The copper era and Morenci leader., 1921-06-17

Following meeting of the Board of Supervisors held with Frank Web ster and Jas. H. Kerby of the con- tracting firm of Webster Bros. x Kerby, who are at present engaged in the construction of the Clifton-Spring- erville road on Monday evening last, in the office of the Board, tentative agreement was reached to arbitrate the claim presented against the coun- ty by the contractors on Section 2 of said road in the sum of $41,012.69. This amount is ciaImed by the con> tractors in excess of the amount re- ceied by them under the contract, as estimated by former County Engineer Vandercook, and by reason of extra costs imposed upon them by the al- legged dishonesty and unfair tactics pursued by the former engineer.
 Following in this article the ERA prints two proposed arbitration agree ments, one presented by the contrac- tors, which had embodied therein an arbitration board as proposed by County Engineer McIlveen; the other proposed arbitration agreement, as drawn by County Attorney Hooker, at the request of the Board of Superyis- orS.
 Upon the assembling of the Board Monday evening copies of the agree ment as prepared by the County At torney was presented to the contrac- tors, and after a careful reading of same. and consultation with their at torney, MT Horton, MT. Frank Web, ster for the contractors made ob- lection to the agreement as proposed by the county attorney, Whcih had in the main followed the statutory form of arbitration, on the ground that its adoption would entail a heavy eT- pense on the contractors, as well as the county, while the agreement which the contractors favored. could be executed at small cost to both parties. It appeared to be the desire of the Board and the contractors to keep the matter out of court.
 The contractors favored the agree ment for arbitration as presented by them, referred to as a common law arbitration and could not see the necessity for the services of a law yer CT especial accOuntant, as SUS- gested in the agreement presented by the county attorney. The cOnty at torney in defense of the proposed agreement presented by him, argued that the arbitratCrs should he en- tirely disinterested parties; that MT. Hutchins, would be prejudiced in fav-
  McIlveen, county engineer would he expected to guard the cOunty's inter ests, consequently, the third man whoever he might be would be the sole arbitrator
 At this stage of the conversation Chairman Stanton, of the Board, Of fered a suggestion that the ccCt"2" tors and Board agree to the namins of an arbitrator from the State High way Department an arbitrator irOlN the Federal Office of Public Roads and the two arbitrators choose the third member of the arbitration Board and that the provision for consult ing attorney and accountant be elim mated. and common law arbitration agreement be entered. The sugges tion of the Chairman of the BoarC seemed to be satisfactory to Member; Anderson and Hightower, but MT Frank Webster. for the contractor entered strenuous and vigorous ob jection to any representative of the Federal Office of Public Roads SerV ing on the arbitration board. MT Webster based his objection on the ground that District Engineer Wheel CT. of this department had testifie' falsely on the witness stand q Stafford in he trial of the frs SulC or the COHtIdCtOIS C5dIhoI CAA' county for $2S S,000.00.
 MT. Kerby suggested the name o Engineer Long. of the Forestry de partment in place of a representa- tive Of the Bureau of Public roads and this suggestion was tentativel. agreed upon. and the Clerk of tht Board was Instructed O commm cate with State Engineer Nladdock an Forest Engineer Long to ascertain ] a representative from the state nlgh way department and an enGinee from the Forestry department Cpre ferably Mir Longl would consent t serve on the board. As soon 9 these officials are heard from anOthe meeting Of the Beard will be held t again consider the proposed arOit1, tiou agreement