Chicago eagle. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1889-19??, 1897-08-21
tractor. has presented to the Buildings
and Grounds Committee.

tractor. has presented TO the Buildings
and Grounds Committee.
The charges are sustained by COZ.
rOlorntlve testimony from J. =. Nal.
lette, former member Of the hoard. and
others. The statements Of Cummins
90 to show that In the earth filling by
the Board for the Nash. Nixon. Bryant
and Lawson school yards, large sum
of money was paid for work which
was not done, and favoritism was
shown to Contractors Mccarthy 4
Newman to the financial loss Of Cum.
minis, who was persona non grgta with
Fielder for some reason or other.
In June. 1896, Cummins made prop
OsitiOn to the architect Of the board
that he would fiji In the grounds Of the
Nash school, 10th nnd Erie streets.
with clay. at " cents cubic yard. and
black earth ut 10 cents u yard. The
prices were 80 law compared with
what the BOnrtl had been paying that
the architect snapped at the offer and
turned over Cummins and his Offer to
Fielder for plans and specifications Of
the work to he done.
Cummlns had been able to make the
offer as cheap rs he did because close
to the Nash school u sewer was leing
dug and he was able to get tile dirt
handy and mt no cost In loading.
Fielder promised to make out the
plans and specifications ut once, and
Cummins was given the work fOr
three other school buildlngs--thc Law
son. Nixon and Bryant. lie told Field.
cr that he wished to begin work With.
In ten days or otherwise he wOuid not
ip able to secure the dirt which WINS
coming from the sewer. but Fielder
did not deliver the plans and specificn-
tfOfis to him for weeks. Mr.. Mnllerte
then tried to get them for Cummiim
ind cunld not. Daniel Wikel Of Park
Manor heard Fielder promise twice
that he would get the specifications out
nc once. Herbert Ripley Of Calumet
avenue heard the same promise.
Fielder held back the plans nnd speci-
ficntloas until Cummins lost the chance
Of getting the sewer dirt. and was COM
PEELED to sulblct his contract to Nc.
earthly 4 Newman. who owned all the
available dirt In the vicinity Of the
schools to- BE- filed In. Mccarthy Il
Newman appeared to Ike favored by
Fieldsr- They got the work and per.
formed II. but now Cummins. angered
by the way ne was treated, charges
that thu work was not done according
to tiie specifications. Part Of the money
due Mccarthy 4 Newman has not been,
paid. and Cumins does not wish II to liz
until they hnws cwniplied with the speci-
ficatd6ns.. He als0 wishes the charges
against Fielder to te investigated and
an explanation Of his conduct In the
NATTER made.
The bOad has already paid 1926 on the
LnwsOm school csotract. &. ID. Hill. u
reputable engineer, shows In the fol.
lowing stntement how the board was
treated In tile matter Of the Lawson
school filihw:
"'rhi*is to certify that have survey
cd the LAWSON school lot. and from any
measurements and from the plans on
tile In the office Of the Board Of Elucn.
tiOr have computed the filling. The
total amount Of hlllng outside OF the
building, including the excavation from
the basement anl foundations, IL ~?
cubic yards common filling, 81 cubic
yards blnck sOIl. and 104 cubic yards
cInders In the alley. From the plans ]
estimate there were 1,4OO cubic yards
Of earth excnvated from the basement
AMI trenches for the foundation"
This liz signed by Mr.. Hill and In.
dorsei by II. RI. Gross rs worthy of In
vestlgatiOn. Clnders are not worth
over 81 cents cubic yard. yet the
board paid for them ut G5 cents ana
then allowed more earth to he taken
away from the basement of the school
than was necessary to I'LL the whole
yard. At this same school. while the
contractors for filling were required to
haul all rubbish away from the yard.
they did not, but iilled In on tin cans,
old boots and shoes ana other stuff. The
same thing was done ut the Nash school
and the others, ana this has al been
under Ffelder's supervision.
The Buildings ana Grounds Commit
tee. whenMr. Cummlns appeared before
ii with an attorney, set the time for the
investigation Friday afternoon. Mr..
Gross said II any neglect Of duty on the
part of an employee of the hoard was
proved discharges would follow at
once ....