1870, Mr.. Lane
SAID personal examination he was convinced that
the contract was not beng carried ont, and
refused to audit bills. On November 20, 1873,
Commissioner COnover moved u resolution of
investigation by three civil engineers, To be ap-
pointed by the Commissioners, the Controller and
the MayOr ii was adopted Charles II. Haswell,
William E. Worthen and John Bogart were APP
pointed such commission thelrTepor stated that the
contract had not been complied with, and that Mr..
Franklin had approved of work not III accordance
with the contract On January %, 1873, Mr.. Lane
moved the dismissal of Mr. Franklin which was lost
by vote of to /. On February 20 Mr.. Franklin
was transferred, and William ,. McAlpme was APP
pointed supervising engmeeI.
Motions by MIR. Lane to declare the contract for
feited euc., were lost by vote Of to /. On June
l. 1879 the contractors had been paid S229, GIL 81.
COMMISSIONER WHEELERS CASE.
THE ARGUMENT Oh THE WRIT OF PROHIBITION TO
BE HEARD on AUGUST 12-MR BLISS YACHT
ING INTERPERED WITH.
CORPORATION Counsel Whitney appeared be-
fore Justice Van Brunt, in Supreme Court Chambers
yesterday morning. at the hearing IN regard TO the date
on which the writ OF prohibition should be heard re-
strainng the Mayor from taking action upon the
charges against Police Commissioner Wheeler. Origi
naly the writ made retutna0le August IS, and
subsequently Justice Van Brunt, the application Of
Corporation Counsel Whitney granted order 10 show
why the writ should not DC made TeturnaDle on
August H. This order made returnable yesterday
Nh. Whitney, III support OF the motion TO have the
writ returnabe at early date that IL was
only necessary for him state That inasmuch as the
notice was for the benefit of the defendant the writ
should come 10 a hearing early next Wednesday,
and that If the matter came up at later date 1t would
be very incOnvenient for him. William Shelly con