The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1912-01-13

matters of difference might be fully
heard. You declined the suggestion.
preferring to make one-sided and
partial investigation. and to formulate
and publish your charges against us
without an opportunity for a hearing
from Us before such publication. Had
you heard Us, not only would you
have been saved much trouble and the
possible humiliation of making untrue
and unjustifled claims, but you would
have refrained from injuring our repu-
tation for competence and fair deal
Ing, when there was, in fact, no basis
for any imputation.
CHARGES QUITE DAMAGING.
Your charges are numerous and
some of them quite damaging, but we
trust to be able to show you in what
we have to say following this. that
they are unfounded and have resulted
from a forgetfulness of the past ac-
ton Of your board: Of the circum-
stances attending the doing of the
work; and Of the relative rights Uf
the county and the contractor. Some
OF them we have always been ready
to admit. since they consist in allow
ances to be made by us. against which
there can be no contest. and about
which there was no desire to contest
on our part.
We take them up successfully as
you have charged them.
In what we shalt say when we use
the word architect" we refer TO the
architect regularly employed by you,
under whose orders we have acted,
and whose instructions we have fo,-
lowed, and we do not refer to the inn
ported architect to whose report you
refer, unless we specially refer to him,
COURTYARD.
I'll "The joints of brick work
should be struck to the top Of para
pet
The joints are 50 struck. part Of
the way up the wall Of courtyard.
when the work had been done partly.
the architect conceived that it was
better that the courtyard should be
succeed. and directed US not only TO
desist from striking the joints, and
thus making the face Of the brick
work smooth. but to dig the joints so
that the stucco would stick the better.
We followed his instructions. He ex-
pected to obtain authority from the
board to have the work succeed; he
failed to do so. lSee paragraph 5 of
architects report. Jan. 3rd. 1879 The
cost TO Us Of digging the joints was
greater than the cost of striking them,
and we decline now 70 strike them.
Since the authority Of the architect
has been called in question by you 20
make this change and other changes
made by him. we call your attention
to the provisions governing his au-
~ h.,
p-Wer TO require alterations IN the
work shown in the drawings or speci-
locations, and the contractor shall
proceed to make such changes with
out causing delay (See specifica-
tionsl.
ca Three window stills to be re-
paired"
These are brick window stills in tho
courtyard. They were broken during
construction and would have been re-
paired by as at once. but the architect
desired that they should be left and
that they should be covered with
stucco when 1t should be placed on
Before any order was received &C
stueco or not to stucco. our scaffold-
ing was removed. and 1t would have
cost more to replace the scaffoldins
than TO do the work originally. We
were ready in due course to replact
TIE broken parts, but by the order o.
the architect mentioned, the expense
Of replacing 1t out of the due ordel
was greater than would have been en-,
tailed at the regular time. and we can
not be required now to replace 1t.
ca Face of walls under bridge
and north side of light court to b
clear of concrete"
We were ready TO do this in du,
course. and while cleaning the rest o
the courtyard. but by reason of tn
plumbers materials being piles
against this portion. we could not d.