The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-12-21
BIDDERS ON WHARF
FAIRLY I REATE Ed
Committeeman Think Directors
Complaint Has No Valid
Ciround.
WANT NEW BELLEVUE SCHOOL
CITY Asked to Buy VAN Lew
lforne-Morc Trouble. With
Fee System.


According to the opinion expressed by
d number OF members of tile Finance
Committee last night, and which
seemed TO meet with the general APP
provni Of that body. there is no merit
whatever in the complaint filed
through circular letter by Charles
i. walthers and other dissatisfied bid
ders who failed TO secure the contract
Tor erecting the proposed city wharf
and bulllhead. it was clearly reserved
10 the Committee on james River I'm
provcment 10 reject any or ali bids,
aud II was within it's rights in recon-
mending for adoption any proposal 1T
saw fit
The Finance Committee held an cN-
tended public session last night, when
. Writes were heard in support OF
number of propositions now pending,
No action was taken, and the COM
,nttec will meet within the next few
days, in executive session, to consider
the matters presented. and make some
recommendations, The more Important
Of the propositions pending arc the
new city wharf; the purchase of the
Van Lew property for public school
purposes, and the increase OF pay OF
street cleaners.
The New Wharf.
The wharf matter provoked pro-
longed debate, in the course of. which
City Engineer Boiling entered EN-
phatic protest against the plan the
city has recently adopted of asking
for plans, specifications and bids not
securing any competition in price on
the design selected.
The wharf matter has been hanging
fire for more than year. Last year
the Finance Committee included in the
budget $4,000 for wooden pile wharf,
although the estimates nf the cngi-
neers were that the work gould cos.
rom $4,000 TO s2S,o0o Mr. Bollius
prepared plans for timbaE wliayf and
bulkhead. calculated to last from lif-
teen to twenty-five years; bids wern
invited. and the lowest was $4,000,
Exceeding the appropriation, it wont
to the Finance Committee, which. m
stead OF mailing an additional appro-
arintion. recommended that .qe Conn
r'ttec or James River Improvement: he
Instructed to call for plans. speciica-
ls,rS and bids on erection of i rem
forced concrete bullkhead wharf Ii
vas in accordance with that resolu
tIc!, tilat the committee invited propos
panics, and. after opening bids, r,con-
lncndcd the award 20 the Raymond
Concrete Pile Company Of Baltimore,
for s23.TSO No additional lpprnpr!a-
ton having been made TO meet he IN
creased cost OF concrete CONSUMPTION,
the paper again went - tbs FiAince
Committee
No Merit In Complaints.
Chairman George Rogers OF the
Committee on Improvement of lanes
River. explained the Situation to the
committee. saying that an ad.li,,.,t1l
approximation would he needed # lllG
award was 10 he confirmed. Mr.. Hog
els explained that there was 10 merit
IN the protest of Mr.. Walthers and OF
the Thomas J'es Conservation ;oln-
pany. of Cincinnati which hai also
complained OF the treatment it mad
received.
City Engineer Boiling explained that
the city proposed not only w''a-l,
but bulkhead which would corfne
the channel by continuous slleetns
and so make it unnecessary to con-
tinue expensive dredging. The Wal
tners design proposes 4 separate pile
construction, without such continuous
sheeting.
In response TO Mr.. Walthers's COM
plant Mr.. Boiling said that he had re-
ceived the say. information furnished
other bidders, ..W.tt the blue prints
showing location and measurements. OF
the city property on which II was pro-
posed to build, tho depth OF water,
height of tides and freshets, the rock
ledge formations and foundations. Mr..
Boiling said that under the conditions
of the competition he did not feel au
thorized to make any suggestions to
any Lidder as to the kind OF wharf he
was 10 build, and that there We're sew
eral features of the Walthcrs design
which rendered it unsuitable for per-
mauent construction. As for his OBJ
lection about sand washing out in
time of freshet, Mr.. Boiling said that
it was expected TO put concrete sheet
ing over the tilled earth, and that the
plan of cpenwork construction would
'cud 10 deposits in front of the wharf
and require constant dredging.
4 Mere Skeleton.
he had told Mr., Walthers that the
city required reinforced concrete
bulkhead wharf, and the advcrtiscmcat
20 stated. and the City Engineer had
not felt il proper to make further sug-
gestjons in such competition, The
Walthers plan, Mr.. Boiling showed
from blue prints called for separate
piles twenty-onc feet apart. being, ac-
NO4blilG " ~ IpulllllS, ING interest
skeleton of a design" In no sense a
permanent bulkhead wharf, and not ful.
filing the intention of the city in maxi
ing permanent construction. Mr.
Boiling said he was willing to leave
that point to any competent engineer.
Another objection was that tho Wal
theirs plan called for cantilcver pro-
lection which was sufficiently strong
20 bear any reasonable weight that
might be put on it from above but
which might he snapped of by the
rocking of vessel tied To the wharf
during a storm by blow from below.
Mr. Bradley said 1t was evident that
MIR Walthers had no right to make any
kick: that he had no grievance what
over, and that The committee had had
right 10 recommend any design II
had chosen from those submitted and
10 build IT, provided IL can get the
funds, Messrs. Grundy and Richard.
son agreed that The dtsgruntled bidders
had presented no evidence whateyor OF
TEsmss@ ER ResExs HDe