The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-08-24
SCANDAL OF SANTA CRUZ,
An Architect in This City
Offered the Courthouse
Contract.
COULD BE HAD FOR $4,000.
The Proposition Was Made by an
Agent From the Agitated
County Seat.

The scandal of the Santa Cruz court
house has been affording food for gossip
among architects and at the Builders Ex-
change for some days past, since an archi-
tect OF this City made a statement to the
effect that an agent from Santa Cruz had
submitted to him an offer to enter into
conspiracy that he might have his plans
adopted.
The proposition was specific enough,
leaving no room for doubt or misunder-
standing. It was that the architect should
pay $1,000 to secure the new courthouse
building at Santa Cruz. In consideration
of this sum he was to have absolute con-
troll and management of the building, the
selection of contractors, and that meant
the actual handling of funds, while osten-
sibly the Santa Cruz County Supervisors
would make all payments. Then the archi-
tect's fees were to be at least $1,000
This would leave a balance against the
architect of $4,000, which. however, as rep
resented by the agen t, would be no obsta-
Gle in the way of reaping heavy profits
from the Job. The architect, having full
charge of the building and its contracts,
could fix the price at whatever figure he
pleased, although the total sum had been
placed at 100000.
Subsequent events have proved how
much was in the agents words. Instead
of costing $4,000 the first deal in construc-
ton contracts was $53,475, and those who
know best have declared that it will cost
abont SIS, 600 more to render the county
building at Santa Cruz fit for occupancy.
The contract for S53, AIS was awarded by
the Supervisors without question. And
yet this same board at previous meetings
had adopted a resolution limiting the total
cost to $40, 600. Awarding the contract at
an increase of over $4,000 aroused the
citizens and taxpayers of the county to
such a pitch of indignation that on August
13 they presented petition to the District
Attorney of Santa Cruz protesting against
the whole business. They also requested
that official to commence suit against n.
A. Comstock, the architect of the proposed
building, to recover the money already
paid him, and also to institute action
against the individual Supervisors and
their bondsmen to recover damages for
allowing the same.
The citizens of Santa Cruz County were
not aware of the disclosures made in this
city. Mayor Effy of Santa Cruz, who was
in town for several days, said it was all
news to him, though he was not surprised
in the least to hear that job had been in
the wind.
"From the way in which things have
been going" said he 81 almost suspected
something was up. The bare facts, which
are matters of record were bad enough.
/ know that the people were not satisfied,
and | understand that the contract was
not awarded to the lowest bidder"
About twelve San Francisco architects
went into the competition. They were in
formed that the building should not cost
more than $4,000, and submitted plans
accordingly. bond of $4,000 was re-
quired as guarantee that the price should
not go above the specified amount.
When the architects had submitted their
plans an agent appeared among them
from Santa Cruz, but with one exception
the architects approached by him have de-
cined toNsay what proposition was made
by him. One of the unsuccessful candi-
dates remarked it would do no good to dis
cuss the matter, and if he had anything to
say upon it he could never again expect to
get contract In competition on any pub
lie building. 1t was necessary almost in
variably to make "such concessions" he
added ait was part of the business in GER
tain classes of work"
The architect who was approached with
the proposition of paying $4,000 for the con-
tract refused to allow his name to appear
in connection with the scandal, but he was
positive in his statement and replied that
he would enter into no such transaction.
The result was that though his design
ranked among the best plans submitted it
was rejected. Architect Comstock claimed
that the whole matter, so far as he was
concerned, was absolutely straight, and he
had heard nothing of a conspiracy in con-
nection with the new courthouse contracts.