The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-01-12

| De QOne, also lnaL II the DullQlnS wa
not done on time there would be M
difficulty in getting an extension, i
it were made known that Pfnkhan
| caused the delay.
To the objection that if the con.
| tractor paid for the machine. it should
| belong to the contractor, Mr.. Boards
lee replied that the machine would be
| furnished on no other terms
| Mr. Beardslee finally reduced his
proposition to writing and delivered il
to Mr.. Amweg. He stated however
| that he did not want it to appear as
| coming from him and he therefore
| drew it in the form of a letter to be
written by this company to him, as
surfing Mr.. Amweg that Immediately
| upon its receipt, the proposition would
! be accepted by him and he would per-
/ sonally see to it that Pinkham carried
| out its terms.
| This letter, in Mr.. Beardslee's hand
writing, 1 now have.
AMWEG'S NEXT MOVE.
The foregoing state of facts, with
much more of detail, was thereupon
laid before Mr.. Holloway, Superintend-
ent of Public Works. 1t was urged up
on him that the specifications did not
on their face require blocks made I'M
der hydraulic pressure; that they were
inconsistent, in that the plan showed
blocks of a type made only by hand;
that it was impossible to make the
blocks called for, under pressure be-
cause no machine existed which could
make them; that contractors should
not be compelled to bid on a contract
which could be carried out only by the
use of an uninvented machine, under
control of a government official su-
pervising the job. He was requested
to permit the contractor to proceed
with the contract, making the blocks
by the standard hand method.
Mr. Holloway refused the request.
stated that there were a number of
machines capable of making concrete
blocks under pressure, in accordance
with the specifications, and insisted
that the contract proceed with the
work.
This company asked that the matter
be referred to the Attorney General
for an opinion. This was done and an
opinion obtained, which dealt entirely
with an undisputed law point, and did
not cover the grounds involved.
Mr.. Holloway then suggested that
the matters in issue be arbitrated.
Arbitration was considered, but the
points to be arbitrated could not be
agreed upon in such form as, in the
opinion of the contractor to fairly de-
eide the matter.
NO PRESSURE MACHINES AVAIL
ABLE.
Mr.. Holloway thereupon peremptorily
ordered the contractor to proceed, fur
r.ishing the names and addresses of
four makers of machines which he
elaimed would make concrete blocks
called for by the specifications.
The contractor, desiring to carry out
the contract if possible, Mr.. Amweg
thereupon went to San Francisco and
made an exhaustive investigation OF
block pressure machines.
He found that for years experiments
nave been carried on by many people,
o construct a machine that would
make concrete blocks by hydraulic
PRESSURE;
That no hydraulic machine has yet
,een invented which makes blocks of
he size or type prescribed in the speci-
ications of this contract;
That no machine has yet been in
-ented which makes blocks under hy-
rauIic pressure, of any type, except
arge plants for factory purposes where
locks are made on large scale for
ale. Moreover. the blocks so made
re of radically different type from
hose prescribed in the specifications;
That of the four manufacturers
hose names were furnished by Mr..
Holloway, two make only hand ma =
hines and two make factory plants !
{ a character above referred to. One :
My had made a portable machine,
hich it had advertised. Mr.. Amweg
1tered into negotiations for this ma
line, but found that the company had
scontinued its manufacture, as it was l
unsatisfactory; that they were still ex-
srimenting with it, and hoped to per-
ct it, that they would make such
achine if desired, but would not guar
ltee that il would do the work. and L
a hand machine made by
emseIves, as being the best on the o
arket.
CONTRACTOR CONSENTED TO
CANCEL CONTRACT. =,
the contractor had. at the +,
quest OF the Governor, made a full
atement to him of it's position, in If
1ding many details not included II
rein. y,
Before considering the subject the n
,vernor in writing, inquired if he re- w
ested the cancellation of the con- II
act. whether the contractor would h;
nsent thereto. TT
rhe contractor replied in writing, on ia
,cember s, 1904, that it would cancel te
> contract # the Governor requested I
Such consent has never been with al
avn and still stands. eT