The sun., 1901-10-11
BRIDGE PLANS
DISCUSSED
Seventh Street Structure Again
Before Levy Court.
NO ACTION WAS TAKEN
Many Drawings Produced, but None
Exist for Twenty-fOur Foot
Bridge. Contractor
Fahey Explains.
NO ACTION WAS TAKEN

yesterday to consider the question OF the
construction OF Seventh street bridge and
10 ascertain II possible whether Con-
tractor Patrick Fahey had lived up to his
contract. The bridge committee report
I'd that the plans and specifications for
the bridge do not provide for approaches
and wing walls.
The present status of the matter is
about what it was before the agitation
concerning the bridge was begun rs
after several hours discussion no action
was taken and the question goes over
until next Tuesday, when the court will
meet again. Summing up the results of
the days work Mr.. Fahey signed speci-
Hcations, which are spread upon the
minutes Of the Levy Court, for forty
foot bridge with approaches. This he
admitted during the afternoon but said
the bridge was ..loaded." No explana-
tion as to the term '.loaded" was made.
Having done this which Mr.. Fahey
says ho might have done in good faith
he was under the impression that he
was to build ii thirty foot bridge. That
was his proposal and plnns for II thirty
foot bridge were produced to prove the
contention.
But Mr.. Fahey has bniit twenty-four
foot bridge without approaches. and ex-
plains it in this wise: the thirty foot
plans did not call for approaches. These
plans were approved by the War De
partment. The American Bridge Com
pany. with which Mr.. Fahey arranged
for material and construction work de-
rlarai forty foot or n thirty foot bridge
imprnctcable under the plans, specfica-
tions and weight requirements and
recommended twenty four foot bridge
According to Mr.. Fahey this was sane
toned by the bridge committee, under
which the bridge contract was awarded.
There are no plans in existence nor
were there any made for twenty-four
foot bridge and this MIR. Fahey stated in
his explanation. He concluded by say
ing the matter was one for settlement
between the members of the old bridge
committee and the present Levy Court.
He should not be concerned in 1t but IL
.he court should decide that he il to build
1 thirty foot or forty foot bridge he is
perfectly willing to carry out the con
tract.
An incident that gave added interest
W INV hPttii, was Nht pNpEtStiltt bI
Strnographer Charles G.. Guyer, whoto
complete report Of the meeting in
shorthand Ii was said that Mr.. Guyer
WAS in attendance in the interest of the
Citizens Organization. Peter j. Ford
member Of, the Committee Of Fifty,
VAS III the court room for time in
he afternoon.
The bridge committee submitted the
following report:
We, the undersigned, the bridge corn
mittee of the Levy Court. especially di-
rected to investigate the plans and speci-
iications. under which Seventh street
bridge is being built, with the view OF
lscertaining whether said plans and
specifications call for the building OF the
approaches and wing walls to said bridge,
respectfully report as follows:
First We submit the plans and spcci-
;ications under which the contractor
'laims to he building said bridge.
Second-The proceedings of the Levy
Court in connection with granting the
pntract for the said bridge.
From the plans and specifications ii
lppears that the approaches and wing
walls are not provided for as nm exam-
i"tipi " Hahi PiaiS anu SItclilchtiOllS
will disclose.
John Lynn,
Charles Megginson
Committee.
On motion Of Mr. Chandler the report
vas received and recorded.
Mr.. Fahey then produced bundle Of
Dlans and specifications and other plans
we're brought forth by members or the
'onrt. After n long discussion In which
Messrs. Wilitts and Chandler figured
prominently, Mr.. Fahey made his ex-
,anation as given in the foregoing. More
discussion followed and Mr.. Wllitts
moved that President Lynn appoint a
committee outside OF the present bridge
committee to further investigate the mat
ter and report to the court. The motion
vas lost on yea and may vote, MessrS.
Lynn, W'illitts and Elliott voting for
it.
Il abide by the decision" said Mr..
Willitts but | don't see how anyone
'onld object to an investigation in this
natter 1t can't do Mr.. Fahey any IL
:nry; il can do no one injury. think
4 mistake for this court to vote down
such Il resolution"
Then arose an alteration about the re-
bort of the present bridge committee,
which had been received at the morning.
session, and which Mr.. Lynn was under
he impression had been accepted. Mr.. |
Hlllitts explained that the report had
been received and spread upon the min
ites. out OF courtesy to the committee
nut that did not signify that it had been
accepted.
At this stage the matter was dropped |
md the court adjourned on motion OF |
Mr. Chandler until Tuesday morning at |
10 o'clock.