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


month OF September, 1899. j. j. Mealey,
Ii. NJ. Whits.''
THAT calls for 40.fcot BRIDGE
remarked MIR. Chandler.
The Levy Court resumed its CON
sidsration Of the subject OF the Seventh
street bridge contract Thursday after
noon, and struck a 6nag, refusing TO
refer the matter to special committee
for further investigation and not accent
ing the report of the bridge committee.
That report, as printed 10 yesterday g
Every Evening, indicated that Messrs
Lynn and MegginsoD, members of the
COMMITTEES, were willing to accept Con-
tractor Patrick Fahey's plans and
specifications as correct and as not pro.
vlding for approaches and wing walls,
whereas the records OF the court, to
which the committee referred generally,
show that the contract, as awarded to
Fahey, calls for q 40 foot bridge, with
approaches. No record was produced
yesterday authorizing the bridge COM
mittee to out down the bridge to 30
feet, the width of the proposed bridge
according to the plans approved by the
war Department, Or to cut Ii down to
"a feet, the width Of the bridge as Mr..
Fahey is building 1t.
Mr.. Fahey told the court that
although he may have signed the cor-
tract for i0-foot bridge, it was never
intended to build n structure 80 wide /;
that his proposal, as, shown in a letter,
was for q 30 foot bridge, and that the
reduction to 24-foot bridge was made
in accordance with suggestion OF the
American Bridge Co., sub contractor
for the superstruoture, which sug-
gestion was agreed to by the bridge
committee.
Mr. Fahey SAID he was willing to
build the approaches, if his contract
really called for them. Commissioner
Chandler pointed out the righteousness
OF the situation that after contracting
to build a 4U.foot bridge with an
proaches, and after the width had been
reduced to "A feet, the contractor should
claim that he was not. required to build
the approaches and complete the bridge.
The contract price was 525, 600, of
which Mr.. Fahey has already received
Sl7,000.
RECORDS SHOW 40-FooT CONTRACT.
The early part of the session was
largely devoted to the reading of records
which had to do with the bridge con.
tract. Mr.. Willis in asking for the
original contract, said il the bridge
committee or anybody else authorized
the construction Of 24-foot bridge
without permission Hif the court, they
had gone astray.
Clerk Janvier read the minutes Of the
Levy Court of September 4tb, 1890.
instructing Mr.. Fahey to proceed to
build Seventh street bridge "as DER
contract awarded by this court in the
month OF September, $780," A letter
OF Mr.. Fahey's dated June Both, 1893.
contained an offer to build a 3O.foot
bridge for 500. 600. Specifications we're
read calling for bridge 40 feet wide
with approaches, and including filling
and grading approaches SO as to allow
travel. The document containing the
specifications also said that estimates
with plans might be submitted for a
structure 30 feet wide, which appears
to be the only record mentioning 30
foot structure. The specifications bore
the signatures of Mr.. Fahey, the con.
tractoii and Ii. M White, John ].
Mealey and John j. Gallagher, the then
bridge committee, witnessed by john
ID. Rodney, then attorney for the Levy
Court.
Clerk Janvier also read the articles
OF agreement between Mr.. Fahey ard
tne bridge committee, dated September
2itn, i90o, under which Fahey agreed
10 pulld the bridge according to the
plans and specifications, and have 1t
ready for use and travel on or before
April LIST, 1901, for the sum of s25. 00o
line nnal payment for the structure was
not to be made until its oompletion in
accordance with the plans aud sneoifi-
cations and satisfactory to the BRIDGE
committee. For failure to complete IL
by April 1st, sac day was to be de.
Quoted, time being considered of vital
Importance. The contract price of a25. 600
was distinctly asserted to include the
bridge complete. In case, however. of
extra or additional work that might be-
required, it was to he ordered in writ
ing by the bridge committee, and at
price agreed upon by the parties. The
contractor was not to be held responsi.
Gle for delay due to strikes or the action
of the elements.
Wnen the reading was concluded, Mr..
Willis SAID: THERE'S the other sida
OF the question; 1t is matter Of record.
lhere Is no record of the claim OF Mr..
tahey that the contract does NOT call
for approaches. His specifications COM
pared with ours indicate mutilAtion.
HIS letter shows bid of S25. COO for a
3O-foot bridge, and the record shows a
contract for 40.foot bridge for s25. OO0'
1 think it rests upon Mr.. Fabey To
establish to this court OR for the bridoe
committee to establish that il was
authorized to change the plans as ii
evidently did,
Chairman Lynn suggested that the
specihcations called for a 3O.foot
structure and not 4O-foot structure
but Mr.. Willis made the point that
the 30-foot structure entered into the
specifications only as a matter of sup
gestion for other estimates, and that
the specifications called only for 40
foot bridge.
PROVIDED FOR APpRoAe HE'S.
commissioner Chandler, who hes been
most active in following IN the snb;eot
OF Seventh street bridge; took the foor
and said: Gas Mr.. Willis has said
the only contract that can be found IN
the record Of the Levy Court ia the
contract that Mr.. Fahey made ON Son.
TENDER 9th, 1893, for a 40. foot BRIDGE
The specifications say plainly a Al. font
bridge, and go on to tell what il nen.s.
cary to make 40 foot bridee-an.
proaches are to be built and it Is TO he
finished as per contract The specifi-
cations are aligned by the contractor
and the bridge committee. And that
is not ALL have seen plans for 40.
foot bridge signed by the committee.
Not signed by me, said Mr.. Fsbey. VI,
MIR. Willis told Mr.. Fahey that tber.
was contract in the oomptrolIer's
office (calling for 40-foot bridesl
bearing MIR. Fahey's signature. Ibid
you sign it?' asked Mr.. Willis.