The San Francisco call., 1897-07-14
A ROAST FOR
THE ARCHITECT
Held to Be Responsible for
Delay on the Hall of
Justice.
A Resolution Will Be Presented
to the Supervisors to
That Effect.
Citizens Are Indignant Over the Tardy
Work-Lively Meeting of the
Committee.

The session of the Buildings Committee
Of the Board of Supervisors yesterday
morning bore a close resem blance to
public indignation meeting.
The North End Improvement Club was
represented by mum ber of prominent
but very angry citizens, who wanted 10
know why the work on the Kearny-s street
Hall of Justice was at a standstili row
and had been practically at standstill so
many months.
Ex-Supervisor John Shirley first put the
question and then proceeded TO roast the
contra ctors, Ba eman Bros, and all
who might be responsible for the tardy
and uncertain manner in which the work
was being done, or not being done.
Ex-Supervisor w. H. b dish followed
upon Mr.. Shirley IN the same tone OF
voice, somewhat emphasized. He referred
to the firm of contractors who have charge
of the work as most responsible concern
and then proceeded to express amaze
ment that such a concern should dawdle
and trie with a public undertaking cf
this character in the manner they we're
doing
Ex-Surervisor Daniel Rogers made a
talk along the same line, demanding in
behalf Of the taxpayers of the City, and
especially OF those residing or interested
IN the NOrtD Euu, an energetic anu ell
cient prosecution of the work.
The committee had called upon Arch1-
tect Shea for an explanation OF the cause
of delay, and he was present with long
typewriter report, in which he threw
the entire blame upon the contractors.
He admitted in the statement that,
although the contract had been let many
months ago, the work was practically at
the point of beginning. He declared that
an a
prompt letting OF sub-cOnlracts should
have found the building at this time on
the level of the second story, whereas it is
still on the line of the foundation. A long
time must elapse after the letting of the
sub-contracts before the work of building
can begin, inasmnch as the materials has
to be manufactured after that time.
Finally he declared that while it was in
the province of the architects to pass upon
Il e work as done they had nothing to do
with pushing or ordering the work don e.
With this view the committee did not
agree. On the contrary, the members de-
clared that the responsibility for
the unnecessary and uncalled-for
delays rests entirely with the archI-
tects according to the stipulatioas con-
tanned in the specification The archi
tects, they held, were charged with the
duty of having the work progress so that
the contract can be executed as provided
in the Specifications.
The committee directed that resolu-
tion be prepared to be passed by the
board directly setting this forth, sin order
that no question of the kind shall arise in
the future or be alleged as a reason for
delay in the prosecution of the work"
J. C. Bateman of Bateman Bros, the
contractors, made statement in behalf Of
the firm.
He reminded the com mittee that the
Erv,, hoI toy Aa
$25, 900 lower than that set by the archi-
tects as their estimate at which the build
ing could be constructed. lie said that
they had been retarded by work on the
contiguous buildings; that the firm had
taken measures to prosecute the work in
their own way, economically and we'll,
and that within a few days it would be
made to appear that they were justified
in so doing. They proposed to WORK, he
said, at night by means of electric lights