The Birmingham age-herald., 1915-02-16
WORTH|NGTON FILES REPORT ON PROBE OF NEWELL CONTRACT No Fraud Has Been Perpe- trated Against County
 He Concludes ERRORS MADE BY
 ALL CONCERNED Says Contract Was Poorly Drawn and That Bids Should Have Been Asked From Other Concerns.
 Other Conclusions

That errors of judgment have been made by the board of revenue and all parties concerned in the award and per- formance of the Newell contract to chert a number of miles of the Lower Colum- Diana road, but that the county would not suffer financially and that no fraud had been perpetuated were the findings of Thomas Warrington. expert engineer and contractor, who was employed to make an investigation of the matter fol- lowing the assertions made by Jere Gwin. former county engineer of high ways.
 The report of Mr. Worthington covers over 20 pages of closely written manu- script and goes into every detail of the matter beginning with the awarding of the contract and ending with the final estimate of the engineer in charge.
 Gwin Made Charges
 It will be recalled that Engineer Gwin previous to leaving the service of the county made number of charges in reference to the contract that had been let by the board to A. T. Newell & Brothers for the cherting of several hiiSS ol tIt I<OWtl 1OiullDld1d TOdu. Tie suggested that the contract price was too high and that the estimates for haul ing had been padded. He also charged that incompetent inspectors had been employed by the board
 The members of the board of revenue voting for the Newell contract were L.. H. Pennington, Hugh McGeever and w J. Cameron. The president of the board Dr. R. F. Lovelady, and Rufus Bivins voting against it.
 Following the charges, MT. WorthiIfg- ton was employed to make a thorough investigation of the matter and to make report as soon as possible. In his in vestigation he took up the study of the Newell contract, examination of chert pits, measurement of distances, examina- tion of engineers reports, the thickness of the chert laid on the road oral ex- animation of the board of revenue, en- gineer's force, inspectors. wardens con- tractors and other persons connected with the contract.
 After giving in detail all his data, measurements, estimates results and evil dences of various character on which his conclusions based, he concluded the report as follows:
 Salient Features of Findings
 "The foregoing states at length the data, evidence and facts which, in my issue, the salient features of which ap- pear as follows:
 The Contract-While poorly drawn. vague in particulars and dangerous to both parties hereto, the real intention of the two parties, as to what work was required. seems discernible.
 'The execution of the contract was wholly in the hands of the county road engineer, under his supervision, direction and plans, all subject to final revision by the county against poor work or materi- als.
 "Advantageousness-T had prices been asked from few other strong and reliable contractors, there is a probabili- ty that a slightly cheaper bid may have been secured, but that Newell & Brothers occupied the strongest position and were, probably, the only contractors who could safely undertake the work to complete it on time.
 That comparison with the Wallace Brothers & Young contract shows:
 "The contract, as originally awarded, was cheaper than this contract by 2.S per cent.
 ''The contract, as actually executed and paid for, cost more than this contract by 13 per cent.
 '"rhe contract for third mile of Stouts road cost more than this contract by 6.5 per cent.
 'Padding-The investigations and check ing were not executed with that de- gree of absolute accuracy and certainty necessary to prove fraud, but had the effect of stopping any after November B. if any had occurred.
 '"The Board-Erred in judgment in not having requested prices from few other strong and reliable contractors, with known forces, in order to secure a flower price from Newell & Bros, as we'll as to serve as a protection against public crit icism. And no menber should have rec commended man for inspector without knowing such man to be capable of fill ing the position.
 Error of Engineer
 ''The Engineer-Erred in judgment in not having an inspector at the chert vit. in not auforcinp better soIooffov,