New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-12-28
WAS THIS CONTRACT MADE I
THE HARLEM RIVER BRIDGE ONCE MORE.


A srlr FOR HEAVY DAMAGES TO DE BROUGHT BIZ
THE UNION BRIDGE COMPANY.
The Harlem River Bridge Commissioners are IN
>roubs again or will he rs J. Adrance Bush,
counsel for the Union Bridge Company. has completed
the legal papers upon which tho company VIII sue inc
commissioners for heavy damages caused by alleged
breach OF contract This commission has had an Ill
Htrrcd career Tie scheme for which IL was appointed
was almost entirely without merit. 1t was what Is
technically known as "iob." Some rich men who
swued property along the Harlem above High Bridge
wanted to increase its value at the public expense
They secured the services of Senator Punsatt 70 In
sroduce bill at Albany providing for bridge over
the Hsr In the vicinity Of this property finnhi'.
hill was a gr.ss outrage the taxpayers OF New
York IL contained not much as suggestion ~ 70
what the bridge Cull cost Tho COMMISSIONER
three in number, left to do Whatever 'ney
pleased. They could mako it cost $1,000 or Sioooo
600 they chose There was an entire absence VI
an those safeguards against extravaganza and )obpcy
which ere in every decent measure of public improve
ment as a matter Of course There was not even
requirement for a public letting Of the conta't
Mayor Grace, Contro Ter Loew and President Mooney
Of the Board OF Aldermen appointed the commissioners
AT first Mayor Grace was squarely against the loo'
His opposition to the bill really bitter. and when
II fna " became law he said hoty that he would not
Up, ONT Commiss under such an outrageous meas
IRE. But somehow other his ardent antagomsm
melted away and Jacob Lorillard David James King
ana Vernon II. Brown DtCdHic tip eVhii'r'""~A' N
the act Without asking for any bids they prepare"
drawings of the bridge thew wanted. and drew up d
contract with tho Union Bridge Company for its con-
struction III the bin under which the COMMISSIONERS
were appointed an outrage this contract was ~.
fitting supplement. 1t called for brloee 10 GUS.
e2e- OCO under terms which conceded everything Oh
i'm, tlnce to the contractors. The CONTRACT proNuo
that the bridge comply should build the vaduct the
commits sioners paying for every IN n.y. labor maHriis
stc upon month sta cments OF account 10 oe onuoiA
by the company. There was no provision ior auo.e
the accounts They simply to be PAID INC
contract was drawn by the contractors lawyers mo
comn,iss oners had not seen ft take legal advice
o 1t vas at this stage of the proceedings .na' II"
TRIBUNE discovered the contract and eHposed IT,
1t was then In the hands Of Corporation CouIsei III
combe 1t seemed to occur to the commissioners ac
the moment to ask the city's law officer II II was
al right Mr. Lacombe replied in effect tbat IL was
nh wrong but was obliged confess, because OF the
extraordinary powers with which the commissioner IS
were othed, that they had the right to execute
they chose II is now learned that on January ~
Is g, the same day that they asked MI LacomDe ior
MS advice tLey coscd their bargain with the Union
BRIDGE omi any. Their secretary MT NNens "ao or
tie contractors on that day, as the contractors nov
cla.m directing them 10 go on with the WORK. "hou
ME- Lac ombes reply came. five days later Swing ,hae
the contract one he should never think o, onius
the city to. the Union Bridge company I'D" oecu ~
To-; avs In DO session of the documents upon whcn
thsy now base their claim for damages
TIE TRIBUNE WIS not av ire. however, 'n't INC
cotter had gone so far its exposure raised storm
of indignant rotest about the heads OF the coiuis
son r. Their meetings were secret ana they ueoie'
to give out any informuon inc rgh.s VI ~, the
VITO hai t. lay this $2,6e0O00. were heio IN inc
must Indifferent esteem and for many days IL was
lossb 10 learn what had been zone. oh oanu'iS
2s Commissioner King In the presence Oh oo' n"n.
.oner Brown tod TRIBUNE reporter that the con
trct had been 'sianed scaled and delivered Al oho
on ce of the Union Bridge Company Inc hcAv u"s
the same IN Ormaion was given. Inc fuDhcauoh ",
tbs fact called forth such heated protests tnat inc
legs urc ,ook the matter up Robert Ray tahh
ton introduced bill repeating the former ou'' WIS
cb r IN the COMMISSIONERS and Orierng sctueneu'
nj their affairs to date lie also introduced reeo'u
ION dire ting them to inform the Assembly as 10 tner
Iroceed ngs call ng for copy OF the contract ai
full sta ement OF particulars reply 10 us losoiu
ton was sent in signed by all three commissioners VI
Eeb nary 16 lt sta that contract had ever oeeh
I'm ere INTO with the Union Bridge Company inc no
GOTTA ions with that company never having peoh
Sr,nyht tn a conclusion This was direct confaa,c-
ton nj their secetarys letter Of January Do 10 inc
br1l,e conn any. and of Mr. Kings statement 10 d
THIBusE reporter made in Mr.. Browns presence Inc
Legs cepted this Stateiueht III soou ''H anu
the act oil re cal not pressed . III,
Ater this the Commissioners began all over agaln
They ca led for and received bids 1hey oe
over all last summer ana nha, nanv and Miles
n orney for soO55.OOO. Mr.. Bush, cOusci Ioi ,-
rn,on Br dye Company, was seen In ms oue, rinc
10 valet, yesterday he rnu ne tho Commis,
Tie ,,apers in his ieLt@ action against .nc No h+
sinners He had not finally determined IN lu7. "na nav
sla Q he sloull seek relief but IN ONO ,o ,Id no
other and with n day OF Two rne .iiants was en-
bmucht "A >aitd contract with my cne in ,nd We
.ar a nto bv these Commissioners" he sha, ahu o
never ave them any Permission OF any NM ,, ~
eoe er to state the contrary e d orovcd our bond
January % telling Us that tLey b'iu appAV'o W. 81,
a or ar n, us 70 60 on with the work can I .c,i
Won NV lust what have been the iaInniclOo' tt ,rn
which the matter has gone sih0o 80 ossur,d
ba~c moi conf romsed our case: you may rSl a." ~
10 - ,b,t l consider that have strong caso
against the Commissioners ana ~ Will ~
pressed"