New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-02-26


The subject. there wefc IN the ham,, hsnes
Of superintendent Andrews three bids, rs n ne
sum Of sase 4s5 one from tho Hilton Bridge COMP
for the sum q 1914, 500 and one from Sohn Shs'sa
These bids were IN tie hands OF Mr. Andrews seslea
but were ere not opened &c s S ia not organize but
adjourned 70 meet again on pa e o Bv n in the
ssnt v ~ aavertc for proposals, 10 be presented
on or before june e. the Albany Evening SoSr
nall Albany Argus o. ana june tie COMMITTEES again
met ali being present. and y was IS ' toIloWs One from
orsnford valentine for and a. one eSd trO
Sullivan Ehers for Pr anu h sn1 raved
from John H. Mooney for the sum of $2s634o dated
June Is but your committee are unable 70 de5e 1rns
the 18th or not no the ac 70 st the bd oi
HsRes Brothers while so far as have been able
20 determine honestly made, yet exceeded the appro,
NSiafon made by the Legislature for the work anu
tsereforc could not legally have been considered by
The same Is true Of the bid Of j. H. Mooney, ex
cept that your committee are thoroughly satisfied
that this bid was st made n good fa,h So,,o, within
the appropriation was received not earlier than tne
e5th While the advertisement for proposals feIufsa
them to be in the hands OF the superintendent On INC
The bid Of sullivan Ehers while within the spRsos
sonewhat BY the confidential relations showed % nave
existed between pw ~ asraops IN
the books Of Mr. snath. In our Judgment Is open "
very hs hd Of the Hilton Bridge Company Of which ex
state Engineer Sweet is president TO our mind was an
noneI y, p ab eommee Who were compelled the
act 10 let the contract 10 the lowest bidder.
THE bid of the Hilton Bridge Company however,
apneaed to been based upon plans and specinca
iions which rad been drawn by Commissioner Perry,
after consultation with him. prior 10 the passage OF the
act making the appropriation, and undonbtody con
enpiated the erection Of different ana more ea
lions attached td the contract
Each Of these bidders has appeared as witness atd
4l.a nj i'm f II H
fed that they the specifications Attached 90 h ns
contract and with the exception 81 swee emttna
the of papier ache or oak sweets Ss
ing that while no casually read the and
therefore did not notice whether the SAID nernause
clause was in the Of Sr nos COMMITTEES and
Superintendent Andrews on the 10Th day OF une o and
70 let the act to snah he being the lowest BID
dor The committee then passed resoihuloh III
srgeng their cGa =, fSe state sS sna Attorney
Tabor having prepared the contract. wa wa
executed by snah spperntssnden,d a1 Anar Of june
sR Ss sEocu Ss of The Contract the Of Mr.
Cole on behalf q 5o 'n ssy Ss0 Of the Attorney
that committee had the right to deiega'e 'n'S pO"e'
T Tt, evidence shows that while the committee IN.
st1lcted the superintendent TO advertise IN ,ns az
above named d for ny advertised for proposals up
and including the ed in the papers nameo'
DRAWING UP THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
second; AS to the manner in which and by whom
the plans and specifications for such cehing were
drawn up, we find that prior to tho passage OF 1ne
act making the appropriation for this work Mr.. An
srs,rs had rrocured the services Of F. H. James, an
architect residing in the city Of Albany who hsa
prepared sketch Of proposed ceiling ana naI p a.,
estimate Of Us SroOs RetcS SV 81 proposed ceiling and
also submitted TO that committee an esumaee Va I've
cost subsequent 70 t1e Iss IN accordance WITH his
sketch which Substantially tho plans upon WHICH
IT Is admitted by Mr. Andres that in the prepsra-
ton of his plans for tho proposed ceiling ne CUR
f sact was s subseouently awarded as he claimed with
view Of ascertsinng the probable cost OF me VOTE
hr, ar e rowe sRe a arsct residing IN ithaca
ployed by superintendent Andrews anu onys ~
letting These specifications or ,n sSa we're Ssse shown 70
each badsr on the work except Mooney wen as
70 several other persons who were eHaininee
BIZ sos ssd work Sso H Te find uS Ss tSsso
lions all contained an alternative .. cia auS
suction Of the ceiling, and that they were not altered
or changed by any person. s.. tr0s ., tho receiving
OF bids on the work. we find. were subsequently, al
sse and q, by w we the ba Rp thai
knowledge was impaired to the committee Of such
s Ih e. raes s s ssPsar
the changes permitting the use Of s9e panels
e seppSis 'nf for ''3 the cs 1s witch ' siisS
to bs necessary alter tho Old eeng had been
moved. Each Of Ties changes u our judgment re-,
on the spsSdreIs we do not think was fairly war
rented by the Iecea,i9ps and its use was mot ds
aSse no but Sas thai G 1ss N ss
1t IS claimed by the contractor and by SrPerin.
tendent Andrews that II was impractcable II not
have seasoned oak Of the thickness required within
the time limited for the completion Of the contract
but think the change permitting It's use ought
never TO have been made without having first consulted
the committee associated with Superintendent An
The third question embraced in tho resolution Of
February has been fully answered herein .n,.r.
msche ceiling and chartered oak and carved ne oar
ceiling has been answered by are eSPer o
ongy satisfied from the evidence presented res ns e us
entire work substantially accurate, and that the
profit the ceiling and the work connected VII,
and that tic balance. of tho profit was included IN
The contract for snoring up the assembly staircase
slantay done. II was difficult problem, and ~
successful accomplishment by the mode adopted wa
bold piece Of engineering
while we sIc satisfied that the expense Of the worl
as reported by the Expert oOnnassrG, i accurate n
scnted difficulties and risks watch Justified the esti
al an G S9 fsc wP S Tfe the R whS
u yet its solution, we are confident was mnch caste
entered on and we are hot Snmna Of the fact
the contractors who performed the work possesses
unusual facilities for It's successful accomplishment
THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WORK.
The responsibility for all tho criticism resting Of
this work rests, primarily on tho Legislature Of 1888
which placed It's execution in the hands OF a con
fessedly incompetent man, and an inexperfence
committee wasa associated with him, TO tn
exclusion OF competent State officer
We are clearly OF the opinion that the Ceiling Com
mission provided for In the act and subsequent,
appointed has guilty Of gross carslessness ~ no
giving 70 the work that attention which the acceptance
Of these duties by them required We crltclse thei
acts I'm voting compensation OF $500 10 MI
Andrews being an Indirect violation OF the law
and we particularly cidticse the committee for no
meeting together during tho progress Of the wor
from time TO tire. We also cficise them for thel
approval Of tho selection by Superintendent Andrew
Of an architect inexperienced In work OF that mag
RitUde
Wo severely crtIcise superintendent Andrews TO
the gFussest saralessRess and negligence In no
properly supervising the work and Insisting upo
strict compliance with the contract and we censur
him for permitting changes In The plans ard specih
cations as the work progressed, without consulato