Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1901-10-17

ioob ptlug6 lor 90, uuUp ALVIN II. NOR
rison put in a bid to do the same for
IA 900. Why did the Old court allow
Fancy to have the contract for $1,000
more!
. 1t seems that there could not be men
in Levy Court to undertake to make a
contract with contractor to build only
24-foot bridge, 20 per cent less, with
out any approaches, who wodld come
here and ask the court to build APP
proaches and complete tho bridge
" MIR. Fahey showed plans for pa
foot bridge which had neither his name
nor thtsnames of the bridge committee
ON them, bot we're revised in 1901 they
were not strictly plans at all, but the
working plans of the American Bridge
90. SO that their Workmen could build
it,
Mr.. Willis drew attention to the
change in plans from the original con.
tract and wanted to know the authority
for the change. He could tind no record
bearing out the action of the bridge
committee in changing the plans and
In authorizing Mr.. t'ahey to build in
accordance with them. He did rot
criticise Mr.. Fahey, but 1T was the bust
ness of the members of the Levy Court
to be cautious every step they took.
MIR. FAuEY's STATEMENT.
Contractor Fahey stated that he
would like to set himself straight in
the matter and that it looked to him
as il 1t we're between the bridge COM
mittee and the Levy Court. He de
clared that there was nothing which
no wanted TO keep quiet He continued
to this effect:
1.-The fact is my bid was for S25, 000
for a 3O.foot bridge. 1t never was in
tended to build u 40foot bridge. |
may have signed the i0.foot contract,
and il | have not carried out my por-
ton OF the contract, L am willing to
do it yet. l never saw the 40.foot plans
until six months after receiving the
contract. When | received tie plans
OF the War Department they were for q
30-fo0t brioge. Materials were placed
on the grounds and some work was
started at the bridge before the bids
were opened. Mr.. Fabey indicating
after the meeting that it had been the
intention to give the contract to some
person other than himself. | sent the
plans to tn Observation-Disclosures who
replied that 30 feet would be entirely
too wide for the strength OF the pro.
posed materials, and they would not
guarantees it and did not want to build
structure according to such plan.
reported to the bridge committee. They
told me to take the matter UP with the
American Bridge Go. The com pany
suggested that the width OF the bridge
be reduced to "a feet and that it be
made stronger, and produced plan fer
the same weight, within few hundred
pounds. OF 30-foot bridge. | submitted
the plans to the bridge committee.
They said it was all right; that If the
bridge company guaranteed the bridge.
to 60 ahead. 1 Fay the bridge company
about the same for 24foot bridge as
30-foot bridge would cost. ="
As to the width of the bridge, MIR.
Fahey gave figures showing that the
roadway of Eleventh street bridge is l8
feet; of Market street bridge, Is feet,
10 inches; Third street bI idRe, 10 feet,
inches; whereas Seventh street bridge
is % feet.
Continuing his remarks, he said he
believed the bridge committee had
done the best they could In the matter,
and that it was of no benefit to him to
reduce the size of the structure, The
committee had an inspector there to see
that the work was properly done.
think 1t is mighty strange time
to jump on me, - he added. "If those
approaches are 10 my contract l am
willing to put them 10. :"
Mr.. Chandler returned to the attack.
After remarking that 30foot bridge
might be wide enough, he asked why
is it you do not SO on and finish the
other party Why do you not put the
approach in? You say you are putting
as much iron there, but you are not
putting as much stone there. The plans
call for approach and piling.''
" am glad you called my attention
to that, added Mr.. Fahey. "You will
lind the south side approach already
built for l6-foot bridge. II has been
there for two or three years. The com.
mittee made another change, 1t raised
the stone three and a half feet higher
IL had gone ahead and built the ap-
proaches they would be below the bridge
level.
Mr.. Chandler admitted the correct
ness Of Mr.. Fahey's statement as to the
southern approach, hut added that his
contract called for widening it and he
was to put 10 an approach at the west
side, where there is space. of some so
feet from the bank to the wall.
Mr.. Fahey declared that there was
not plan. bearing his signature which
called for approaches. Some spoke of
approaches, but gave no elevation.
II admit that the 40-foot bridge has
approaches,' he said, "but that is
loaded. -
IF 1t is loaded, you loaded It," re-
torted Mr.. Chandler.
Ii there ia an elevation here that
shows the approach, l will build it,,
said the contractor.
Old COMBINATION DEFEATS MOTION.
Mr.. Willis stated that it came down
to matter of the records of the court
as to the authority of the bridge, com.
mittee, and suggested that in Justice
to Mr.. tahey and the bridge COM
mittee, a committee, not tine bridge
committee, be appointed to make an
Investigation aud report back to the
court. he moved that the chairman
appoint committee of three. On
yea and nay vote. the motion was lost,
Chandler, Elliott and Willis voting
yea, and Lynn, Armstrong and Meg.
ginson, nay. Lynn and Megginson are
m ambers OF the present bridge com.
mittee.
Mr.. Willis remarked that he did NOT
see how, as intelligent men represent.
ing the county, they could object to an
Investigation. 1t could do no one any
injury and he believed the court had
made mistake In voting the motion
down.
That's your opinion" said Chair.
man Lynn.
Yes" anwsered Mr.. Willis.
We have q right to an opinion,
too, " continued the chairman.
Mr., Armstrong who had taka, -,