The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-03-21

Most of yesterdays testimony adj
duced in the hearing of the ex-county
commissioners appeal from the audit
ors' surcharges was intended to show
that much of the extra work was in
cluded In the original contracts. Items
as small as nineteen cents were called
In question.
Ex-Commissioner s. w. Roberts, who
was on the stand all Of Monday after
noon. was recalled at the opening OF
court yesterday morning and was not
relieved until nearly noon. Mr.. Rob-
erts' explanation of each item of ex-
tras was that 1t was necessary. and
not having been included in the orig
inal contract allowance had to he
made for 1t.
B. T. Lacey, of T. I. Lacey & Son,
architects. who planned and supervised
the repairs. was called as the second
witness. He presented and identified
the various plans and explained where
additions had been made to the orig
inal plans after the contract had been
awarded. The tiling of the main tower
was neither contract or extra work,
Mr.. Lacey said. 1t was done by Con-
tractor Harris, who put the tiling Ole
the roof. He was proud of the job on
the root and thought its appearance
would be largely enhanced if the cover.
ing Of the tower was i'm harmony with
the roof. The commissioners had made
no provision for tiling the tower. and
rather than have such a contrast as
would result from a buff tile roof and
black slate tower, he offered to do the
work and furnish the material for
nothing. if the commissioners would
supply the scaffoldng
COST COUNTY NOTHING.
They did this, paying John Benore &
Son $2S7 extra for the work, and the
job was completed without a cent of
cost to the county, except for putting
up the scaffOlding.
Mr.. Newcomb, in series of ques-
tions, intimated that a blue print ex-
hibit on the witness stand by Mr..
Lacey had never been shown to the
auditors or their expert advisor, Archi-
tect +. j. Amsden, at the time the in
vestigation was on before the auditors.
The blue print in question explains
away much of the alleged unwarranted
expenditures for extras, showing where
and why additions and alterations
were made to the original drawings.
County Auditor Kiefcr was called to
the stand and testified that he did not
recollect ever having seen the blue
print before. The bundle of plans SUBJ
mitted to the auditors by Mr.. Lacey
We're turned over to Mr.. Amsden, and
when he returned them they were
placed for safe keeping in the vault in
the register of Wills office. Mr. Lacey
got them from here later, giving a re-
ceipt for the same.
AS to the extra bill for gas-fitting,
Mr.. kiefer stated that when he asked
for the Hunt & Connell company's bid
he was given a letter dated November
II. 1895, referring to the bid the COM
pany had submitted three days previ-
ously.
THE CROSS S-EXAMTNATION.
On cross-examination. Mr.. Kelly tried
to bring out that after the bids were
opened, and before the contract was
awarded,the specifications We're amend
ed by cutting out three closets. The
Hunt & Connell company being the
lowest bidder, was informed of the
change and asked to make a reduction
in its bid. 1t complied by sending in
a proposal to do the work for '$4, ,9S1, or
5000 less than their original bid. This
new bid is the letter" of November
II, 1896, which the auditors declined to
recognize as a bid. Mr.. Kiefer could
not recollect that the commissioners
had informed them about these mat
ters. Mr.. Kelly called attention to the
fact that the Hunt & Connell company
bid, plus the auditors surcharges
would not equal the lowest of the other
bids on this same work
EX-Commissioner S. w. Roberts was
recalled, and at the request of Mr..
Newcomb pointed out the work that
was done on the Superior court room
by Hale & Co.
Il. 5. Williams. contractor and builder,
told that he offered to do the work of
tuck-pointing the walls for S., $50, half
of which estimate was figured as the
expense of erecting scaffolding. This
was presented in defense of the audit
ors surcharge for this work, which
was not done, although paid for with
the understanding that it would be
done when the weather was propitious.
Architect +. ]. Amsden was on the
stand at adjourning time. Identifying
the plans that had been submitted 10
him by the auditors. vt Is proposed to
prove by him that the blue print in
question was not among the plans he
saw.