The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1894-04-27

Work well tORelneT. My Judgment Is
that there is very little bond between
the face and back of the wall, and |
am clear that this wall is not in accor-
dance with the contract and its ac-
companying specifications. 1t is some
what difficult to pass an opinion upon
the merits of the wall where only the
outside can be inspected. l exam
ined the stone delivered on the ground
for the purpose Of the work, and so
far as strength and durability is con-
cerned need not be any question
raised about it. The cutting Of the
stone is not perfect and is open to
the usual criticism on all work of this
character but on the whole the face
stone which | saw, if properly laid will
make good strong work. or course
care is necessary to get the proper
headers and stretchers and judgment
must be used on the part of the ma
son and the inspecting engineer. |
inquired about the cement, and was
informed that the contractor was using
Lesly and Thinkers Improved Union
Brand. This brand of cement has a
good reputation and should be all
right. | examined the sand placed
near the north abutment, ii is clean
and mostly pure quartz, but not sharp,
being water worn. | am told that it
is the best obtanable in this locality.
The specifications require that the
rock face of the stone shall not ex-
tend a inches beyond the neat lines
for the ordinary work, and 2 inches is
fixed as the limit on the faces of the
ice breakers. The work however built
shows greater projections of the rock
face. / do not consider this serious
matter, though of course if the Com
missioners insist on it the contractor
should scabble the face down to the
specification limits, My opinion has
been requested as to the inspection
of the mason work during construc.
ton. l have no hesitation in saying
that a reliable and competent inspec-
tor in the employ of the Couny should
be on the ground the whole time chat
masonry is in progress, to see that the
work is done properly, and he should
give special attention as to the mixing
and use Of cement, to insure the
proper amount being used, and the
mortar being made fresh, as needed,
SO that the cement will not be spoiled
in its manipulation.
My opinion as an engineer has been
asked respecting certain estimates, as
to what is usual and customary in the
business, and what should be proper
Interpretation on the contract in this
respect. Copies of two estimates in
favor of Joseph Hendler, contractor,
certified to by ]. c. Brown, engineer
have been shown me, viz: Estimate
No. I approved December goth, 1898,
for 100 yards of stone dressed at
quarry ready.to be shipped, $4,000.
Estimate No. approved February
9TH, 1894, for sundry items including
stone dressed in quarry, stone, cement
and sand delivered on the work &C.,
amounting to $5395.Sa, after deduct
ing the assumed payment on Esti-
mate No. I. Contractors are often
men of small means and it is usual
and customary to make them monthly
payments, and the written contract
generally reads ''for materials deliv-
cred and work done" This is fair
and right and in accordance with the
customs of the business. But In no
case should the Engineer estimate
and pay contractor anything Tor
materials not delivered and not in the
custody and the control Of the owner
of the work. All materials estimated
and paid for must be SO deposited
that the owner of the work shall ahave
clear title to it, as against all other
claimants, and it is evident that stone
dressed in quarry, perhaps 50 miles
or more from the site of the bridge,
cannot be in the physical possession
of the owner Of the bridge and conse-
quently is not in proper shape to be
included in an estimate, and cannot
safely be paid for. In the particular
case now under consideration, who
ever prepared the contract for the
masonry omitted to mention ''mater-
ials delivered as an item in making
estimates. The contract with Mr..
Hendler distinctly recites prices for
work in place completed. My opin-
ion of a contract of this kind is, that
the contract is the law which governs
the Engineer, that he derives all his
authority from the contract, and can
not go beyond 1t, and that the County
Commissioners should not make pay
ment except in accordance to the
contact. Therefore, am of the
opinion in this case no payments