The Jersey City news., 1904-02-04

them, and you spared no occasion to give
outward manifestation of your pleasure
that the preliminary work was complet-
ed.
I'm your criticism Of the architects
work you now state that after the plans
were adopted and advertisement was
made for bids, you heard criticisms of al
legged defects in the plans and specifi-
cations. Would it not have been fair to
have added in your pubic statement that
with that information before you Gf it
was before you) you never intimated
either directly or indirectly, officially or
unofficially, that you had any such fears,
or that any such fears or criticisms had
been expressed to your"
After reciting the changes suggested
by the Mayor, the statement refers to
the fact that while the law authorized
an expenditure of 100000 that the
Mayor asked that the hospital be built
for $250,000, the statement continues:-
after the architect had been work
ing on the plans and specifications for
many weeks indirect statements were
made to the Individual members of the
Board that the Finance Board would ap-
propriate 100000 for the one year; but
you, Mr.. Mayor, clearly and unequivo-
cally stated that we should go on and
do the best we could and that if sufi-
cient money was not raised during the
first year additional appropriations could
be secured later"
The statement clearly proves that the
impression thrown out by the Mayor that
mo gas pipes for lighting were provided
for was an error on the part of the
Mayor; also that elevator fronts had not
been provided for was false; also that
the assertion of the Mayor that ''the di-
menSiOns of the smokestack at its base,
the concrete foundation specified therefor
is only eight feet" making the base of
the stack wider than it's founda tSsn, over
hang it, etc., etc." was false The state
ment reads here as follows: "The state
ment is not true and the drawings dis
tinetly show a wider base of concrete
than the base of the chimney You
should remember that in making these
charges you are perhaps seriously injur-
ing the present and future prospects of
the architect whom the city has employed
for this work"
This extract is taken from the subject
of hghting:-
"You de1nur 10 the provisions made by
the specifications for boiler plant for
heating, plant for making gas, a gas
plant to use the gas, nd to operate the
electric generators. 1t is quite apparent
from what you state that you have been
advised by some one IN reference to this
matter who has had to do with a library
and not hospital. There is as much
difference between the lighting necessary
for hospital and the lighting for L.
brary as there is between a silk hat and
a Tam O. Shanter."
This extract is also taken:-
"You state that the specifications are
so vague that a contractor is at the
mercy of the architect and is unable to
estimate closely. A sufficient answer
to this allegation should be found in the
following tables, showing precisely what
bids were made under the advertisement
and how close was the competition
Mason work-John Fl. Parker Com
pany, $124,346; Patrick Kenny, $124,.
619; NJ. 7. Connolly Contracting Com
pany, $12s, ,694.
Carpenter work-B. Donaldson, $685.
1868; John Fl. Parker Company, SOTO;
Leslie A. Brown, $71, 900.
Plumbing work-Fergus Kelaher,
$35, ,795; James E. Murray, $3s,825.
"Eleyator-John H. Parker Co., S9,-
100; Storm Mfg. Co., $11,00o; A. B.
See Company, $9,s50"
Further on the following appears
"The hospital could not be operated
without light it could not be operated
without power. Provision was made so
that emergency lighting could be OBJ
tanned from the Public Service Corpora
ton. The plans finally adopted and upon
which bids were received does not yet
preclude the elimination of these figures.
But if you did not consider these fea-
lures desirable, why did you not object
to them during the preliminary confer
ences or before their final adoption ?
Why did you leave SO much of your
criticism until you had called fer our
designations? We most respectfully ask