The evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1907-1908, 1907-10-30
PROBLEM
UP TO NEXT
BOARD
SchOOlhOuSe Committees
Final Decision in WrangIe
With Architect.

The schoolhouse committee of the
Board of Education last night passed a
resolution willing as a legacy to the
next %schoolhouse committee the job Of
Strengthening out the tangle on the
proposed technical and manual training
high school, which has been the white
elephant of the committee, and then
Architect Nathan Myers, whose plans
for the $500, 600 structure caused an in
nux of bids, the lowest in the aggre-
gate amounting to close to $500, 600, or
double, the amount provided for the
erection of the building by the Board
OF School Estimate, was severely critl-
cised by the committeeman.
The question was brought to an issue
after Mr.. Myers's statement. n a
motion TO express the committees dis
approval of further payment to the
architect. together with instructions to
prepare q new set Of plans for a build.
ing that could be erected within the
100000 on hand, were voted down, and
the question was tabled until after the
reorganization Of the Board of Educa-
tion, in January.
When Mr.. Myeps told the committee
that he would expect payment for the
plans which the city cannot use in
building the proposed high school I'M
der the present appropriation he was
assured by two commissioners that he
might consider that his patronage from
the committee had ended, while others
made known their disapproval Of his
stand. Mr.. Myers reiterated his posi-
ffot, so t-f1cr that Nvhnfhpr tho pnpnniftpn
wished to go on record as opposing
such payment or not, the city was
legally bound TO pay him his fee, and
that any action of the committee would
not affect the contract. He addressed
the commissioners frequently, and so
successfully that when a vote was taken
the opposition had dwindled to two, and
the proposition to lay the matter over
was adopted, without placing the COM
mittee on record as to its stand upon
paying Mr.. Myers for his services.
Mr.. Meyers was asked to appear be-
fore the committee in accordance with
a resolution introduced by Commits
sioner J. Edward Smith at the last reg
ular meeting of that body. Mr.. Smith
wanted to ascertain, he said, what Mr..
Myers was doing toward making other
plans for the building and take such
steps as were necessary to dispose of
what he termed a 'muddle which should
not be passed over to next years COM
lnittee as a heritage"
Commissioners Eisele lost but little
time in preliminaries before he asked:
isn't the main reason why you don't
want to make a new set of plans be-
cause you think o ought to get new
pay for new plans?"
why, no." he answered. 81 am
anxious to make a new plan for you;
of course l would expect to get pay for
the present plan as it is done. l can't
ard / won't stand the loss of $1,000
expenditure on this work. / wouldn't
have 20. If our legal friend (referring
to Commissioner SMITH accepts a case
on a $40, 900 fee he can't guarantee that
he viii win it; IL he loses 1t. does he
give back the fee ?"
Commissioner Eisele said it was not
a parallel case, and Commissioner
Smith said that he usually took a case
on certain conditions.
Il don't know whether you gamble
on your cases or not, commissioner, but
| know such action is not customary"
said Mn. Myers.
Mr.. Myers cited several instances of
architects charging fees whether plans
We're accepted or fejected on the score
of not coming within the appropriations
made, and Mr.. Eisele in reply said:
THE sooner you stop losing your time
about this matter and this money the
better it win be for you. If that is your
plan we would better have the law de-
partment give us an opinion at once.
But / want to tell you now that you
will nNNog- cot NV afnfn for 1Fofhar dol
lars worth of work of anything in your
line
II would never have voted to pay
you /. five-cent piece Commissioner
Smith added, for your plans under
those conditions
They cost me over $1,000" asserted
the architect.
Il can't help that; they might have
cost you $50, 900 for all 1 know vas the
answer.
Now, Mr., Myers Mr.. Eisele went
on, you have made a mistake and 1
am sorry for YOU
Don't be sorry for me- was the
quick reply; Il don't need sympathy"
"All right; | won't. You must know
however, that we cannot possibly pay
you for two sets of plans; it means a
loss to you which is unfortunate said
COMMISSIONS Eisele.
do you mean that / won't be paid
for these plans If they are not accept
ed ?" asked the architect, soberly.
a laugh went aroun the table. and
Mr.. Myers was assured that this was
the meaning which the commissioners
sought to convey.
Mr.. Myers then switched to other
plans for buildings and exhibited some
drawings of other designs, saying that
he was not welded to the II shape,
but had adopted it because, in his opin-
ion, it was the building which was best