New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1909-11-28
BLAMES ENGINEERS
PENDLETON.S OPIN-
ION ON BRIDGE.
Says City's Staff Is Response
ble for OuerIodding, Not
Contractors.

opinion given last june by the Corpora
non Counsel. with responsibility for the
inexcusable blunders made in the plans
Tor the greensboro Bridge through which
tnat structure is able to carry safely
only 20 per cent of the traffic aecommo-
dations it was contracted to carry.
There was published I'm yesterdays
Tribune a synopsis OF the report of the
Controllers engineers practically placing
responsibility for the failure of the
superstructure of the bridge TO come up
TO contract requirements upon the con-
tractors, and also an opinion from the
Corporation Counsel. given in December
of last year, generating the contractors
from all liability. In the dispute the
4 Controller has all along taken sides with
his engineers, but he now announces that
because of the opinion given in June last
by the city's legal advisor he has no
option but to make the final payment of
100000 to the contractors. This final
payment will carry with it "A release of a
/ S1,O0,000 bond for faithful performance,
ana VIII effectually estop the city from
recovering any part of the S1.5c0.OOO
which has been wasted upon this huge
bridge structure
! METZ RESUBMITTED QUESTION.
The Controller. after receipt of the Cor
J poration COunsers first opinion exoner-
ating the contractors from all respon-
I sibility. Immediately resubmitted the
| question, urging that there appeared TO
be some misunderstanding as to the re-
] sponslbllity of the contractors for the
present condition of the bridge as r.
| PORTED by the expert engineers who had
/ examined it," Accompanying the re-
/ quest for further expression of opin-
ION by the Corporation Counsel was a re-
port from the chief engineer OF the FL
/ nance Department, which, after stating
the case, closed as follows:
" ali the members of the bridge had
oeen so drawn and constructed as to con-
toiln 10 the specific stress limitations
there can be no question that the bridge
would nave met all the needs Of its planned
tddck equlpment-that Is, il would have
been capable OF carrying the planned load
ings-as the contractors were called 1Inon
by the contract 10 prepare the detail draw
,,nss suDJect 10 the specification limitations
b, ~ III! opihloh the contractors are respon-
siDle Tor the defects noted by the EXPERTS:
Srist ST y, IesponslDllity rests upon the party
Mio Ialhefs The plan and presents il 70
ne other. with the implied representation
mat II r. adequate for the purposes TO DE
aseemphshed, as was held by the Court
Of Appeals in the case OF MacRitchie agt.
the City 0f Lake View. The moditicati9n
o. December l5, 1904 does not in nv
opinion. change any OF The original COM
ttact requirements. but only changes fhe
desiEn OF the bridge by adding additional
stress limitations remained the same
The Corporation Counsel In his opin
ion says that he purposely allowed con-
siderable time 10 elapse before again
writing on the subject in order 10 ascer-
tain whether Cere were likely, to be any
developments. and that the real or ap-
parent excitement with regard to the
subject might be calmed and everything
done dispassiOnately. The real practi.
cal question, says the opinion, which the
city's repre- sentatives are called upon to
answer is not whether the contractors
are responsible. i'm view of the reports
o. the experts showing that the bridge
as built fails TO meet the needs of it's
planned traffic equipment. pursuant TO
the terms and Specifications of the origi-
nal or modified contracts.
The opinion continues:
THE QUESTION PUT SIMPLY.
1t is rather simply this: Shall or shall
not the city paw TO the Pennsylvania
steel Company the balance Of about $lS5,-
Co claimed TO be due under its contract
with the city for tine construction of this
bridge. or shall il refuse TO pay the re-
suit OF which. OF course, would be To
throw the whole question into litigation?
This Is question partly OF law, partly
OF fact. partly OF judgment and discre-
tiOn. partly OF public policy. The bridge
has been finished. far as the Pennsyl-
vania Steel Company is concerned and is
IN actual use Tor ordinary vehicles and
foot passengers. Neither the trolley roads
nor the two elevated lines are yet in opera
tiOn. In fact il Is improbable that the
he in
for a long time, because there are no ele-
waited railways in the Borough of Queens
nor could they he constructed for a long
time to connect with elevated railways
upon the bridge
The opinion points out that the super
structure of the bridge was contracted
TO cost -, ,s529S5 and had already cost
50, 6,26S, ,oiG and that there remained to
be paid 10 the contractors only Sls3. I,;I.
The practical question was whether the
city should pay this balance, which was
small compared with the amount al
ready paid. The Corr tion Counsel
says:
The only reason for non-pa yment that
has been sugge sted is the allegation that
certain members of this bridge are not
strong enough 90 carry i'm safety the load
that would be imposed upon them if the
whole bridge were put in operation as con-
templated In the supplemental agreement
and il is claimed that because of this al
legged lack of strength i'm these members
the contractor is responsible. IL is not
claimed that there - any defect in the ma
terial of these members or i'm the way of
their manufacture, but that they are NOT
planned designed or constructed Iare,,
enough 10 stand the stress that might be
put upon them II the bridge We're operated
10 its full capacity. IL Is i'm effect claimed
that the contractor Is warrantOr that
the plans, drawings. stress sheets and cal
citations are such that bridge construct
ed In accordance Herewith would carry
I'm safety the traffic OF the bridge when
operated TO its fun capacity.
THE TRIBUNE'S CRUSADE.
About a year ago some question was
raised i'm a newspaper Of this city CThe !
'Tribuneb as 10 the safety of the bridge
vas the appointment OF three distinguished
consulting engineers TO examine and report I
uDon the design and construction of th,, /
bridge The reports Of these experts agree /
in The general proposition that il would
MOI be advisable 10 operate the bridge az /
its full carrying capacity as contemplated /
tn the supplemental agreement-that is
,,itn four trolley tracks and four elevated |
yailway tracks. ln the mean time the
bridge has been completed. The Bridge /
Sou9Inissioner and his engineers. who afe
- reDresentatives of the city In the con- |
struction OF the bridge, are satisfied that il /
49, f.eu Brap.rlV constructed and Ia ac- /
,.ordanre With the contract. and the final /
.,r,tfcate required under the contract call
irs, Tor the payment Of the fun amount due /
10 contractor has been duly executed by /
49,. Rfidge commissioner and by his en- |
'.i,e.rs and forwarded To you for pa yment /
TW