Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1905-04-13

than with any other contractor. When
he changed the specifications, in regard
to % gauge iron, witness said he had
q slight feeling that IL would serve the
company right, but had made all the
changes to better the construction.
Peanut Question.
| On questioning by Wilmington said
= lie lived with John Lucas, plaintiff In
the injunction to restrain the All. H.
& c. Co.
Rep. Harris asked II the size of the
wharf was changed. Rowland said the
shed was made smaller to lower the
cost. The concrete wall was changed
because originally there was no foun.
cation for 1t. The changes in the shed
narrowed 1t some fifteen feet, and there
were changes in the Office arrangement.
On questioning by Rep. Lewis, wit
ness said the lightest weight rusted
first. Lewis said his experience in
iron had been that 20 gauge lasted as
long as 20 gauge.
Rowland. asked about planking. said
it did little good to sheet over old
planliing, as II soon rotted out.
Lewis asked why Rowland held down
the contractors SO closely In this job.
when he did not on the Hilo armory
Job. Harris said this question was out
OF order, and the committee sustained
the objection.
No Personal Matter.
Rowland, in answering Prosser's
question, said he had not let his rela-
tons with the All. Il. & c. Co. influ-
once his specifications. that some Of
the changes did not influence the com
pany at all.
Mr.. Rowell was called. Was Super.
'intendent of Public Works for thirteen
years since 1887. During that time he
would have allowed an inch leeway in
measuring piles. Always asked for
understandable lumber, specifying lum-
Der free from knots and SMOKES that
would impair its strength. Rough
ror'west" was suitable lumber for
wharfs. Saw no advantage in using
Clear"
Holloway questioned witness, who
said he had used 20 ounce copper on
outside rows of piles. Would not &c.
cept understandable" where mo. 1 yer.
teal grain" was called for. In the
case of tie.beams would not accept mer-
charitable where clear nor'west" was
called for, the same would apply to
ether like questions.
HoIleway's Purpose.
Superintendent Holloway took the
sand. In changing plans, he said, 1t
was Howland's sole idea to get bet.
ter wharf In the change in the sea
wall, no engineer would question II.
All the All. Il. u G. Co.'S copper could
have been used in the second specif.
cations. In the matter of iron, he
claimed % gauge was much preferable
to "a. The total value of the iron now
lNld by the company amounted to about
$4,000. and could be readily sold here.
In lumber, he claimed the company
failed to order according to specifica
tons in many cases. He had called
tor the best lumber, and did not be.
lieve this shipment was such, and
would like the committee to investi
gate this statement by inspecting the
lumber. Some of the timber for the
Fort street wharf was not according To
specifications. He thought the com.
pany's claims for damages were absurd
in many respects.
Submit Vouchers.
II should like to submit statements
in regard to the vouchers they have
offered. Voucher $50 covered the build.
ing of the tool.shed, used also for the
Fort street wharf, wherein they put
the bill against the Brewers wharf
contract. Also with the pile.driver us.
ed for BOTH"
Wilmington protested the second
item.
Holloway objected further. Item for
Japanese labor in making and repair
Ing block used on the wharf, while
the specifications call for no Japanese
labor on the wharf. Item $50, for re-
handling lumber, this should have been
properly piled the first time, also two
more items for the same thing. Vouch-
CT 221 for tools-might be used else
where. Voucher 1886. a bill for tally
ing lumber according to dispute be-
tween yourself and the lumber COM
pany. kilograms to Mr.. Amweg, items
for Oiling OF piles, cablegrams, more
tools, for hauling material to Fort
street wharf (Gilman protested this)
Mr.. Holloway was then questioned by
! DTnGGnr Gail ha ha