The Waterbury Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1917-1946, 1942-02-05

Francis A. Pallotti's letter TO Gov
Robert A. Hurley, which was thu
basis from the governors suspension
Of Highway Commissioner William
Cox, Is as follows:
Dear Governor Hurley:
I feel 1t my duty to advise
you OF certain circumstances,
which have developed in connec-
ton with the preparation by my
office Of the defense Of a civil
action instituted by the M. A.
Gammino Company of Providence.
r. l., against the state.
Permission to sue the state
was granted by the present leg
islature to the Gammino COM
pany on a claim arising from
contract between it and the high
way commissioner for the con-
struction Of two small bridges
and approaches at Long Cove in
the town of Ledyard. This claim
first came to my attention In con-
nection with my duties as an ad-
wiser to the claims committee Of
the 1889 session OF the legislature.
At that time the former deputy
highway commissioner, E. G.
Weldon, appeared before the COM
mittee to recommend the
payment of $7,145.3 80 to the Gam
mino Company on their claim.
AS result Of his appearance
before the committee on April rs,
1889, and his recommendation the
committee approved the claim,
and favorably reported 1t TO the
House and Senate. An act
authorizing the payment Of the
claim was passed by both the
House and the Senate on May
I'd, 1899, and on May Sd, 1899,
respectively but as a result Of
reports subsequently coming to
the attention of the committee
that cast serious doubts upon
the validity Of the claim a COM
mittee of recall on May 18th,
1889, was originated and the act
recalled from the engrossing
clerk.
At that time I had occasion to
discuss the action of the com
mittee with William j. Cox,
highway commissioner, and
warned him of the substances OF
the reports reaching the claims
committee and urged that he
carefully consider the claim. A
few days thereafter, I received
from MI. Cox copy of a letter
dated June 2, 1899, addressed to
the Senate and House chairmen
of the claims committee, urg-
ing the payment Of the claim to
the Gammino Company on the
same basis as that originally
presented by Mr.. Weldon.
The claim as presented to the
committee and in Mr.. Cox's let
ter was based upon charges for
contractors equipment held idle
on the work due TO changes in
the plans and methods of con-
struction made by the state high
way department. AT that time
it was represented that de-
tailed schedule Of the idle equip
ment was made up from high
way department records.
Says Cooperation Lacking
I feel that I have failed TO
receive from the highway commits
sioner his full cooperation in my
investiga ton into this claim. On
August %, 1899, I wrote MI.
Cox personally requc ing pa
pers, cards, information and rec
ords, of whatever nature and de-
scription, pertaining to this mat
ter" In reply to that letter l
was furnished with merely a
very few papers with respect to
the claim which were OF no as
sistance TO me in determining the
validity Of the claim. 1t was not
until January 8, 1912, in response
TO further demands upon Mr..
Cox, that I was able to get the
information that considered per-
tincnt to my inquiry and that l
had previously asked for In my
letter OF August %, 1888.
] have now ascertained that
no record was ever kept of the
equipment held idle on the job
by the highway department dur
ing the periods of the claimed
delays but that schedule was
complied by the inspector In
charge at the direction of his
superiors several months after
wards. This schedule was the
basis Of the claim presented to
The legislature.
The per diem allowances for
the idle equipment and the per-
iods of time for which they were
to be made were given to the
inspector by his supe4iors in the
department. This claim for idle
equipment was the subject OF q
conference between representa-
tiVcs Of the contractor and the
highway commissioner, Mr.. We'll
den, Mr., Bushell, who was di-
rector Of engineering and con-
struction. the resident engineer
in charge. and the inspector. at
which an agreement on the ma
ture OF the claim was reached. /
have been unable TO ascertain
whether the schedule OF idle
equipment was made up just be-
fore or after this conference, but
have learned that the compila-
ton OF the schedule centers about
the aforesaid conference.
1t has been a distinct shock
TO me TO learn that this schedule
allowed the contractor payments
for claimed idle equipment for
Sundays and holidays when no
construction was In progress or
planned. Furthermore. have dis