Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1902-04-10
'AHEY IS WILLING TO SETTLE
VIII Submit His Bills and Ac-
Cept Their Total and a Per
Cent Profit for His Work.
HIS PROPOSAL OF PAYMENT
IN FOR SEVENTH STREET BRIDGE
Said He Is Not Making Money
Out of the Contract.


d A4 Changes He Alleges, Caused Delays in the
n Nb,ilA Work : Levy Court WIN Consider the
!, Subject Further-A Chief of Police Bill
d 1iyetoed- Other Levy Court Matters.
q Pursuant to an invitation from the
:. levy Court Patrick Fahey appeared
70 Hefore that body Tuesday and discussed
bis bill of 800 30s. 80 for Seventh street
y bridge, of which he has received SIT,
= 300 His contract price was S25, coo,
Y Y but he claims 50, 3US. 50 for extras, in
!. fluding approaches and extra height to
s the piers.
N The court put q lot Of time on trying
= % find Mr.. Fahey's authority for build
!, ing 24-foot bridge. The one thing
Z that stood out was Mr.. Fahey's ad-
y mission that the only written contract
= vas for AZ foot wide 81 an. Although
y hose specifications then called for ap-
Breaches, Mr.. Fahey holds that when
j.. the width was reduced to "A feet by
!" The bridge committee he was not re-
: quired to build the approaches
: Az President Willis told the contractor
fhat the court wanted light on the
h, NJ Seventh street bridge matter Mr..
= Fahey said he had the original plans
! Mind specifications that were prepared
to estimate on, and the specifications
:, after the change to 2d-fnot bridge,
y and there were no other plans except
for 42-foot bridge. The records showed
IA AZ foot bridge, but the contract was
awarded for "a foot bridge.
by what authority?" asked Mr..
e MWillits.
by authority of the bridge com
: mittee OF this court answered Mr..
D Fahey.
I, "Have you a voucher?"
L,,4 III l,,,s,
Z bers are all living and it can be proved,
/: = holieve.'
+, ~ Mr.. Willis reminded him that the
: 42-fout plan called for approaches. yet
! be made a claim for extras for APP
Q breaches.
= ~ Mr.. Fahey declared that the original
contract was never carried out. He
4&said the bridge committee and the
\ gengneer made the change to "a foot
g Rbrldge; that he did not have anything
. Ito do with it, but was under the orders
. spf the committee and the engineer. Tho
q eontractors had authority to submit
q bids for 30-foot bridge.
o Mr.. Fahey said it was by some mis-
, Make that the 2-foot plans had been
!, put on the records and admitted that
Q there was no record of changed plans
having been accepted by the court.
Q W The original specifications were re-
n ferred to and were shown to fix u
8 forfeit of 525 q day for failure to com
4 kplete the bridge by April 1st, 1901, and
: yo provide that the contract price of
y sS25, 600 included everything.
The contractor declared tAat the AZ
foot bridge was never approved by the
spurt or committee, but the 30-foot
, bridge had been approved June 30th,
Q I'99
M Mr.. Willis asked if his claim was
l6n the 80 foot bridge. He said it was
i mod, but he brought in the plans be-
cause Mr.. Chandler, now chairman of
! fhe bridge committee, stood on. them.
Mr. Willis said the only evidence the
eoalrt had was as to the 42-foot bridge,
sad it now awaited evidence.
Mr. tahey again explained why the
Nnridge was reduced from 80 to "a feet,
/, &the suggestion coming from the Edge
i Mpor Bridge Works, which said the
s94 foot bridge was preferable at the
same weight as the 30-foot bridge. The
! new specifications left out the wings
erhey were signed by Gallagher, Mealey
, and White of tho old bridge committee.
RMr. Chandler gave the benefit of
r some researches he had made which
/ Showed that Fahey, on June Both. 1888,
! hid 1892 600 for 42-foot bridge 1926, :
/ 600 for 30-foot bridge, and 5l7, 500
J for 2l-foot bridge, and Alvin r..
! Morrison bid $4,000 for 30-foot
bridge.
NJ Mr. Chandler showed some plans
n which he said were for 30 foot bridge,
\ but Mr.. Fahey declared that they called
!, W. foreXtra strength to bear trolley cars
M and that he never bid on them; that
be- received his contract 20 days before
those plans were made. He declared
3that it wasn't fair to bring in those
pians.
Mr.. Chandler said the fact that the
nfans mentioned electric cars had moth
Ing to do with the question.
president Willis wished to know
which point, which date and which
bridge was the basis of Mr.. Fahey's
slaim.
The contractor said he made no
slaim under the 42-foot contract, and
never carried it out; that he had a
verbal contract for the "a foot bridge,
and chat the only written contract was
fora 42-foot structure.
8Mr. Willis asked Mr.. Mealey, who
Wis on the old bridge committee if he
sould throw any light on the matter.
Hereplied that he knew no more than
the court
Mr.. Fahey said it was not intended
that he should build approaches. Non
Notwithstanding his claim that he had the
W foot contract in 1885, and the 24-foot
IN 1900, the records of November, 1900,
Rhow that he signed the 42-foot con-
tract.
As to the right of the bridge com,
ASM niittee to alter the plans, NJ Fahey
Nf# cited resolution, which authorized il
W4 to secure plans and estimates for the
NJ bridge, and also II resolution of the
atk court endorsing the acts Of the old five
commissioners.
Mf. Ewart bailed the subject down
to this. Mr. Fahey claims that nc
record exists of the bridge as built,
that the bridge was built by arrange.
ment with the bridge committee with
Aout authority: what position has the
Levy Court to take in that matter.
On his suggestion, the Levy Court,
its attorney, Henry G. Conrad, ant
MI Fahey, agreed to meet again.
The report of the finance committee
Showed the following figures
Balances due from collectors: Count,
and poor tax, $780, 735. &C.; road tax
$24s173.76 capitation tax, 50, GS5. 80
Dog tax, 81, COL. IS; total, sll8, 1856. 81
cash in bank, S4s, 447.6 3; due from
Kent county, Sl.6l7. 35; making Crane
total Of s169 POI. 65; from which deduc
road taxes, s24, 173. 76; capitation
S3, 6S5 so; dog, Sl,G01. 70; investmon
tax, si,24l59 interest on bonds