The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-07-24
TOLD TO DELIVER
BRIDGE ON time
Emphatic Notice Served by Com
mittee on l. J. Smith & Co.,
.. Contractors.
WHOLE WORK FAR BEHIND
Contract Will Be Forfeited Ii
Better Speed Is Not Made in
Completing Structure.

Emphatic notice was served on Con-
tractor l. j. Smith last night ny the
Mayo Bridge subcommittee OF the Coun-
ell Committee on Streets that ne would
ne expected to live un TO the terms Of
his contract in regard to time of com.
p!etlon. The new bridge is now far be-
nina contract time. though engineert
VINO nave examined the work state that
up 10 this time the work done is en-
tirely satisfactory
Under the contract Tor the new
bridge. signed July d. 1911. the con-
iractins firm was given 365 working
days. When one ycar hod rolled
around. City Engineor Boiling exam
med the work and reported 1t only so
per cent. complete. Winter weather.
storms snow. freshots ana other con-
ditions had INTERVIEWED 20 tho extent Of
-FOUR months, and oil the suggestion of
Mr. Boiling II was made a matter Of
record that the contractors had four
months from July Il tn which to finish
the work, subject to further extensions
for bad weather during tina; period.
After that period there is provided
IN the contract a penalty OF $40 ror day
for each day that tn city is kept out
OF the use of the bridee. ana 1t IS fur
Their provided that d tho CONTRACTOR
stops work or Is not prosecuting 1t in
nerr the City Engineer IS empowered
TO go on the job and hire men and ma
chinery TO complete the work or 10
sub!et the contract an charges to be
made against the ORIGINAL contractor
because OF his failure 20 complete II
in tho specified time
Councilman Jones brought the mat.
ter before the committee last night
saying that a great burden was beinG
placed on pedestrian and owners OF
teams TO have 10 make the detou,
across the old Free Bridge and that IL,
had cost the city sl2500 IN the past
two years TO keep that lettering struc-
ture open 10 travel. Under the circum-
stance he thought the city had no right
to be lenent with l!latory contrac-
tor. who has worked only q small force
on large undertaking. and who. after
q years time. has only partially con
strncted the northern half OF the bridge
between the Richmond shoreN and
Mayo's Island. leaving the longer south
orn half OF the undertaking untouched.
The committee unanimously adopted
his motion Instructive the city Engi-
uoer to notify Contractor Smith that
the city VIII expect The bridge to ne
delivered on contract time, under the
fun terms of the penalty clauses in
tho contract. including the clause
which forfeits the contract and author
izes the city Engineer to complete the
work at the expense OF the contractor
Nj Jones thought 81 was fair TO the
contractor to give him ample notice OF
the city intention so that he could
not claim az tho last moment that he
had not boon notified
The committee referred 10 the CITY
Engineer for report the question of
laying the bridge paving on Il concrete
foundation. at additional cost. and also
certain questions relative to laying
street car tracks over the bridge. 1t
was stated that the Virginia Rai!wa,
ana Power Company is required to OPP
crate cars over The bridge as soon as it
is opened. It's franchise granted for tho
old Mayo Bridge being only neld in
allegiance because Of the unsafe CON
diiion of the old structure. and the
question al isslo is whether the eli.
shall lay and own the rails across tho
bridge. charging The company yearly
toll for their uso or whether the bridge
shall be treated simply AS city street
IN which cus' the street car company
must lay the tracks and must also lay
and repair tho paving between tho
tracks and for Two feet on either side