New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-02-19

IHE H1KLEM nv Eh DHIDUE AEL OA L.
The report of the Harlem River Bridge Com
mission, sent to the Assembly in compliance
with Mr.. HamiltOn's resolution, and printed
elsewhere in this mornings ISSUE is by no
means a candid paper. But though it fails to
make clear several points upon which the As
sembly demanded light, it will serve to show
the taxpayers of New. ork that The TRIBUNE,
by its resOlute exposure of this job in spite of
the extraordinary things said and done by the
Commissioners to conceal their performances,
has saved the city from being bound by mon
strous contract The denial of the Commits
sIOners that such contract had ever been
signed made in this public and responsible way,
may be taken as sufficient evidence that the
city is not now threatened by il at all events
Yet David James King told TRIBUNE reporter
in the presence of Vernon Ii. Brown that the
contract had been "sIgned, sealed and de-
livered." and this statement was repeated the
next morning by Mr.. Clark, of the Union
Bridge Company. Their motive for such mis-
representation is not altogether clear.
1t is conceded, however, that such a contract
was drawn up and signed by the Bridge Com
pany, and that the real reason why it was not
ultimately carried out was because of a doubt
as to whether an artificial stone would be legal
under the act 1t is not denied that the Com
missioners were practically committed to this
81, 100000 plan until that question arose, and
such indeed is known to be the fact. Why, then,
did they not canddly answer the Asscmbly's
questions, and give their reasons for proceed
ings wholly irregular and unusual Why,
knowing all along that the pressure of public
condemnation as expressed through The IRIB-
UNE was the force which stayed the job. did
they not make square and frank defence I
The reason is apparent. They We're caught in
the act of doing an unwholesome and extrava-
CANT piece OF business amounting to betrayal
of the interests committed to their charge, aud
having now got out of it by legal bubble,
they have carefully eyaded all questions which
seek to discover their real purposes and their
fitness, in view of such purposes, to continue
the work so badly begun. Additional light is
thrown upon that subject by their acknowl-
edgment that they never consulted any coun-
sci whatever until The TRIBUNE reviewed
their proposed contract and show ed that by its
provisions every safeguard for economy was
abandoned. They had presumably left all
those things to the Union Bridge Company's
counsel.
Having baYcu INC commissioners from an act
which would have added greatly to their
burden of dlscredt, we feel warranted In Civ
ing them little advice which may Le of value
in their further work. Let them abandon their
secret and mysterious ways, and open their
doors and their books to all citizens who seek
information. Let them give up the service of
the Harlem River estates and devote their
efforts to the best interests of those who will
have to pay for their work and who are already
grooming under load of taxation caused by
just such jobbery as that which, with our assist
ance, they have finally escaped. Let them
abandon all these schemes involving
100000, or more, and, If this superhuous
and unnecessary bridge must be built, let them
adopt plan that will not cost over 81 100000.
Let them ask the Legislature to define their
powers and place proper limit to their re-
sponsibilities. Let them make competition
open, and, above all, let them consult q good,
discreet practical lawyer before they commit
themselves to any more arrangements with
shrewd contractors.