The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-05-01
AFTER THE ARCHITECT.
Page Brown Violated His Con-
tract, but Cannot Be
Punished.
AGREEMENT MAY BE ILLEGAL
The Acknowledgement and Attorney
Ford to Look Up the Law in
the Case.

The report of Attorney TREY L. Ford OF
the Harbor Commissioners in regard to the
contract of A. Page Brown was received at
the meeting of the board yesterday after
noon. The report in substance said that
Mr.. Brown had violated his contract in not
having supervised the work on the ferry
foundation. With regard to remedy for
the architects dereiction of duty Mr..
Ford was Of the opinion that the board
had no redress. The report ran:
Itseems to me, from a careful reading of the
entire contract that there is no escape from the
conclusion that the architect undertook as
part of his duties to examine and supervise the
work upon the foundation as it progressed and
to report to the board the manner in which the
same was done.
This duty of the architect to examine, super
wise and report upon the work upon the foun-
dalton did not begin until the said plans, draw
board, were finally, after advertisement duly
published, adopted by the board as basis for
the contract for the erection OF said depot.
When such plans drawings and specifications
were so approved and adopted by the board,
then it became the duty OF the architect to eX-
| anime and supervise the work done IN pursu-
ance of such plans and to report TO the board
the manner in which said work was done.
Mr. Ford stated that the second inquiry
directed to him by the board had not been
the difficulty being to determine whether
the contract is continuous" one or a
"severable" one.
In the opinion of the attorney it is a
"severable" contract, and his report con-
Guided by saying:
The architect has been guilty of breach in
failing TO supervise the work upon the founda-
same The Harbor Commissioners may bring
their action for such damages as may have re-
suited from the failure OF the architect to COM
ply with the terms of his agreement in these
particulars or they may withhold the eompen-
sation of the architect and offset their damages
against his action to recover such compen-
satiOn.
When Secretary Keegan had finished
reading the report President Colnon asked
Mr.. Ford if there was not another phase OF
the question. sis it not possible, asked
Mr.. Colnon, "that under the statute of
1872 this contract with Mr.. Brown is no
contract at all?'
Attorney Ford said there was such a
possibility, but that he had not examined
into the merits of the contention. In an
swering the questions of the board Mr..
Ford said that he had of necessity acted
upon the presumption that there was a
contract.
''Let US take this matter under advise
ment," suggested Commissioner Chad
bourne, "and be sure of our standing
Attorney Ford was instructed to look up
the law in the matter and report at future
meeting. cit seems strange" said Presi-
dent Colnon, ''that if Mr.. Brown has vio-
lated his contract there is no way to punish
him. How would you propose proceeding,
Mr. Ford, if you decide that the contract is
void?"
The attorney said that the matter could
be brought into the courts by the Board of
Examiners refusing to allow one or more
claims of the architect. In that event
Brown would probably mandamus the
board, and thus the question of the legality
of the contract could be passed upon by
the proper tribunal. After the meeting
President Colnon stated that he would
have Attorney General Fitzgerald confer
with the boards attorney in the matter.
The statute referred to provides that in all
public buildings not only must the work
to be done be advertised for, but also the
plans and specifications. Mr.. Brown was
appointed, and it is for this reason that the
point has been raised regarding the legality
of his contract.
On the other hand it may be advanced
that all things appertaining to the depot
must come under the special law which
provided for the building.
Wharfngers Edward Short and Daniel
f. Crowley were reappointed for four years.