The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-10-23

James B. Glow & Sons, 26 Courtlandt
Street, New York. have written to the
Commissioners, asking an Interpretation OF
the law relating to the liability of sub
contractors for materials furnished and
used in the furnishing of public buildings
Messrs Glow & Sons state their case as
/, follows:
I'VE are manufacturers Of plumbing
goods and invariably the general contrac-
| tor subjects the plumbing in a building to
a plumber, very often irresponsible, and
when We are unable to collect from the
plumber the general contractor refuses to
! pay for the same, and in one or two cases
where We have notified the bondsmen they
have refused to pay, claiming that they
were not responsible for the material fur
nished to the sub-contractor. even though
it Is used in building upon which they
have given bond guaranteeing the payment
of all material
We think this wrong Interpretation of
| the act. when the fact is considered that
the Government does not recognize the
subordinate contractor, and also stipulates
!, that the general contractor shall not sub
| let lis contract
| The letter was referred by the Commits
sioners to the Auditor for an opinion, and
he has reported as, follows: 1.-THE law of
February e, 1895. provides, That hereaf-
Ter any person or persons entering into
formal contract with the District of CO.
lumbia for the construction of any public
building or the prosecution and completion
OF any public work, or for repairs on any
public building or public work, shall be
irnd haf
execute the usual penal bond, with good
and sufficient sureties, with the additional
obligation that such contractor or con-
tractors shall promptly make payments to
all persons supplying him or them with
labor and materials in the prosecution OF
the work provided for in the contract
In the-event of failure on the part of
the contractor to pay, the party who fur
nished said contractor with labor and ma
terials shall have right of action, and
shall be authorized to bring suit in the
name of the District of Columbia or the
United States
1t is thus apparent that the law pro-
tects only the immediate sub-contractor.
the party who furnishes said contractor
with labor or materials to the contractor
in chief The authorities of the District
have no power to withhold payment from
contractor entitled thereto, even with the
knowledge that he has failed to meet his
obligations to his own sub-contractors.
The Government has suffered both loss
and serious Inconvenience in the past in its
Efforts to protect all who in any wise con-
tributed to the erection of its buildings,
and the act Of February rs, 1899. was
passed for the purpose of RENTING all
such questions to judicial determination.
The Auditor recommended that the writ
ers be advised to seek their remedy through
the courts, which alone have Jurisdiction
in the premises.
The question of compensation to T. B.
Jones & Co., Of Baltimore, Nd, contrac-
tors for the construction of the Tiber
Creek sewer, for certain extra concrete
work. has been under discussion by the
District authorities for several months
past. 1t appears that the contract for
building the sewer required the contrac-
tors, IN the work Of construction, to make
such notifications as the engineer might
deem expedient. 1t was provided that for
any changes in the quantities of materials |
or labor thereby involved the contractors |
should receive added compensation The |
price OF concrete masonry, il is stated |
was set doyn in the contract al 81. 40, but !
in the Oise of modification Sc cubic yard |
was to be allowed |
The Superintendent of Sewers states
that there were no changes in the lines, !
grades, or position of the sewer, nor of |
the materials OF construction. but as the |
work progressed it was found necessary
IN the interests of the District, and of the |
contractors as we'll to go below the pre- /
scribed grade in order to secure a foun- |
dation, involving the use of an extra !
amount of concrete.
The contention of the contractors. as
set forth in their letter to the Commits
is that this going below grade
was modification of the contract, and
that they are therefore justly entitled to
receive Sc cubic yard for all concrete
placed below the regular grade.
The acting Superintendent of Sewers.
however. claims that the change referred
to was not modification of the contract
In the ordinary acceptation of that term,
but was rather in the nature of extra work
He also takes the stand that the setting
OF forms is the most costly item in the
building of a sewer, and these having al
ready been set for the work above grade
this expense was saved in the masonry of
the sub-grade. and he claims that the
extra masonry should be paid for at the
rate Of $40 cubic yard.
The papers in the case having been re-
!erred to the Auditor he gives his opinion
as follows: after reading and hearing
Ill that has been written and spoken on
both sides of this controversy, am of the
opinion that according to the strict letter
IF the contract the contractors are entitled
10 compensation at the rate of Sc a cubic
yard for all concrete masonry below the
regular grade. but If the spirit and intent
Of that instrument and the principles OF
equity are TO govern, they should be paid
only the contract rate of $40 cubic
yard"
Capt. Lansing H. Beach, the Engineer
yesterday forwarded the
papers to his colleagues with the recon-
that the matter be referred to
he Attorney for an opinion.
The Inspector of Buildings has trans
nitted to the Commissioners plans and
specifications for dead house at the
Washington Asylum for their consideration
md approval. The plans call for a small
,ne-story and basement building of brick
md stone. with slate roof fitted UP with
apparatus suitable for
norgue for the asylum. The estimated cost
S s1149.20.
The last appropriation bill contained an
TEN of $1,000 for the purpose, and the
Inspector calls attention to the fact that
he cost Of the building as planned will
'at up the appropriation, leaving no money
or inspection while the building is under
ERECTION. In view of this fact, Captain
ballard. in transmitting the plans 20 the
commissioners, suggested that the inspec-
ion might be done without expense to the
District.
This suggestion has been approved by
he Engineer Commissioner and he recon-
nends that the necessary expense of in
pection be charged to the contingent fund
|