The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1898-09-28

supervising architect had full power
to enforce the contracts strictly; all
changes were apparently made under
their direction, and blame cannot be
transferred to the contractors If they
carried out instructions.
From the nature of the case a proper
investigation of such matters as this
Union Depot and ferry house can only
be made with the assistance of compe-
tent experts, and we are unable, to our
great regret, to investigate all the con-
tracts in the building construction, be-
cause OF the totally inadequate amount
of money at our disposal. AS a sug-
gestion Of how much work should be
done in this direction, we submit here
with a report made to this Grand Jury
by the San francisco Chapter of the
American Institute of Architects.
We are convinced from our investi-
cation of three important contracts
that the whole matter merits a most
searching scrutiny by somebody clothed
with sufficient authority and provided
with sufficient means to make such
inquiry effectively.
We. learn by the appended letter from
his Excellency, the Governor of this
State, written in reply to our inquiry,
that at the thirty-second session Of the
Legislature a committee was appointed
to investigate State institutions, con-
ssting of Senator j. H. Dickinson, San
Francisco, chairman; Senator w. F.
Prisk, Grass Valley; Senator E. w.
Chapman, Ell Dorado County; Senator
j. j. Boyce, Santa Barbara County, and
Senator c.. M. Simpson, Pasadena.
1nasmuch as this committee has
commenced an Independent investiga-
ton OF the construction of the Union
4,
disposal the means which the Grand
Jury lacks, we have deemed it wise
to let our investigation rest at this
point, and see If the above committee
does not cover all the ground
In conclusion we beg to say that
while we do not find proofs of tangi-
BILE fraud that warrant us in making
formal charges, we cannot consider the
matters covered by this report with
out grave suspicious arising that those
in control Of the Union Depot and
ferry house structure have not been
loyal to the interests of the State.
Respectfully submitted.
M. II. HEIGHT, Foreman.
Documents appended were as fol-
lows:
Reports of T. Alexander Wright on
masonry contract, galvanized iron con-
tract, woodwork; summary
Testimony of Mr.. Forderer and Mr..
Conlin on re-galvanized iron work.
Letters from and to San Francisco
Chapter of Architects.
Letters from and to the Governor OF
California
Mr.. Wright gave 1t as his opinion
that Colusa stone, which was sub
stituted for Oregon stone, is about as
good as Oregon, but not as expensive.
The successful contractor bid $218, 900
for furnishing Nevada" stone and
$780, 900 for Oregon" the latter being
accepted. This contract was made on
January %, 1896, and on April 10 Colusa
was substituted. The question arises.
did the Harbor Commissioners have
any idea of using "Colusa" when they
accepted the contract and If SO WHY
did they not accept the lower bid? The
substitution of "Colusa" could have
been made as well. The fact that a
bid was received, based on Colusa
amounting to some $4,000 more than
the accepted bid cannot be used to
prove anything in relation to any other
bid.
Eleven variations in carpenter con-
tract let to Batemann Bros are noted
by G. A. Wright as expert. In nearly
every case the variations favored the
contractors.