New-York tribune., 1908-01-04
UPH0LDS WATER BOARD
W4NTS CH4RGES IGNORED
Merchants Association Writes to
Mayor on Ashokan inquiry.


Mayor yesterday TO dismiss further proceedings
against the Board of Water Supply account OF
alleged incompetency in connection yith the Asao-
kan dam contract on the ground that the testimony
taken by the Commissioners o< Accounts did not
warrant them The letter the Mayor from the
committee supply of the association is
largely technical but the entire association. 1t is
understood supports the committee.
The Mayor is likely to dismiss the charges
without protracred hearing. Commissioners
Mitchell and Gayncr have yet preferred the
charges OF incompetency and misconduct, but Com
missioner Mitchell is working them. and they
will be ready by the latter part of next week IL
them il the Mayor will order
formal trial OF the commissioners at which he will
preside.
The letter Of the committee on water supply TO
the Mayor reviews the action Of the board in
throwing the Perce bid and giving the contract
for the Ashokan dam to Macarthur Brothers and
Winston & Co at bid s2.354.oo higher; cites the
law giving the board power let other than the
lowest bidder: calls attention the concurring
Inmates OF all the other bidders, and says that
heavy preponderance of expert opinion warranted
the belief that the lowest bid was below the cost
Of the work. Citing the danger and costness Of
delays. the letter says:
In the case of the Muscoot dam a small contract
ths work was delayed three years and seven
On b & an ae d ieF o, 81 S
construction; the contract was forfeited and re-
tinaateiy a ccnsiderabie loser by originally letting
In the case Of tie Jerome Park reservoir there
wee several years delay and heavy loss in in
serest charges. directly due TO the fact that the
II can Be shown that in The The great majority s OF
the ultimate result is great delay. loss in interest
reietling anu Al case -O'
It is Clearly the intent of the law that the board
Iselection OF bid other than the lowest bid when
e aae Of % fonr Of phe Gf sIa engineeTs and
ed he blli h he
Lowest bid was less than il would cost the con
ance would be prejudicial to the best interests of
h y m II Tfs by in 1he fbao osS naT OF f
work upon which his bid was 90 per cent below the
eeos.. on hat part OF his estimate and that he
wound be glad 10 ne relieved Of the contract FIX.
delay ultimate of cost In its action,
competent professional advice by the admission Of
the lowest bidder. by the results OF previous exx
prohtless contracts and by a due sense not mere
ToIving upon it TO accept the bid propssal the
acoeptance Of which will in their Judgment, best
! We beg TO point out TO your honor that IN the
Of public policy which requires The letting Of con-
tracts the lowest bidder is specifically waived
clearly in order that that board may and shall ex-
ercise precisely the discretion which is now brought
Your honor will recall that similar discretion
is lodged in the aqqeduct commisSon and that It
the Cross River dam, when the contract was iet
highest bidder. there being bids in all. ON
that occasion the reasons of public policy which
appeared 10 Justify an award TO otheT than the
IloNest bidder We're fully and carefully canvassed
Z by the commission, and the vote OF the commits
4 SON. including yourself Mayor and the then
fCentroer tIr GroutD. unanimously in favor
L of the award 10 the higher bidder.
! An examination Of the record of the evidence
taken by your Commissioners of Accounts IN this
matter in the opinion Of this committee, shows no
the action Of the Board of Water Supply. On the
contrary carries the irresistible conviction that
the board performed its duties inteigenty- faith
fully and in the manner best calculated TO serve the
4 public interest
IL appears clearly from that that the low
lest bid-that submitted by the Peirce company
was made up in a casual and insufficient manner:
that the figures prepared by single engineer
after brief examination of the ground: that the
engineer had little personal knowledge of the cost
y Of TaTioTl that competent revision OF
made On the other hand il is
Shown that the accepted bid prepared after
exhaustive study upon the independent estimates
OF Macarthur Brothers and of the Winston
COMPANY.
In conclusion beg to point you that if
formal proceedings against the Board Of Water
Suprly entered the inevitable result viii
great interference with the progress Of the work
under its control ana proba Die delay of two 20
be considered that Il charges against admins
rrafiVe hody entertained upon frivolous in
sfcient grounds the inevitable effect is to greatly
discourage competent Jealous public Off1Clal Is
from the proper exercise OF their discretion in the
conduct Of their work To condemn the board for
its action in the award Of the contract for the
/ AshoEan dam would discourage all exercise of
I judgment hy il il future cases tand equally by
other public officials. and induce the awarding
/ If every contract the lowest bidder. when
such action Is believed TO involve the sacrifice Of
! fne public interest
This committee therefore respectfully pra vs. that
vou viii decline entertain further proceedings
that the evidence does warrant further action
would be prelu7lcfal to the best