New-York tribune., 1908-12-11
GREENSBORO BRIDGE PAYMENTS,

Among the astonishing facts which have been
nIaced before the public concerning the Queens
boro Bridge perhaps the most astonishing IS
the account which The Tribune publishes IN
another column this morning, showing how the
chance of recovery for the taxpayers on any
claim which they may possibly be proved to
have on the contra actor has been jeoparded by the
action Of the city officials. The public will Ger
tainIy be surprised TO learn that the Controller.
while the expert investigation into the bridge
was pending which he himself had helped to
nroc1lre. after saying that he would make no
further payments until the investigation was
completed, did On September pay TO the con
tractor S500000 thereby perhaps releasing his
So 600 900 bond Moreover, these payments car
ried the total amount paid to the contractor 20
1856 coo in excess Of the original contract and
the limit placed upon the supplemental contract
by the Board of Aldermen. This excess was
reported to the Controller by his engineer 10 be
unvFarranted- and the Controllers justification
for payment is based upon q most astonishing
opfnion Of the Corporation Counsel that there
was nothing in the contract limiting the price
"to be paid for the work TO the amounts men
'tioned in the contract, plus the customary )
s'per cent margin" when as matter Of fact
the contract a copy Of which accompanied the
opinion, states In terms that no extras shall
"be allowed under this contract in excess Of
athe per cent hereinbefore mentioned"
Whether or not the claim for this SS65ycO0
for excess weight of material put into the
bridge in accordance with the working draw
ings made by the contractor himself was valid
against the city we do not attempt TO determine
Neither do We attempt to determine the re
sponsibility for the failure Of the structure to
meet the stresses required by the contract as
between the Bridge Department and the con
tractor The contract provided that the con
tractor should make detailed drawings, subject
10 certain general plans and specifications as
to stress, which should be approved by the
Department Of Bridges but that nevertheless
the contractor should "alone be responsible for
'the correctness of the drawings, although they
~may have been approved by the Commis-
tfsioner" Assuming on the strength Of both
experts reports that the work was well done
in accordance with the detailed drawings. IT IS
obvious that mistake was made somewhere,
for the bridge itself confessedIy nowhere near
meets the stresses and the requirements of
the contract How far the clause concerning re-
sponsibility for the correctness Of the drawings
would place the cost of the mistake upon the
contractor how far the acts of the Bridge
Commissioner may have relieved him from such
responsibility, we do not know, but certainly
It was the duty Of the city officials TO ind out
and protect the city treasury to the last ex-
tremity. instead Of making the payments while
the very safety of the bridge itself was under
investigation.
The contract made ample provision for the
fiscal officers Of the city to go back Of the re
port of the Bridge Department, and they were
not bound as one Of the engineers has said in
q published statement 10 accept the Bridge
Commissioners certificate without question. At
the very time when the Controller was paying
this large sum for work under investigation he
was holding up great number Of minor claims
nd a-fo n a1t Iu1ep 70
tractors about whose bills there could not pos
sibly be any dispute. The request of the City
Club for an Investigation Of the Manhattan
Bridge comes before the Board Of Estimate.
we believe. this morning. A thorough investigs-
ton Of the financial and legal ends of the
greensboro Bridge transaction TO determine re-
sponsibility for the loss to taxpayers. and to
find out if they have any claim against any
body for recovery, IS also very much IN order