New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-01-20
THERE WAS MONEY IN 1T.
METHODS THAT PREVAILED IN MR.. FREREPs
OFFICE.
UGLY DISCLOSURES BEFORE THE SENATE COM
MITTEE INVESTIGATING THE SUPER
yIsING ARCHITECT

vIsING ARCHITECT
Washington, Jan. 19-senators Morrill, and Stanford
to-day continued the Investigation by the Committee on
Public Buildings and Grounds into the management OF the
Office OF the supervising architect of the Treasury Com
missioner Lyman Of the Civil Service Board, tesuned
with regard to the application of the rules OF tho Civ
Service to the architects and draughsmcn Of Colonel
Frerets Office. He said that the questions at hrst
submitted by tho representatives Of the Architects Office
for the examination OF candidates for appointment
would require six weeks las tho proponents admltted
to answer. Then the Civil Service Commission had
set OF questions prepared, which, with some modlnca
uons suggested by the Architects representatives,
were adopted and used. These required about four
days 10 answer. Mr. Lyman said that application
had been made some months ago by tho secretary OF
the Treasury for force OF draughtsmen, fifteen In ALL
line 10 be paid SO day be paid s5. 1t was not
until November that tie examination was had, how
ever and In December list Of three who had passed the
examination was certified to tho secretary OF tho
Treasury, who selected the with tho lowest per-
centagc and he was placed at work at 81 a day, at
which. 1t IS reported, he feels aggrieved Another
list Of three has been certified and is pending in the
Treasury Department. Eight persons have passed tho
examination for positions in tie Architects Office and
but has been appointed
Concerning the statement by Assistant. Secretary
Maynard that the application Of the Civil Service
rules to the Architects office failure Mr.. Lyman
very broad statement upon narrow foundation.
In the witnesses opinion Mr.. Maynard had no right
to judge OF the effect Of examination for an archi-
tccts skilled assistants from one after but low
days experience. The Commission had for more than
year tested the skin OF applicants for positions as
draug htsmen and typographical and civil engineers
in the Patent Office Coast and Gcodctc Surveys Ord
nance Bureau of the Navy, and in the ouarermaster
Generals Office requiring high grade OF ability
as tho Architects Office, and complaint had ocen
made nom any OF them.
W. j. Palmer testified that he had contracted with
Colonel Frerct, Supervising Architect to furnish
plans and specifications for public building at Vioks-
burg. witness did not know the cost OF tho ouiio-
ing, but had agreed to do the work for $500 vi
this sum witness says ne is TO receive SO TOT inc
use of his name the work being done by employees Oh
tho Architects Office. who, he understood could NOT
contract for the work themselves. Hc was told oy
a friend I'm the Office that there was $500 TO pay ior
these plans and the contract was made In his name
His friends name Etzrodt Before making inc
contract ho talked with Won Nerta, chief draughemah
Of the Office. witness in the Government employ
two wears ago. The contract was made two weeks
ago Witness has not received his go.
c. T. Barry testified that he was TO make plans
and specifications for the Bridgeport Conn, building,
etImaied to cost $4,000, for the sum OF $1,000
No sketch plan was shown him before making tho
contract but HIS friend in the Architects Office, otto
about '@ce-quarters of per cent tho cost OF the
building and tho contract sum was about equal TO
that Witness made tho contract with Colonel Frerot
by letter. sinonson doing tho verbal part OF tho
negotiations. smonson. witness and ono other
dranghtsman IN the Architects olco TO do the
work and divide the 81 $50 equally. Their sketch
plan has boon approved, but no money has been paid
Barry said that the usual rate Of compensation. for
architects services was from three 10 five per cent
but that included supervision during erection, letting
contracts, getting estimates, etc, after plans and
specifications had been furnished. Being lido At the
time no thought he could afford TO mako plans aud
specifications for thfcoqusrters Of ono Per cent
George b. Phelps testified that he at work
under contract with Colonel Frcrot on plans for mo
Lowell Custom House. estimated 10 cost 100000,
which he IS to furnish for 81 500. No sketch plan
was furnished him In advance but no stated that
being familiar with tho requirements Of that class Of
buildings he believed he could AFFORD b do the work
for that sum- Mr. Won inertia, chief draughtsman Of
the architects Office, bad suggested his making bid
for the work and after his rid had been accepted
he arranged with Won inertia divide with him tho
residue OF the 81 500 after paying tho expenses OF
getting up the plans Won inertia and Mosicr en-
ploycd in the supervising architects ofec wcro work
ing out OF hours the plans, and witness. syth
employees OF HIS own Office, were also engaged on
them. He thought no and Won inertia would have
1900 or 5000 TO divide for their share OF tho com
.pensation. Tho work Is practically dono and has
been approved, but witness said nothing had been
paid on It.
J. j. Bogue the last witness Of the day. He
said that c. W. somcryille Of the architects office,
had suggested 10 him 10 bid for furnishing the per.
spective for tho Detroit public building Ho bad
done so Offering 20 do the work for 1926. His bid
had been accepted and he then sublct the Job to
Senators Morrill, and Stanford wore much interested
in the testimony adduced'