National Republican., 1883-09-19

but they express the opinion that III would |
have been better and in the interest OF the |
government If the Manly-Cooper company |
had been allowed all the time asked for max
ing their test shutter, the firm being RESPONSE
bic and of good standing and the lowest bid
ders by over 100000. Every opportunity
should have been accorded IL that the govern
mont might profit by the largo difference
between its bid and that of the United
States Fire Proof shutter company.
The committee finds that such oppor-
tunity was not afforded it, and that the
apparent determination not to extend
tho time, although good and sufficient reasons
were assigned for the request, the refusal to
make the test, the haste with which the award
was made after the refusal to make the tcst
and the further fact that the successful bid
ders had been furnishing tho government all
the work in this line for several years compel
the committee to believe that the supervising
architect not only did not do all he might to
save this $50 900 to tho government, but that
he did not intend that the Manly Il Cooper
company should have the contract IL he could
avoid 1t.
With respect to the work on vaults, safes,
and locks for public buildings the committee
expresses the opinion that for all such work
proposals should have boon invited by public
advertisement at least once in each year, and
it says that the giving of orders continuously
for term of years to any ono firm or corpor-
alton for any class of work or material with
out an opportunity for competition by invi-
tation of public proposals is not in accordance
with the law, which requires that such pur-
chases shall be after advertisement, but is in
direct conflict with the letter and spirit of
the law.
With regard to tho purchase of elevators Of
one particular make exclusively aud without
advertisements the committee says that such
purchases were and are contrary to law, and
that proposals should be invited by public
advertisement as provided by statute, allow
| ing competition and enabling the government
| to purchase upon better terms than by private
contract and obtain the benefit of all improve
ments, and that failing to do this the architect
was direlict
| In the matter of the Chicago heating appa-
ratus the committee says that in tho absence
OF skilled workmen in the supervising archi-
| tect's Office, il was necessary to have plans
and specifications drawn by outside parties,
but the price paid, which was very generous,
should have been fixed by proposals from
other firms equally competent, not only in
this case, but for the st. Louis, Philadelphia,
and Cincinnati buildings.
| Tho committee also finds that the appoint
ment of Newton to inspect the material fur
nished was clearly not in accord with official
| proprieties, as tho supervising architect knew
that he was an employe of Bartlett, Robbins
& Co., and that his only duty was to inspect
the material to bo furnished by that firm,
and that in the absence of reports from New
| ton as to wherein the work did not comply
with the specifications coupled with the
knowledge that he was an employe of the
contractors, the committee is not surprised
that the impression should obtain and the
charge be made that Newton's appointment
was part of q scheme to enable the contractors
to furnish material inferior in quality to that
called for in tho specifications.
The committee says it seemed clear to 1t
that Mr. Hill was disposed to favor Mr.George
Damon and T. j. Hayward, and that his ac-
tions in the matters in which these men were
concerned have the appearance of serving his
friends as much as the government, whose in
terests he is representing. 1t finds that dur
ing the past seven years Hayward's firm have
done lions share of repair work on heating
apparatus, secured without competition, and
that the appointment of Newton is an illus
tration of Mr.. Hills good will toward this
| firm.
1t says: "Such official favoritism is so
manifest in the conduct of the supervising
architects office as to give some color of truth
to a statement made by Mr.. Coleman in his
argument that in everything that goes to
make up building Mr.. Hill has some one
person or some one firm with whom he deals
to the exclusion of ofeverybody else. The com
mittee does not believe that this is necessarily
evidence of corruption on the part of the
supervising architect, but it shows that the
business of the Office has not been conducted
with that care and commercial i'm
partiality which it should be. You,
committee does hot hesitate to say that tn,
press of the country will justly TEEN will
criticisms unfavorable to any office in thu
government conducted on such principles a.
have been pointed out in this case"
The report closes with q showing of thu
great extent of the busi ness of the architect:
office and of the architects discretionary
powers, and recommendation of the appoint
ment of board similar in character to the
Lighthouse board for the discharge of all ad
mnistrative duties relative to the selection
of sites and the construction Of public build
ings.