New-York tribune., 1911-04-02
GREENSBORO BRIDGE CASE|
Courts May Fix Responsibility
for Overlooking.
CONTROLLER MUST ANSWER
Prendergast Ordered to Explain
Why Steel Company's
Claim Is Unpaid.

1t begins to look as II the courts may
have to determine the responsibility for the
overlooking Of the greensboro Bridge with
tons OF steel which resulted In no increase
in the efficiency OF the structure. not TO
speak Of the waste Of thousands Of dollars
Of the taxpayers money. and which was
called to the attention OF the public by The
Tribune more than a year and a half ago
Controller Prendergast. having Informed
the Pennsylvania Steel Company. the con-
tractor for the superstructure. that he
would not pay its final claim for $751;
lel II. has been served with papers In
mandamus action. He has been ordered to
show cause before Justice Newburger in
The Supreme Court tomorrow why an or
der should not he Issued compelling him
to pay the claim and release the 81 900. 900
hond OF the company for the faithful per-
formance Of It's work
II this action should be dismissed by the
court, the company would have to sue for
Its money. involving a judicial review Of
tho actions OF the Bridge Commissioner to
80 changing the plans for the bridge as to
lead II with an excessive amount OF steel.
The Controller has forwarded the papers
In the mandamus action to the Corporation
Counsel. with a request that he defend the
city's interest. The action has been brought
by Phillips. Mahoney & Wagner. OF counsel
for the company.
The payment was originally held MP by
Controller Metz until he received an opinion
from the Corpora ton Counsel recommend
ing the payment of the claims. On the
ground that there should he a thorough
investigation OF the facts presented by The
| Tribune, Mrs. Amanda Schunck. In tax
payers suit. secuted an injunction restrain
ing the city from making the final pay
ment. This Injunction was made perma-
| nent by Justice Bowling on December 30.
! 1aa. In his decision he said
| 1t is not contended that the contractor
has not furnished the material for which
| payment is sought nor that he has not
done the work required 10 be done, but II
is urged that the contractor should not re-
ceive final payment, for the reason that
| this would remove the only opportunity
which is left Of testing, in a proper action,
the responsibility for the defects. weak
nesses and shortcomings which apparently
exist in the work. l am Of the opinion that
the questions presented here are grave, and
should be disposed of upon the trial, and
not on this preliminary notion
/ The permanency Of the injunction was
made contingent on the furnishing within
two days OF an undertaking in the sum OF
$4,000 TO indemnify the defendants for any
loss that might be sustained BY reason OF
the granting OF the motion. Mrs. Schunck
did not furnish the money and the injunc-
ton was automatically dissolved.
The claim Of the company for payment
was then presented to Controller Prender-
CAST. who came into Office in 1910. 1t took
the Corporation Counsel until June to rem
der an opinion recommending the payment
Since that time the claim has been the sub
ject Of negotiations between the Controller
and William +. Curtis. Of counsel for the
Pennsylvania Steel Company. After con-
siderable investigation the Controller an.
nounced that he would not pny the claim
and the mandamus proceeding has now
| been started.