The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1891-11-12
TO HEAR OUTSIDERS.
The Investigating Committee Will
Continue Monday.
COUNCILMAN READ AGAIN.
Supt. of buildings Cottren Saws He Was
Never Connected with the smead Conn
pany and Did Not Know Who Sent the
Coat For Several Months.

The members of the city property COM
mittee will have rest for few days
more. There will be no more of the inves-
tigation until next Monday afternoon at
which time anybody having complaints
TO make against the committee will be
given a hearing. The testimony of the
CITY property committee and the Superin-
tendent Of Buildings has been finished.
In continuing his testimony before the
investigating committee yesterday after
noon,, Councilman Read said that the
work done by the firm of Hoppin, Read Il
Hoppin for the city within the past two
wears, would amount to $50 for super
vision when all the buildings were com
pleted and si,l9l for architectural work
and S2,9S6 for plans.
Nobody, TO his knowledge, ever knew
what n mans bid was until they were
opened in the committees meeting.
The price which his firm had charged
the city was the same as would be charged
private parties.
Mr. Read was excused. and Councilman
David Burton was then sworn. lie had
received from the city for work done dur
ing the past two years, about $4,000 This
included work for the City Property Com
mittee, Lamp Department and Charity
Wood Yard.
He denied that the Fuller and Warren
Heating Company had ever been dealt un-
fairly with. The representatives of the
company had been given hearing by the
committee. The first time the agent
came the committee did not have time TO
listen to him, but made an appointment
with him, and heard him at the next
meeting
Councilman Little said he had not
statement 10 make, but he was ready to
answer any questions the committee
IL I'll lysal
garding his part in the work Of the sub
committee of the city property committee
in regard TO purchasing land for n new
city yard. He said he knew no more
about the matter than the records showed.
Superintendent of Buildings Cottrell
was next called. He read the records OF
the meeting when Alderman Fuller claims
a motion passed at his instance during his
presence was reconsidered after he left the
meeting. The records did not show any
such state of affairs rs the Alderman
claimed, but the witness would not swear
tnat il might not have been as Alderman
Fuller claimed.
The opinion of the City Solicitor was
read, in which he gave il as his belief that
ii was the proper thing to hire such help
in superintending the construction OF city
buildings as was necessary, and that this
city should pay for such assistance.
Witness said he had been connected with
for seventeen years and had been at the
head of the department for about four
years Until within the last year there
had never been anything paid for architec-
tural supervision of buildings. He denied
that ne had ever held any Smead stock in
the Norcross Heating and Nentllatlng
Company.
He admitted that he had received pres
ent from the company in the shape
of macintosh coat, but did not
know where it came from for several
months afterward. He had received a
notification from the Smead q Norcross
Company last June, notifying him OF an
assessment on stock.
He wrote back and asked what the let
ter meant, and they replied that the letter
was intended for somebody else, and he
had then returned the first letter.
Mr. Cottrell said he would have one Of
the Smead d Norcross Company before
the committee TO testify as TO his dealings
with that company
He stated that the majority of school
furniture for school houses had been pur-
chased from A. &. Whitcomb of Bost on.
but that the Household Sewing Machine
Company of this city had been given
small contracts for such work.
This company had furnished the High
School building and the work had been
very unsatisfactory. Since that time this
company had done other work for the city
and IL had been up to the standard. lie
said he was not connected with the Whit
comb firm of Boston and had never re
ceived any presents from them. He was
asked why he did not give the contract to
the Household Sewing Machine Company
in preference to the Boston firm since
there was only S97 difference between the
two bids on the years work. He
said that he thought it was for
the best interests of the city to
save all the money he could, but thought
it would have been good idea to have
sent for the Household Sewing Machine
Company and told them that they could
have the contract if they came down To
the Boston firms figures.
He stated that Mr.. Georges letter rela-
tive to hardware had been mislaid, which
explained his delay in answering.