The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-04-25
Mr.. BROWNS SILENCE.

Before taking editorial cognizance of the
very serious charges which Harbor Com
missioner Colnon has made against a.
Page Brown, architect of the new ferry
building and foundations, the CALL, de-
sirous of giving Mr.. Brown fair treatment
and anxious to know the whole truth, sent
a reporter to him to secure an explanation.
His extraordinary conduct on that occa-
sion-frst in attempting to conceal his
identity from the reporter and then in de-
Ginning to give an explanation until after
he had seen the Commissioners and pre-
pared a statement for them-was set forth
in Yesterdays issue of the CALL.
We respectfully suggest to this eminent
architect that in preparing his statement
to the Commissioners he imagine himself
standing at the bar of public judgment
and required by that dignifed authority to
embody in his statement clear answers to
the following questions:
At whose suggestion and for what reason
was the extraordinary provision inserted
in your contract with the State, authoriz-
ing you to draw half your commission on
the whole contract for foundations and
building in case the work of construction
should not be commenced within year?
Is this customary feature of contracts
between builders and architects?
Is it likely that this scandal concerning
the character of the material used and
work done on the foundation and the great
delay and expense that have ensued would
have occurred if you had attended dill
gently and faithfully to your duty2
Is it not the custom for architects to give
close attention to work which they are paid
to perform2
Knowing, as you must know, that scan
dals often arise out of contracts fol
public construction, and that such rascality
is comparatively rare in private building
enterprises, did you understanding that
you are an honest and faithful architect
have all the more reason for extreme dill
gence and care in the matter of the ferry
Improvements?
If the foundations should prove to have
been improperly constructed as a result OF
your negligence, do you not think it would
be proper for you to return the money
which you have received from the State?
Suppose that you regard yourself as 9
citizen, not interested in the contract
WOulO you uOI only tx peCI SuC0 an dTCQ1Cecl
to return the money without hesitation
but would you not also think that hC
ought to be sued for heavy damages?
You gave bond in the sum of $4,000
for the faithful performance of your con.
tract. Ifyou were citizen not interested
in this contract would you not be In favor
of suing these bondsmen in case it should
be shown that the architect had violated
his contract by neglecting his duty, had re
ceived payment for services which he did
not perform. and had brought expense, de-
lay and scandal upon the State?
These questions involve ethical as well
as practical considerations, but as Mr.
Browns relations with the State involve
both these elements, he woul1 make a
mistake-except possibly on the score oil
his own safety-in answering them freely
in his statement to the Commissioners
We should be glad to see him completely
exonerate himself from the charges which
Commissioner Colnon has made, and we
regret that his singular conduct to our re.
porter was not that which we should have
expected from a sensible and experienced
man, who at the same time had nothing
of his conduct that he desired to conceal
much less his own identity.