New-York tribune., 1910-01-15

was done by W. r. Webster, OF Philadei-
phia. at 90 cents ton for mill and shop in
spection, and the inspector was employed
as an expert under the Civil Service rules
during the tine he was engaged upon the
work. The steel inspection on the Will
iamsburg Bridge was done by w. "A.
Stowell, of Albany at 20 cents a ton.
Then the custom of the department was
changed. In the contract for the Manhat-
tan Bridge was a clause providing that the
inspectors I'm MILL shop and field should be
designated by the department and should
be paid at the rate of 81 20 ton for their
services. Mr. Stowell appears TO have
been the choice of the Bridge Department
for practically all steel inspection done
after this date, for similar clauses appear
in the contracts for the Manhattan Bridge
approaches and the approaches Of the
Oueensboro Bridge, and the work in all
cases was performed by Mr. Stowell. He
has also been designated as steel inspector
for the new municipal, building and is
TO be paid the rate of 81 20 ton for
his services.
1t is pointed out that because of the
absence of competition in the inspection
of steel used in the construction of the
Manhattan Bridge and its approaches and
tIle dppIOdCnCS OF the klUeenSDOrO brluSe
the city has been paying more for this
work than it would have had to pay had
these arbitrary clauses not been inserted
in the contracts. Whatever defence may
be urged for such custom, so far as
bridge construction is concerned, Is it
pointed out that there can be no good
reason for so high a price being paid in
the case of the new municipal building, in
view of the prices paid for the same kind
of work by large building firms and the
city Dock Department.
MR. DOUGHERTYS VIEW.
Speaking TO a Tribune reporter yesterday
J, Hampden Dougherty, who acted as
counsel for Mr.. Schieffeln in the tax
payers suit brought to restrain the former
Bridge Commissioner from awarding the
contract for the new city skyscraper, said:
There is the greatest dissatisfaction not
only among contractors but among those
who have the city's interest at heart, over
+. the manner in which this contract was
handled by the former Bridge Commission
er. 1t is one of the most fiagrant cases
of contract being awarded under condi-
tions which made fair competition impos-
sible. / have positive information that
there would have been at least half
dozen more bidders for the work had the
time allowed for presenting bids been suf-
icent to enabl- firms desiring to tender to
prepare their bids.
The fact that it was impossible for the
foundation contractors to sink their cais-
sons to bed rock over the whole site, as
provided in the contract, was pretty well
known among contracting firms at the
time the cal; was made for tenders for the
superstructure. This created a general i'm
preston that under the altered conditions
the hurried call for tenders would have to
be cancelled. Taking into consideration
the additional time that will be required
to complete the foundations under the
changed plans, the time limit set in the
contract for the completion of the super
structure is ridiculous. It is a physical
impOSSbility that it will be completed
within the two years specified in the con-
tract, and everybody concerned must have
been aware of that fact at the time the
contract was awarded.
Many new facts have come to me since
the Injunction proceedings before Justice
bowling that will make strong case for
appeal. Before the time limit for filing
notice of appeal has expired the question
of what is best to be done in the interest
of the taxpayers will be carefully consid-
cred.