St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-07-02
FOR COMO AVENUE BRIDGE.
BUT THE COMPTROLLER IS A
LITTLE TOO SLOW IN THE
NATTER.
PRICE OF MATERIAL ADVANCED,
And the Contracting Company
Refuses to BE Bound by IL Con-
tract Made Months Ago.

I,
Comptroller McCardy changed his
mind yesterday forenoon and signed
it. Then he notified the contractors
the Gillette-Herzog Manufacturing
company, of Minneapolis-tha he had
signed the contract, by sending them
a copy of it. If the comptroller had
signed this contract at the time the
mayor affixed his signature-April Is
Or in a reasonable time thereafter,
the contractors would have proceed
ed with the work-So they say. But
now it is too late, for as was pub
lished in the G o b e last week, the
Gillette-HerZog company sent
written communication to the proper
city officials, notifying the city that
it could not fulfill the contract now,
owing to the advance in the cost
of steel and iron, as well as in the
price of labor. Therefore it an
nounced that it would withdraw.
Yesterday Mr.. Gillette, the senior
member of the company, attended
joint meeting of the committees on
ways and means of both branches of
the council, and informed the mem
bers that the Gillette-HerZog company
must decline to accept the contract in
it's present form, as it would impose
upon the company impossibilities.
There were present at the meeting
Assemblymen Parker and Aro.sn, of
the assembly committee, and Aid.
Markham, chairman of the aldermanic
committee Comptroller McCardy, Mr..
Gillette and his attorney.
Mr. Gillette stated his side of the
case, virtually repeating the contents
of the letter before alluded to.
eff we should accept the contract
now" said Mr.. Gillette, ct would i'm
pose upon US impossibilities. In the
first place, it specifies in distinct terms
that we must complete the work by
Aug. 1, or within thirty days from date.
That, as you can see, is man;festly i'm
possible. In the next place, the delay
of nearly three months on the part of
the city-which was no fault of ours
prevented us from beginning the work,
for your city engineer positively re-
fused to allow us to proceed until the
city had executed the contract. 1 have
letters from him proving that. In the
meantime the price Of materials has
advanced to such figures that We
CANNOT PERFORM THE WORK
under the present contract, and we
must therefore decline to proceed. How
ever, we would be willing to go ahead
if the city would compensate us for
the difference between the cost of ma
terials when the contract was ready for
signature and the present COST
In answer, Aid. Markham said that
the council would undoubtedly extend
the time within which the work should
be finished, which would be 105 days
that being the number of days between
April IS and Aug. 1, inclusive, but that
the council had no power to compen-
safe the contractors for the difference
in the cost of material and labor.
Mr. Parker and Mr.. Arosin ques-
toned Mr.. Gillette closely regarding
the purchase of materials. They
wanted to know why the Gillette-Her-
zog company had not contracted for
the material at the time the contract
was awarded to them. Mr.. Gillette re-
piled that they had made arrange
ments to secure some of the material,
but they did not propose to purchase
it all until the city had signed the
contract. How did they know the
contract would ever be signed?
Aid. Markham then informed Mr..
Gillette that If his firm proposed to
withdraw from the contract, there
was no use of further discussing the
matter before the committee, as it
involved a purely legal question. All
the committee could do would be to
recommend that an extension of time
be granted. Mr.. Parker also expressed
the opinion that further discussion
was superfiuous, and intimated that
the company might wait until Aug. l,
if it so determined, and apply to the
courts for relief.
HELPING NEARBY OUT.
Mr.. Gillette and his attorney then
raised the very point which induced
Comptroller McCardy to wait over
two months before signing the con-
tract. They piled the comptroller With
questions as to his right to sign the
contract unless the entire amount of
the cost of the bridge was in the city
treasury at the time. They had I'M
derstood, so Mr.. Gillette said, that the
comptroller had withheld his sigma
ture because the Great Northern road
had not paid over to the city in
lump sum its agreed one-third of the
cost. But the only satisfaction
terse answer:
1.-The city is prepared to meet it's
liability under this contract"
This provoked Mr.. Gillette's attorney
to remark:
There must have been a sudden
change, then, in the condition of this
bridge fund.-
Mr.. Parker was moved to reply:
Gentlemen, the fact that the comp
troller has signed this contract is suf-
ficient evidence that the city had a
legal right to execute it,
Mr.. Gillette and his attorney then
departed, and the committee proceeded
to approve the city pay rolls.
What induced Comptroller McCardy
to sign the contract does not appear,
as there is absolutely no contract re-
garding the Como avenue bridge be-
tween the city and the Great North
ern Railroad company and the latter
has not paid over to the city the one
third cost of the bridge. The upshot
of the whole difficulty will be that the
city will be obliged to advertise for
new bids, unless it should be found
that the Gillette-Herzog company can
be held to the present contract. In
case, however, new bids are asked for,
it is conceded that the lowest bid will
exceed the present figures by at least
$1,000.