The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-03-22

| When adjourning time was reached
yesterday. In Judge Savidge's court,
Mr.. Newcomb. OF counsel for the au-
ditors In the matter Of the appeal Of
the commissioners from the surcharges
IN connection with the court house
repairs. announced that his side was
through, but would nc. formally rest
until this morning as there mig be
some odds and ends yet to bring out
that would disclose themselves in the
| interim.
| Counsel for the commissioners seem
confident that few II any of the sur
charges will be sustained. About the
only thing that has as yet been shown
against the commissioners is that they
used questionable Judgment in allow
ing commission to Contractor Schrce-
der for overseeing the iron work on
the roof and the decorations of the
superior court room.
| The charges for decorating this room
are also open to criticism becaus, OF
the failure of the commissioners to
secure competitive bids, but whether
| or not the charges We're pxhorbtant,
| will depend on the relative value the
jury will place on the testimony Of
the experts who have testified for the
auditors and those who are to testify
| for the commissioners.
| BASIS OF SURCHARGES.
The greater part OF the surcharges
were based on the judgment of Arch
itect +. j. Amsden, whom the auditors
| engaged tn compare the plans and
specifications with the completed work
and to examine into the quantity AMI
| quality of material used. 1t required
| forty pages in typewriting to contain
| all he found in the way OF discrepan-
| cies. items that were included in the
plans and yet charged as extras, work
| that was done and allowed for, but
| not provided for in the plans and so
on.
When Mr.. Amsden was put on the
| stand he could not recognize two blu"
prints included in the big bundle Of
plans furnished by Architect Lacey
He never saw them before, he said
The plans furnished the auditors by
Mr.. Lacey at the time of the investiga-
tion. and turned over to him did no.
include these blue prints and his call
| culations. consequently. were made
without any knowledge of what they
| contained
These blue prints. it developes. ar"
the most important feature OF tha
| plans. They show the work that was
bid on and the work that was actually
done. thereby bringing out the changes
| that were made by authority of the
commissioners and the architect. and
| explaining away the extras" that
| were surciarged by the auditors, -.
| at least great part OF them.
Mr. Amsden's notes having been
| made without his having seen these
blue prints. We're of course incompe;-
ent and he was not allowed to use
them. His testimony, as result. wa.
| almost completely shut out, and tn,
auditors case. as far as it depended
on Mr.. Amsden fell fat.
SUPERIOR COURT ROOM.
Tho cost of tho finishing Of the SUI
periOr court room, which was over
sll.oCo, including commissions, was as
! sailed through Hand 4: Green, ]. w.
Jones and John sGuckran. of New
York, who We're called as experts in
that line of work.
Simon Green. of Hand e. Green said
the wnrk could be done for s4.1lO
MIR. Jones. an enploye Of this firm
gave S4,500 as his estimate. Mr.. Guck~
| ran, former employe of this firm,
now business agent Of the Ornamentai
Plasterers' union. said be would do
the work for $4,000, not including the
painting
Henry Gunster, Of the firm of Gun
stcr & Forsyth, and p. r. Howl,y. O..
the firm Of T.. F. & NJ. r. EIowley,
gave testimony hearing on the sur
charge in connection with plumbing
and gas fitting. Both had bid on the
work, but neither had received motto,
OF any alteration in the specifications,
such as the Hunt & Connell COM
pany were given. They both agreed.
however, that the appliances used
were Just as good as those called for
in the original specifications. except
the paper holders. OF thes, latter.
Mr.. HOwley said the ones used are
given away as advertisements by
paper manufacturers, while these call
ell for in the specifications. as he read
them, are worth $2.16. or were at that
time.
NOT COMPETENT.
Neither Mr. Gunster nor Mr.. Howley
could give competent testimony on the
alleged substitution of one-inch pipe
for one and one-half inch pipe in some
of the closed plumbing work
Ex-Commissioner $. w. Roberts was
called regarding this matter and said
he did not know whether or not the
smaller pipe had been substituted.
The architect certified that the pipe
was put in according to spacifica tions
and he supposed it was.
The commissioners side Of the case
will open this morning. when will be-