New-York tribune., 1909-11-28
orEENsBoRO BRIDGE PAYMENTS

OTEENSBORO BRIDGE PAYMENTS.
Controller Metz. after hacking his en-
eaeers for a year i'm their efforts To
save the taxpayers some Of the loss due
Ia the Queensboro Bridge blunder. may
Rot unnaturally fcei that the opinions
of The Corporation Counsel. putting the
Gins Of the mistakes on the Bridge De-
pertinent. warrant him in releasing the
contractors bond. In view. however.
Of tae impending change of administra-
non and the possibility of Bridge Com
missioner who will he less anxious than
the present one To conceal the unques-
i.onable failure of the bridge 10 meet its
specified requirements and at the same
tine 10 assume responsibility for that
failure. whatever il may be. we believe
ihat the Controller might wisely leave 10
Mayor Gaynor and his Corporation
Counsel and Bridge Commissioner the
question Of whether or not the city has
any recourse i'm the matter.
The contractor. having placed before
him the general scheme of the bridge,
guaranteed Ia make and be responsible
for the correctness Of the detailed plans
for a structure whose members should
meet certain calculated strains. The
structure as completed. according 10 the
reports of experts. does not meet those
strains. and as a whole is not capable
Of carrying all the tracks planned for
il. The question of responsibility is
one which we do not attempt 10 de-
;r.mine. II may very well he that the
contractor performed his full duty and
that the city should stand The loss. but
the benefit of the doubt should be given
4" the city by the city officials. The
Corporation Counsel. however. takes the
ground that in any suit the city would
le handicapped 10y the testimony Of the
Bridge Department officials-tirst. that
The bridge was all right. and. second,
that they were responsible for its being
wrong. To the average layman, how
ever. il would seem that a Bridge De
Tartment which was so silly as 90 super
wise and approve the erection Of Il struct-
urc which fell 30 per cent short Of its
calculated strength was hardly a com
petcnt witness either aS 10 the perform
anceS Of the contractor or as 10 the re-
sponsibility for failure if he failed.
The Bridge Department and some en-
aIneers may dispute the conclusion Of
The experts that the bridge cannot safely
carry the trackage planned for. We do
not. however. understand that they dis
pIte The calculations of the experts
showing that the members cannot sus-
4; /: the specified strains calculated ac-
cordng To the methods prescribed i'm the
specifications. II * somewhat aston
ishing. therefore. TO find the Corporation
Counsel suggesting that il Is q matter
a. opinion whether the bridge is mp To
iTS specifications or not. and obieciinE
Ia litigation on the ground that il would
compel the city to "impeach its own Of
iiccrs." who could not sustain The city
:,@ainst the contractor without stultify-
inG themselves" These officers have al
ready impeachcd themselves and Stulti-
fod themselves. and whatever may be
the merits of the contractors ease he
would have great difficulty I'm making
Use against the city Of the Bridge De-
lmrtment officers who denied the exist
cIco Of the defects which at the next
L-oment they assumed responsibility FOR
-ni 'fda ii'i = AFlillliE tlllp flilltf Win
promises 10 reform abuses and protect
tie taxpayer in every possible way. lie
II an acute lawyer. who does not start
cat with prepOssession against the
city. This matter should be left open
to nm, 50 that il either through a diff
fercnt disposition or a greater ability
10 find the way he can save money for
tie taxpayers he should have the op-
r'rtunity. As We have already said we
do not seek 10 pass upon the rights Of
ihiS question. We merely say that the
administration under which this great
blunder has been made should not in its
closing days decide upon the responsible
iiv for The blunder We should think
iha' il would hesitate Ia make confession
that il itself was To blame. ami would
prefer 10 leave that conclusion. if that
IEust be the conclusion, 10 some other
officials.