New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1879-07-21
LOCAL MISCELLANY.
TIE PARK COMMISSIONERS.

THEIR APPROVAL or RIvECsIDS DRIVE BILLS
MAYOR COOPER PRESENTED WITH CHARGES
The storm which has been gath ring about Park
Commissioners Conovcr, Wenman and Wetmore III
consequence OF their approval of bills for work done
on the Riverside Drive will soon break IN the opiu-
ion of politicians Ii is believed that Mayor
Cooper will remove the Commissioners. Part oil the
evidence against the Commissioners has been col
locted by John T. MCGOWAN, formerly member OF
the Assembly lie is a lawyer, and IN politics Is
n bitter opponent of Tammsny Hall Some more
evidence will be furnished IT is believed. by VIII
lam Pitt sherman Commissioner of Accounts. VINO
has been at work among the books OF the Park De-
partment for three weeks past.
The construction Of the Riverside Drive was au-
thorzed by the Legislature i'm 1867, but 1t was not
surveyed aud begun till 1875 The contract for
constructing it then awarded to Nicholas H.
Decker and George W. Quntard, at SJ16,i61 20
The contract was signed on October 81, 1910, ahu
contained clause that engineer appointed ny
The Department of Parks 60 supcrntend the work
should determine all questions as 10 the character
Of the work, the quantities OF materials uSeu, ahu
all disputes. James G. Aiduch was then Superln-
tending Engineer of the Park Department.. lie had
charge Of III, work till February p. 1875, wlen he
was suspended from duty. ana on March 10 follow
ing was retlcy Cd from office. Previous to his re-
mOval he had certified that there was duI 10 inc
contractors for certain work done by them the sum
Of q 81. Thomas Fr2nEnu an ASSISTANT surveyor,
was appop ed the success Of Mr.. AldT!ch Frank
lin ii is said five days after his appointment, re-
uortcd 70 the Commissioners that. there was
S0G73 81 due the contractors for the very work for
winch Mr.. Adrich had declared they ought toreceiye
only 81 Il. Al of Mr. Nlrich- assistants were
then dismissed and before Nov mbcr other pay
Incnts amounting 10 $4,000 were made on Ger,
tfcatos signed by franklin, and af'orW9Td audited
f9yora biy hy the Commissioners. Complaints were
made i'm regard TO the character of the work done
on the Drive under Mr.. FTanklm's superintendenGe
One very strong protest Of this nature was maze by
Ieono.d Fiditz the wel-kuOwn architect. FIN
ollv, on October 30 1875. when the Commission
crs Ind audited bill for So, l21 o., Commissioner
Lane declined 20 sign it, and Informed Controller
Eellv 10 whom the bill was forwarded, that the
yy0rl, had not been done in compliance with the
contract In December, 1878, the protests OF prop
cfty-Owners against the manner IN which the Work
was being done became so vigorous tEat hV an
agreement between the Park Commissioners, Mayor
Tiv and Controller Kelly, a commission OF three
cnfrinears-CbarIes n. Hlswell, William j.. Mathew
and John B0-Crt-wGs appointed 10 examine IT,
They reported that in its most Important features
The conditions OF the contract had Mt been tul-
flied The dimensions of the avenue had been
changed no regard had been paid 10 plans
winch the Lfgi, .ature had approved, the parapet
was I'M character far different from that described
I'm the contract and the pavement of the Drive ga
not correspond with the contract. Even an er this
I.gJrt of the engineers, Commissioners Nenman,
WotmOre a I'd ConOver approved bill of the con-
tractors 10 the amount Of - O99 The bill has Ggt
Vet been paid by Controller Kelly.
The charges against the Park Commissioners Will
it is believed be based tins auditing OF the bills
of the contractors.