Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1914-04-10

ueciueu anu OeileVe IL only PARTIAL
We found two Of the Commissioners wht
ignored the Road Superintendent and per
formed their duties as they thought best
although censured by him.
We charge the County Commissioners
with violating the law in changing the acI
of resurfacing the road from Muncaster's
Croos Roads to Laytonsville and substitute
ing therefor three-quarters of a mile OF
experimental work that cost So, 700 dollars
and has proven unsatisfactory.
The law is plain and the duties defined
which plainly states levy of six cents is
for the purpose of resurfacing the Laytons-
vile road from Muncaster's Cross Roads to
Laytonsville. The law says whenever it
or any Of it is not needed for resurfacing
the said road. it may be used in the con-
struction of other work. We claim the full
stretch of the same road was badly in need
Of resurfacing
We charge the County Commissioners
with violating the law in advancing money
to the School Board.
We charge the Road Superintendent with
violating the law in not having his report
made out by February LIST. as specially
stated
We have had some difficulty in getting
this report and found that he was in An
napolis instead of working on his report
that uJoo ttun mont he ouardua The ranorf
has been presented to us but is incomplete
He promises supplementary report at
later date.
We recommend to the County Commits
sioners that an experienced technical en-
gineer. a man of equal ability to Mr..
Rhoads. who resurfaced the Georgetown
pike under the Governments supervision.
We condemn the system known as force
contracts and recommend that only direct.
specific contracts for specified sum be
entered into. The force contracts are in
definite. evasive and open to fraud and
dispute. AS an example we herewith pub
lish the Brenizer contract for resurfacing
three-quarters of a mile of the Laytons-
vile road:
This agreement made this 18th day Of
July. in the year 1918, by and between
the County Commissioners Of Montgomery
County. Md. party of the first part, and
the Warren F. Brenizer Company, party of
the second part, witnesseth.
Whereas, the said party Of the second
part has agreed and does hereby agree with
the said party Of the first part to reconstruct
portion Of the road known as the Lay
louisville road, beginning at Laytonsville
and extending over so much of said road
as they may be directed, in accordance
with the plans and specifications and the
following term and conditions:
First The said work is to be done in
accordance with the plans and specifica-
tons which are made part hereto. and
subject to the approval Of the Chief Engineer
Of the State Roads Commission. The said
party of the second part employing all
labor and purchasing all material necessary
for the completion of said work under the
directions of the County Roads Superin-
tendent.
Second: The said party Of the first part
agrees to pay said party Of the second part
the actual cost of said work plus IL l-2
per cent. profit. The maximum prices
agreed upon for the hire of labor. teams
and machinery are those shown in the
schedule below:
Foreman so cents per hour laborers II
cents per hour four horses. wagon and
driver 80 cents per hour two horses. wag-
on and driver AS cents per hour; cart.
horse and driver rs cents per hour btu
minous macadam mixer $50 per month
crusher and engine SIPS per month
engineer IS cents per hour. M. D. X.
THE foregoing prices shall not be changed
except upon written consent Of the Road
Superintendent and Chief Engineer of the
State Roads Commission.
THE work shall be commenced within
ten days from the date hereof and com
pleted in forty working days.
"In witness whereof. the parties hereto
have set their hands and seals. on the
day and date above written.
JOSEPH 7. WHITE,
JOSIAH j. HURON,
HAZEL W. CAsHELL,
RICHARD T. WHITE. JR.,
GEORGE G. BRADLEY, JR.,
County Commissioners Of Montgomery
county, Maryland, party of the first
part.
Witness:
AS to County Comm,
Berry f. Clark, Clerk
THE Warren F. Brenizer Co, W. T. Brent
ger. President. party Of the second part
Witness: S. v. Mace
AS a matter OF fact this is not a contract
at all. but from business standpoint the
appointment Of an agent to employ labor
at stated prices and to purchase all mate
rails without bond and commission Of
twelve and One-half per cent. net profit
paid him for overseeing the job. which
amounts to nine hundred and seventy
five dollars. We believe there are oppor-
tunities here for fraud. We notice that
the Brenizer Company's letter Of acceptance
reads time Of completion for one and half
miles. forty working days. when there were
only three-quarters Of mile Of road built
and their invoice has been rendered for
eighty-seven hundred dollars. The coun-
ty has paid six thousand dollars on account.
with portion Of the unpaid balance in
dispute. We have been informed that
some taxpayers from Laytonsville district
requested that this experimental work be
done. We claim this is no excuse in chang
ing the intent Of the law. We charge the
Road Superintendent with violating this
law.
A law sh ould be passed creating the Office
Of Engineer Commissioner and to be ap-
Dointed nv the Covernor and IN have enual