New-York tribune., 1909-11-28
BLAMES ENGINEERS
Continued from first page.

neers would. of course. so testify. They
could not do otherwise without stultlfyiuS
OF the case n would he necessary for the
city 10 tmpeach its oVn officers and to
OBTAIN affirmative evidence strong enough
10 convince jury that the plans were
30 icnorantly. carelessly or improperly
drawn as 10 hold the contractor Liable.
The strongest testimony that is known,
OF which the city could avail itself. Is that
or the experts who examined the bridge,
but. 50 tar as can be judged from their
themselves so 10 the extent of tsstifying
10 facts that would he necessary to Sus-
tain the city IN refusing 10 pay.
Commenting upon the paragraph
quoted from the report Of the chief engi-
neer Of the Finance Department. the
Corporation Counsel argues.
The above conclusions disregard the con
Iact provisions making the Bridge Com
missioner ana his engineers the sole
ana as 70 the size Of its members. II is
10 lie Observed that under the terms Of
az e. much per pound for the steel pat
in,N tEe structure; increasing or diminish
ing tho size Of the members simply means
incre2 sing or decreasing the number Of
pounds Of steel 20 be paid for. and whether
these should be increased or diminished so
as a. 70 make the bridge OF proper strength
repre- Sentatives. and these representatives
By their approval Of everything that has
Tor partial payments and their finsl GER
tifcate, have decided that I'm their opinion
the members were n sufficient strength.
To consi'ier the contractor 4 guarantor I'm
such 4 situation would, in my opinion. be
Illegal.
THE CONTRACTION : SIDE.
Would a contract where the contractor
was obliged TO furnish members OF suffl-
Gent size and strength 10 comply with
construed 20 mean that. in case he dis
agreed with the Cttys representatives and
desired 10 make the members stronge-, ne
was bound 10 insist upon his own views?
I. Is obvious that If that were done and
tho citys representatives should insist
extra weight Of steel. and would thus suffer
loss that might be heavy. To .o1strue
hn ,ls CGhrasfo IN ~ SIs o way as as ~ re99Te
az his own loss would require far different
and stronger language than any existing
in this contract. and w:uld &c - contrary
- common sense and commnn Justice as
20 be repusn7nt 10 all rules of constTUC-
tion.
After quoting practically the entire
contract and Specifications the Corpora
tion Counsel insists that II cannot be re-
garded as q settled fact that the bridge
as constructed will not be sufficiently
strong 10 carry the loads contemplated
i'm tho contract. The fact that experts
structure are of opinion that such is
the fact does not, In the opinion of the
Corporation Counsel, settle the question
for a jury. other engineers, nc saws,
have different opinions. including those
in the employ of the city itself II the
case should go to trial there would at
least arise a question of fact for the
jury, and i'm situation where the city's
side of the case would not appeal 10 a
jury as particularly meritorious. The
fundamental question of law I'm the case
is whether the bridge is strong enough
70 carry the contemplated load. and il
not whether the city is Justified in re-
fusing To pay the amount due on the
ground that responsibility for such a
condition. II II exists. rests with the
contractor. IN his opinion the contrac-
tor is not 50 responsible. lie did not
believe that the clause i'm the contract
making the contractor alone responsible
for the correctness of the detail drawings
and the ability of the members TO meet
certain specified strains. although these
plans originally made by the contractor.
may have been approved by the Bridge
Commissioners. could lie held 20 mean
that the contractor was responsible for
all the plans and drawings for the bridge
I'm the sense that they should be OF suf-
hcient size and weight to carry the pro-
posed load
In conclusion, tho Corporation Counsel
says that there are other considera-
uohs OF Judgment. discretion and public
policy all of which. in my opinion, in
dicate that the city should not throw
this matter into litigation. In any point
OF view. its case is hardly a meritorIous
one. and its representatives should hesi-
tate 10 take position which might be
looked upon as technical and Injurious
10 Its reputation for fair dealing"