The Waterbury Democrat., 1942-07-28
Text or Gouernor flu rley's Report Reinstating Commissioner Wn1. J Cox

Gov. Robert A. Hurley's order fol the reinstatement of Highway Com missioner William J. Cox is con. tained in a seven-page finding sub- mitted to Secretary of State Chase Gcing Woodhouse. The governors decision was based on 8 43-pagt report by State Referee George Hinman, who conducted the lengthy trial at the State Capitol.
 The text of Gov. Hurley's finding follows:
 July 27, 1942. Mrs. Chase Going WoodhouSe Secretary of the State of
 Connecticut
 State Capitol
 Hartford, Connecticut
 Dear Madam Secretary:
 On the fourth day of February, 1922, the Attorney General direct ed my attention to alleged mis- conduct, material neglect of duty, and incompetence in the conduct of office on the part of William J. Cox, State Highway Commis- sioner. Immediately thereafter, in the light of my statutory respor- sibility, suspended Commissioner Cox, pending complete investi- gation of the Attorney Generals allegations. In my desire to have the parties and their witnesses heard in an atmosphere of com- plete impartiality and by agree ment of all parties in interest, I, on March IS, 1942, deputized Honorable George Hinman, State Referee of Connecticut, to preside and to make written statement of the facts which he found to have been proven. This finding of facts was delivered to me on the 17th day of June, 1942, and copy is annexed hereto to become a portion of the permanent record.
 Essential Objectives
 Since the receipt of Referee Hinman's finding, I have devoted countless hours to consideration of the matter. Throughout this re- search, I have had two essential objectives before me: l. To att tempt to scrutinize the honesty and good faith of William Cox in the discharge of his duties as State Highway Commissioner. 2, To determine whether certain off, cial acts of Commissioner Cox could fairly be construed as a dereliction of duty.
 The Attorney General has ex- pressly disclaimed any charge that Commissioner Cox was actuated by corrupt or malicious motives in any of the acts or omissions all legged against him. Supplementing this disclaimer of the Attorney General, my close analysis of the testimony and Referee Hinman's finding convinces me there can be no question concerning Commis- sioner Cox's complete personal honesty and good faith in the conduct of his department. state this conviction as conclusion.
 Having established the integrity of Commissioner Cox, the next line of inquiry logically directs it. self to an attempted determina- tion of whether certain of his official acts can fairly be con- strued as a dereliction of duty. My study convinced me that errors and inadequacies of Judgment were present, on occasion, in the management of the State High way Department. These will be al- luded to in detail hereafter. How ever, am impelled to the con- clusion that these errors and in- adequacies, while warranting pulp lie attention and immediate cor rection, are not such as to form a basis for the removal of Com missioner Cox. It should be noted that these errors and mistakes, in the main, were the acts of sub- ordirates within the Highway De- partment, rather than the acts of Commissioner Cox.
 In connection with the redeck- ing of the Stratford avenue bridge at Bridgeport, the contract was awarded to Mariani Construction Company, the lowest responsible bidder. There was no evidence of collision, fraud, or impropriety. It is true that Commissioner Cox conditioned the award of this con- tract upon an agreement of Mar iani Construction Company to per- form other construction work, embraced in a second contract. I cannot approve the practices of exacting agreements from any contractor prior to the award of contract to him. While the agree ment exacted in this matter was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the State of Connec- ticut, nevertheless the practice, if resorted to frequently Or even oc- casionally. might well give rise to serious implications and results.
 Types Of Fill
 The Attorney General alleged, in conjunction with the construc- ton of the Riverfront Boulevard at Hartford, that officials of the Savin Construction Company, the successful bidder, were advised by subordinates in the State Highway Department that they might em- ploy hydraulic i'll, as opposed to dry i'll, in preparing 8 founda- ton for this boulevard; that the successful bid of the Savin Con- struction Company was prepared with this information at hand; and that competing bidders were not made aware of the Highway Departments willingness to accept