New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-02-16
REPLY TO BURR ATTACK
Counsel for RESERVOIR Contractors
Calls 1t ScluriIous Insult.

Professor William H Burr. Of Columbia Univer-
slty. who was OF the three engineers TO make
a report on the Jerome Park Reservoir. said yes
terday that personally he would pay no attention
the attack made on him in the brief which has
been filed with the Aqueduct Commission by J.
HamPdeu Dougherty Of counsel for the Merchants
Association. The Merchants Association is NOV
ing to prevent the payment OF $4,000 OF the re-
tanned amount the reservoir contract Of McDOn-
aid OnderdOnk. declaring that the work on
the reservoir been neecIessly delayed and that
the retaining wall OF the reservoir is leaky. The
portions OF Mr.. Dougherty's brief which attack
Professor Burr the foiowing;
Against this evidence plainly demonstrating tbs
SeSumOny IS that OF Professor " illiam II. Burr;
SeltheT OF his colleagues Jonn r Freeman ana
hhuooipn Heilngl save testimony before Ihe AQus-
ouct COMMISSION. Herring according 70 Burr al
t-iSSsLO' VtSited me reservoir only once Aho u -
quite clear that Burr dominated bis associates.
IL ,JiillliisSloA aud tne SontfactofS ana aLteE
Lfw enehdatons practically forced the assent OF
afraid 10 pit Iben1 mon ms the etanS
The unlmpeaclaOIe facts taat Burr and his
associates were instructed by Mayor Low in Feb
ruary, 1903. TO report to him (the Mayor upon the
moe upon me Jerome PARK Reservoir work; that
hey al once accepted the task. and that before
any investigation was really begun-months before
- , vas mace -roIessQr buTr accepted
..'- A4utduct commission the position OF con-
sulung engineer at the new Cornell dam at SAL
QudHned him from making a fair report
Wallace Macfarlan. who presented Grief IN
opposition 70 that OF Mr. DoUgherty. yesterday de-
clared that the attack on Professor Burr
scandalous and slanderous His brief deals with
the attack on Professor Burr In part follows:
Il IS submitted that a very gratuitous insult ts
imposed upon these gentlemen by stating that men
or their professional emrence and reputation were
pulled Into signing this important document by
Ar. Burr, and such statement sufficiently dis
closes the a1imus which CharacteriZe3 this whole
proceeding. the eUEerness OF the prOtestanJs
their case irrespective OF Its merits. and. what
perhaps Is OF more Importance their consciousness
OF entire hclDCSsuess in the face OF f7iS admirable
report.
This employment came from the AqucducJ Com
mission, which includes rot only the commission
erS, but the Mayor and Controller we'll What
there was abou; this employ ment which should in
cuce a man OF Mr.. Eurr's position and Teputa-
zion iu his profession. then holding q lucrative en-
Gioy mcut from the city. be Influenced 20 make
false report or Je. ONE Park by retainer
consulting expert on The Cornell DAM q II DIN
cult 90 But the professionals have used this
Incident 10 attack Mr. Burr In the most scurrious
manner.
The report Itself T. Iupresnabis The testimony
IN support OF the report IS ImpTegna bio. There
fore these gentlemen who profess TO be perform
lrs only an eNsctng public duty are base enough
end silly trouCh to attempt 10 avoid Us effect BY
ufTO,.ous personal abuse % one OF the authors OF
the document. or course. these repeated insults
20 sir Burr throughout the p-Otestants brief are
equally Insults 10 the commissioners. II Mr.. Burr
MAS l~ibed 10y his employment the commissioners
were bride glvtrs.