New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-02-19
THE HARLEM BRIDGEREPOl
M CONTRACT FOR THE WORK YET MADE.
WHY THE UNION BRIDGE CoMPANYs PROPOSAL
WAS REFLECTED.

River Bridge Commissioners Ill answer W INC io'o
proposed By Robert Ray Hamilton calling upon them
for information their proceedings, was brought 10
Albany by their clerk, Mr. Niyen aud submitted TO the
Assembly this morning It states that the contract with
the Union Bridge Company never was signed In iu II
is as follows: ~
NEw-YoRK, February 1G. 1886.
To me Honorable e assembly ofife STATE OF Neo loyHi
CENTLEMES We have before us a copy OF The resOlu
lions passed BIZ your Honorable body ON the oth hst
and IN compliance with we report as follows;
FrSi-In reply your inquiry for copy Oh the con-
across the Harlem River under pursuant to the pro
visions Chapter 457 of the Laws OF 1850 we wOuu
say that impossible for US to comply WIN TINS re-
quest in view OF that contract Whatever mas
as yet been entered into by us. ... ,u 81. ~
Ianation OF such agreement-Iora
of our why such acontrAct wasnotlet at puoc
nction IN The lowest bidder-as to whether had de-
parted from usual safeguards III awarding such con
tractsand the doing, etc. etc. cannot be
yet entered into any contract Ior tue Vi
contract with for the same.
It's true that proposal was made to us by the Union
Bridge Company. which was enormously reported 70
nave been entered by I'm the form In which said
proposal made. but which proposal as VIII appear
from our minutes copies or when are hereto anheAe,
was never finally accepted BY u.s. and was ultimately
withdrawn by the Union Bridge Company, Tor tue rea
SON sci ont i'm their letter OF 4h February inst,
copy of which appears In the minutes hereto annexed
The proposed contract never having been
same than already appears In the minutes OF our meet
fIrd-The several plans submitted first. Of all
masonry second. OF composite say stone approaches
steel After careful study and consideration Of all the
facts the conclusion that an entire natural
would much higher figure than we
felt justified to eIpeDd and would require period OF
time beyond the limit crbed by the provisions OF inc
ACT for ia completion We therefore decided that the
construction OF such structure was impractcaDle we
the conclusion after inl OIL ai inc
bridge OF stone and steel or iron might appear
more economical than allmasonary structure, II
would not durable appropriate TO the surround
ings and would involve much heavier eKpendlthTro
/ for maintenance, which would ultimately
make IL more expensive than bridge the first
cost of which might be somewhat greater Taking all
thugs into consideration, determined TO adopt the
plau for a stone Beton Cognet structure. AZ sub
United by the Union Bridge Company. OF which the
whole exterior intended TO be OF granite or natural
stone tho interior arches ana filling to be OF Beton
Cogne" artificial stone we'll known to engineers
and architects The estimated cost or tns structure
under the proposed system being much less hah II Du
The Union Bridge Company submitted their proposal
I'm the contract. signed ny them out not by u.s.
being satisfactory him In the form presented he was
consulted by to those features OF the
TO conform the the provisions OF contracts usu
ally entered into the city for the performance OF SINH
sroiV Of the use OF Beoh Coishet under the strict
construction Of the wording OF the act "a 10 whether
| and exclude artificial stone or concrete. ms
matter being brought TO inc attention OF ,,t me
counsel advised that as the legality OF the use OF
Beton Cognet was iny0neu M uUuGS n' hr,GSe
according the design and plans submitted DIV then,
loss OF both time ana money, even though tue courts
should ultimately hold that the OF artificial stone
Union bridge Company Withdrew their proposal which
withdrawal was acquesced IN by ths Boarh oy resou
ton, will appear IN the copies oi the minutes mere
| with submitted
upon such plan as would give the city OF New ork
from all points OF view. the most perfect most durable
and most economical structure II has now become APP
| parent to US that We must dismiss the l9ea oi
/ AN structure OF any kind, ana must
conne ourselves to tha erection OF composite bridge
OF and steel or iron. We nave belore US AZ tue
! present time number OF plans and estimates for 2
steel iron two OF which were submitted
m competition for the prizes offered by VIZ G. O..
Schneider for the estimated cost Of - 1000 and M
plans OF great merit submitted, but not IN com
petition for prizes consequently were not CONSIDERED
! by the Commissioners In that connection.
Many plans have been rejected absolutely ROT being
deemed satisfactory either FOR the reason mat me ue.
10 assume the responsibility for carrying OUT or because
not as yet taken any final step In the matter toward en-
terng into any contract for tho execution OF the work.
aud shall do until satisfied that we have
secured the bes obtanablc, and all things considered
/ the most economical plan As VIII appear from tle
minute. OF the Board. have throughout been IN con-
sultation with SIR. WIN. j. McAlpin. who was duly APP
pointed aud constituted engineer, to advise the Com
| mission in all technical matters
Fotrdt--In reply to your inquiry "a TO why we took
tho course did In drawing aud preparing the sup
10 answer In view OF The that contract has been
entered into by A matter OF fact we TOOK no leSa
contract from the Union Bridge Company and which
We submitted 10 the Corporation counsel SUBSEQUENT
ly with the approval OF thr COtpoIltIoIi W. ~
tanned the rm OF Scudder Carter ~ our legal advisers
with the late MT Henry j. -cuurf on soy
eral Occ a-ions prior hlH death the 10th Inst
FfJU-We send you this time copy or all tho MIN
ues OF this Board relative to the meetings held suhse-
ouent TO the 2sth OF December 1850 at which time
Inc reprraentatlves OF the Union Bridge Company APP
mans for an amasonry structure We beg TO state mat
Inc OF copies OF all minutes from the time or
our organization will Involve tho necessity OF an extern
sion OF time part I'm yOu desire such copies
Strt-In reply request Tor correspondence 10
Nv cen the Bridge Company other builders we
would say that copies Of such with the Bridge Company
apnear In the minutes The proposal OF the Union
bridge Company having been withdrawn by them. IA
no longer property but with their consent We en-
! close copy herewith.
In Wow OF the fact that have entered into no con
tract for the performance OF this work. Infer that
COMES OF all correspondence with other contractors or
brdgebuders relation 10 the construction OF the said
bridge will not be required by YOU Tentative CORE
ror 10 entering into contract not what believe
Won desired by passage OF your resolution
We therefore refrain from submitting tho same as the
OF copies Will Involve time than Is now
/ nt our disposal within the terms OF your resolution
| To resume. We nave eliminated all entire masonry
structures whether OF natural stone throughout or IN
part of Beon COlgnet artificial stone, and have de-
ternined upon the erection OF composite stone ana
iron or steel structure The time before however IN
which TO properly such work II short We snail
nroceed nj once and after deciding upon the hest plan
sha forthwith the construction Of the bridge by
entering into contracts Tor that purpose anu
after having taken all necessary and proper preliminary
| steps. Very respectfully yours.
| JACOB LORGILARD,
| DAVID JAMES hISG, commissioners