The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-06-20
May Insist Upon Having
Conditions Amended So
as to Retain Redds
.CU.TSHAW WILL SAN
NOT DISCUSS IT
Firm Issues Lengthy Statement
Assailing City Engineers De-
partment and Alleging Seri- 4
Gus Errors and Omissions
in Work-Develop-
ments Expected.

ncntS Expected.
81 The attitude of City Engineer CUT
shaw. with reference to the award to
Redd e. Bro. OF the contract for sur #
veylng the new city territory, and the 5
faction OF the Messrs. Redd in asking
leave to withdraw their bid We're topics
OF discussion among city employees and
citizens generally yesterday. = he 84
spirited letter Of Redd & Bro. laid be-
fore the Board Of Aldermen Tuesday
| night was followed up yesterday by
lanother communication from those
gentlcment. addressed to the press. IN
(which they strike back vigorously at2S
| City Engineer Cutshaw and his de-
partment and charge them with speci-l35
lfic errors in surveys and engineering
lwork. The writer's sarcastically sugT
gest the propriety of employing some
4 one to check up the work of the en-3&
4 CHEERS department. St5
4 At the same time it Is proposed by
lone or more members of the COM
|mittee which awarded the CONTRACT
i that the committee Insist upon its I'll
I action, Recommending the award o.
1.-THE surveying contract to Redd q
5lBro.
t. At a meeting to be held on Monday. {.
might the Committee on Apportionment
4 of Expenditures In the Annexed Terri
i tory will consider the request Of the Z
A N1essrs. Redd and determine what is
& best to be done under the circunl-5ss
stances. 1t can be stated positively
4 that n majority Of the committee fa-8
4 vor tie award to the Messrs. Redd at I
i their. Did of s 800, and 1t is. likely that
"A the conditions may be SO amended as Y
| to +nake 1t acceptable to the bidders.
Will Not Discuss it Yet.
City Engineer Cutshaw stated last!
8lnight that he would not discuss the
public letter OF Redd & Brother critl-s
II cising the work Of his department Surl-
< It'll he had had opportunity to- examine
Z the records on the subject. a special
Injecting OF the Committee on Streets:
has been called for Monday nightsat
# 8 o'clock, and 1t Is anticipated that8atg
\ this meeting the City Engineer Will 5an-S
swer Redd and Brother, and will take
Y up In detail the matters to which the
firm make reference. Colonel CUT
: shaw denied that he had adopted the
I press as a medium of criticising ReddS
4 & Brother, and stated that he had sub
lnitted an official letter to the Commit
tee on Streets in the matter, and that +
IL this became public 1t was only be-
cause 1t was a public document. He.
Z further stated that he could not dis
: cuss the alleged miscalculations3 orln,is-l
q takes charged against the (, engineers
J. department by Redd g. Brother until3he
r could look up each matter and ascer-s
e tain just what the facts We're. Until
$ then he was not prepared to deny % :
= affirm them. 83ssg
6 The fact that both the Street Cons
= mittee and the Committee on Annexed.
!. Territory will be sitting In the City.
Q Hall at the same hour, Monday VIII
q add further to the interest in the
: matter.
Yesterday, the Messrs Redd cite Sow
h eral specific instances OF alleged err
I rors by the Engineers Department..
j., and in conversation with represen-
3 tative Of The es-Dispat tch they
: mention still other errors which they
alege were made 1t is stated that
): l. two two Z members Of the engineering force
! II made a survey OF the Allan annex In
10 y. tho West End, and filed q plat in
~ which 1t is said ten front feet on each
quadrant We're left out, and that but
n for the discovery Of the error the loss
Ia to the Allen heirs would have been
- s5,Oo0 In connection with this mat
ter The Times-Dispatch asked Colonel
"a Otway s. Allen for statement on the
~ subject. but he stated hat he was Just
= going out for the evening. and would
/. not discuss the matter over the phone.
- Letter From Firm.
~ =. Here Is the letter given out by T.
nc Crawford Redd g. Bro, yesterday and
OF published. Fl ssS3
US "We regret the necessity Of
he he St'I b5t the peisiis city Engineer has made
nd such unjust and unwarranted crit
icisms upon us that we cannot but
na take the matter up and defend our q
ie ae selves, no matter whose feelngss
et may get hurt We are confronted
on with the alternative either OF slt-
d ting, supinely down ana ana. 3nnamnly naIan
10 10 cutshaw % m may choose to say about
=" aa us. or of asserting our manhood
G GeI and vindlcating ourselves through
hv lu the same channel that he has used ,,s
'o- tice to ourselves we prepared n
mt letter to the Board OF Aldermen.
M which was read at the session last Y
before the public need not be re-
. produced here. The letter explains
further remarks in vindication OF
ourselves and our position.
G Did Not Seek 1t.
- 'NNe did not seek this work OF
surveying the anneyed territory
tee OF Expenditures bid on It. ex-as
n recting that we would be treated
With at least common fairness and
courtesy by the City Engineer; but
does any sane and self-respecting6
man suppose that we are going 10
work for a year under an Inspector
n and arbiter who has seen ft 10
II, Judge lis without n hearing, con-
'ns M denim us IN advance, an ana publish n To-
In at to do the work? To ask the
led question is to answer It.
out "On the niorHtnS ~. tna 9, ~
iu ire which was published June l2th.f
~ we also had an Interview with
loh him. and we hoped RS result Of
i'd that Interview that he and our-
selves had reached better UNDER
de- standing. each of the other. than
In. existed before, We then prepared
of statement which was published
~. June 18th, and which was cera-3
el fully designed and worded to clear!
lha ourselves of the erroneous charges
brought against us without 61-s
pressing the sll lghtest dlsrespect or