Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-03-05
The CHIEFS ANSWER.
That Anti-Amoskeag Equity Suit
With Singing Charges,
AVERRING COLLUSIVE INTERESTS
Asa Foundation for the Nonresident At
tack on Home Engines.
SOME REALLY READABLE REPLIES

Chiefs j. U. brOWn. Il. M DlSS4Om nHN
R.C. Elliot yesterday filed their answer in
the equity proceedings instituted oy h. E.
Stafford against the Board of Awards to
preyeut them from giving the contract for
the Two fire engines to the Manchester Lo-
comotive Works, the manufacturers of the
Amoskeag engine. Mayor McCallin has al
ready filed his separate answer, in which he
virtually admitted the allegations of Stafford,
and explained his reasons for voting against
the award of the contract to the Amoskeag
Company.
The answer of Chiefs Brown, Bigelow and
Elliot commences by denying the first
paragraph OF Safford's bill, and holding that
he is not bona fde taxpayer in the city of
Pittsburr, nor is he an owner Of any real
estate whereon taxes have been or will be
levied and assessed against him in the city.
Continuing, the answer in substance says:
We aver that this bill has been filed by plain
tiff, directly in the interest of the Clapp &
Jones and the La France Engine Companies,
in which he is pecuniarily interested. and that
he is directly interested in a pecuniary man
ner in procuring the vacation and annullment
of the award to the Manchester Locomotive
Works, and procuring the award to the CON-
panies, or one of them, in which they believe
him thus interested. And that the averment
that he is a taxpayer and owner of property in
said city, is hut a pretense and does not tully
disclose the real interest of plaintiff. That the
bill is not filed in good faith, but is collusive
and fraud upon the court
Second-The averments in the second, third,
third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh para
graphs Of the bill are admitted, except it is de-
MED tn At the bids of the La France Company,
or the Clapp & Jones Company, complied with
the Specifications.
THE ACT ALREADY DONE.
Third-It is not true, as averred in the eighth
paragraph, that the contract is as yet not fully
executed, but must be approved by the Coun-
cils of Pittsburg and must be signed by ]. o.
Brown, Chief of the Department of Public
Safety, but it becomes binding. On the sd of
October 1855, the Department of Awards
awarded the contract to the Manchester Loco
motive Works and made report of the same to
Councils. On the 18th of November, 1855. Sc
lect Council of said city approved said report,
and on the 18th of October, lSSS, Common
Council did the same, and on the 4th of Febru-
airy, 1889, ]. o. Brown, as Chief signed the con-
tract as required under the law.
Fourth-The averment In the ninth para
graph, that the bid of the Manchester Locomo-
tive Works was greater than that of the other
two companies, is admitted; but it is denied
that it was much greater, and il is further de-
MED that the bid of either the La France or
the Clapp & Jones Companies complied with
the specifications.
Fifth-The averments in the tenth paragraph
are denied.
Sixth-The averments in the eleventh para
graph are denied.
Seventh-For answer to the twelfth and thir-
teenth paragraphs of said bill, the defendants
say that the bid of the Manchester Locomotive
Works complied in all particulars with the
n
that ''1ue boilers" and tubular boilers are
practically the same thing, and they deny that
a tubular boiler is superior to fue boiler for
the purposes Of steam fire engine.
Eighth-For answer to the averments con-
tanned In the fourteenth paragraph of said bill,
the defendants say that the guarantee therein
by the specifications, and embraced nothing
but that which would necessarily be included
in the contract, even without any guarantee.
Ninth-The defendants deny the averments
contained in the fifteenth and sixteenth para
graphs, except as they are hereafter admitted.
Tenth-The averments contained in para
graph 81 of the amended bill are denied.
Eleventh-The ayerment in paragraph II is
denied. .s
RIGHT DOWN TO REASONS.
Twelfth-And, for the further answer in this
behalf, the defendants say that the bill should
not be sustained, for the reason that the defend
ants are the Department of Awards of the
city, which defendant completely exhausted
all its acts, powers and duties in regard to the
said award long time ago, and which defend
ant has not since that time, nor will it ever
have any further control or duty to perform
in regard to said contract. GHere follows
review as to test proposals, etc.1 That the
Board of Awards. in determining this matter,
took into consideration the full facts,
among others that the Amoskeag engines
have the best reputation for force, ca
pacity, durability and consequent saving
In the way of repairs, of any engine in the
United States. That the city has purchased
engines other than the Amoskeag and the re-
suit has invariably been to demonstrate the
great superiority Of the Amoskeag. That the
engines manufactured by the LaFrance and
Clapp q Jones Companies have never been
used in this city. That in addition thereto the
bid of the Manchester Locomotive Works in
cluded the equipment of said Amoskeag en-
gines with the "Endicott springs (not in
cluded in the specifcations) without extra
charge to the city; that the said springs can be
furnished only by the Manchester Loco
motive Works and are an indispensable
paIt of a steam fire engine; that the engineers
of the department are perfectly familiar with
the Amoskeag engine, and with no other kind;
that the demands of the fire department fire.
quently require that engineers be changed or
shifted from one engine house to another; and
it is therefore essential that the engines in use
In the fire department should be such that
each of the engineers can take charge of and
run any of the fire engines of the city at a
board. from this view alone. it was
more economical to pay 5000 for
an engine which all the engineers of the de-
partment can run, than 4.575 for one which
none of the engineers could operate without
special training and at least some expense
That, in the judgment of said Board of Awards
taking everything into consideration, the
Amoskeag engine was a better engine than
either the La France or the Clapp & Jones en-
gines.
Wherefore, these defendants pray that the
said bill may be dismissed with their reasona-
BILE costs sustained. J. o. BROWN,
Z. NJ. BIGELow,
r. c. ELLIOT
City Attorney Moreland and D. T. Wat
aon Eso are the attornevs for the hoard