The copper era and Morenci leader., 1921-06-10
CONTRACTORS URGE ARBITRATION ON
 SECTION TWO|

A special meeting of the Board Of
 Supervisors will be held at the court
 house on Monday evening nert for
 consideration or proposition which
 was presented in writing by Webster
 Bros. & Kerby, on Friday of this
 week, having for its purpose the ar
 Duration of demand presented by
 the contractors on the Ctifton-Sprins- erlVlle road in the sum or S41 1,0lS.63,
 which the contractors claim, is due
 them over and above the amount al
 ready received under their contract
 TOT section two. (A misprint in last weeks issue gave the apove sum as 91,Ol3 69).
 This demand was before the Boa-d of D lpciN iSorS at tneI; regular lpees Ing tiIe first Monday in Inis molta
 but Eo action was taken by he BoarSl- ne claim against the county, in the above named amount, is \set forth in typewriter document, made d part
 of the demand, and consisting as ap- proXlmately two hundred pages, and
 IS predicaJed with allegations Of dis honesty and untairness on the part or the county engineers, in relation to the work 70 be performed by the contractors on this section, such al
 legged dishonesty. unfairness, dillatori- ness, etc., placing an extra burden of cost upon the contractors. In one instance it is clalmed that afer a cer- | tain portion Of Section ? had been | completed and finished the Engineer | required the contractors to return to this finished portion approved by the
 engineer, and bring the road bed down to the grade stakes. Delay in being furnished estimates and specincations hri1OnS and ir s, al
 legged, also worked an undae hard
 snip, and in addition some of the
 classification estimates are objected to by the contractors.
 The amount ot 41,O13.69 is arrived at by the contracting firm as the l amount still due by making a show ing of the cost of doing the work on
 this section, plus fifteen per cent on l certain items, and then deducting
 the amount heretofore received on | this section under contract.
 .Thf proposition presented to the | Board of Supervisors took the form of | . prepared agreement for signctur l ty t1e contractors and Board oi sup | erFisors wherein U was set forth, that | in view Of the fact that there Wa 1 controversy existing over the | amount due cn said Section O. tae l Cliiton-Springervil:e road, an arhirra-
 ton board be agreed to, consistine. of | three members as follows: ons 1 member to be named by the State Engineer of Arizona, one member to be H. C. Mcllyeen, county engineer
 and one member to be Mr. w. R. Hutciiins, engineer for the contract
 ors. It was further proposed in the
 agreement that majority decision
 of the arbitration board would be h-
 nal and binding aon both parties there to.
 The agreement was presented to the
 Board by Messrs Kerby and HutcE- ins on behalf of the contractors. and
 after some discussion of the proposed
 agreement the County Attorney Claude Hooker, was called Into tho
 consultation. The county attorney
 held that the proposed agreement was
 not in conformity with the statutes q which provides a legal course of ar
 bitration to be pursued, and prohibits
 any of the interested parties being
 d member of the board of arbitration The county attorney holds that nei- l ther MT. Hutchins or MT. McIlveeR could act as arbitrators.
 Before adjournment the Board in-
 structed the county attorney to pre- pare an arbitration agreement in } conformity with the statutes and this proposed agreement will be up } for consideration between the Board } and the contractors on Monday even ing.
 The proposed arbitration of the
 claim of 41,013.69 on Section ? has t no connection with the claim of ap- / proXimately $21 ,000 - which was l awarded the contractors in the Sup i erior Court of Graham county last 5 month on Section l. from which yer e dict by the jury, an appeal to the l Supreme Court of the state has been 1 authorized.