The Waterbury Democrat., 1942-05-11


 On another charge, in which the state alleged the A. I. Savin Con- struction Co.,, was given exclusive information that wet fill could be used on the Hartford dike construc- ton, Pallotti asserted there is no question that the Savin Construc- ton company was appraised prior to the award of the contract by the highway department that it would be permitted to use wet fill. This information was given to no other bidders.
 Pallotti declared this was illegal and improper, contrary and not acc cording to specifications, served to make the contractor the sole bid- der"
 The attorney general demanded to know why was he (Savin) placed in position where he was enabled to set his own price for hydraulic fill?"
 Pallotti charged that since Cox's appointment in 1898 he had showed "an inability to cope with the prob- lems" of his department, and that the entire list of charges indicated incompetence"
 eff the commissioner didn't know what his Subordinates were doing, said Pallotti, then he is not fit tc be highway commissioner. If he knew what they were doing and didn't do anything about 1t, then he is not fit to be highway commis- sioner."
 State Referee George E. Hinman who is Gov. Hurley's deputy in the case, was expected to take about two weeks in which to make his re- port to the governor. Written briefs may be filed by beth sides within the next week.
 Defense Counsel Howard r. Berry presenting his summation after Pallotti concluded the states argu- ments, charge that "a concerted ef- fort to do the commissioner harm began in 1889, but was not brought out into the open until this year.
 Back in 1899, Berry said, former State Senator Charles J. Aragini Durham Republican, kept Com. missioner Cox's appointment in hi pocket. It looks as though there was a concerted effort to do thu commissioner harm. Here was thu opportunity come up in lo42. Ther' is something behind this which ha. never been brought out and vii not so far as this hearing is con cerned."
 Pallotti, he said, knew all about two Ledyard Bridge jobs of tn Gammino Constructions Co.,. ir 1889, which constituted one of thu major charges against the commis' 6ioner.
 He quoted PaiIotti as saying that something is wrong, something stinks,' and declared If he though it was miconduct in April 1889, why did he let it go for three years ant bring it up at this late hour? T just doesn't ring with any common sense at all.
 The evidence has not been giveT your honor. It has been withheld ai to where this information canll from. We don't know what's behind it all. The commissioner, they say Is an honest man, his integrity un' questioned"
 About the Etratford avenue bFidg job, Berry questioned the attitude of the attorney general t1 not al lowing a test of the bridge to D made and brought out ip testimony
 The attorney general, he said felt; we don't want any test Q that bridge. Why9 Because might be favorable to the eomnasg sloneF, That 1t might stand up Why not be faig9"
 Berry said he couldn't 'NpdeE stand Why the attorney genera should not bring suit or pOtioev up der the t60I000 performances bon of the commissioner which anaEan teed the departments contract would be faithfully followed.
 'sgheFe has been no notice, nl claim made under bls bond, alal there Is no intention 0f doing co, declared Berry,