Year: 1879

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC PARKs)


New YORK. Sept. A. 1879.
To THE EDITOR THE HERALD


Two questions raised by the matters presented
by Mr.. Wenman at the Board meeting Wednes
day. as published in the reports of the papers
day.


Flrst-whether the work on the Riverside drive is
well done. In my judgment it is not. The original
design has been maltreated and the work ought not
to be paid for. On this ground have voted against
the payments to the contractors, and when the
cent estimates were passed by my associates sent
my reasons to the Comptroller and to the Mayor II
the work is well done. and my objections unten-
able, the Mayor and Comptroller are competent to
decide and if the decision in favor of the contract
ors they will get their money.


Engineer McAlpine is not the final arbiter. as he
supposes The PARK Board must exercise their judg-
ment. and so must the Comptroller and the Mayor.
The Assessors ana the Supreme Court also must DO
so when they hear the objections Of the property
owners. This Is not one OF the cases where can
not Ego behind the returns


do my duty in raising this question. 1t is not
to be decided by one-sided statements, but by au-
thority aud it is enough at present to say that the
certificates OF Engineer Franklin in October 1878,
although then supported by Engineer McAlplne.
pronounced incorrect by mission OF civil
engineers consisting of Messrs. Worthen, Haswell
and Bogert. and all payments have been stopped


BY his letter Engineer McAlpine seems to support
Engineer Franklins errors instead of amending
them. This question will be decided by the Comp
troller and Mayor whether on the it is pre-
sented to them, they will sign and deliver the
rant for the payment to the That is the
point now.


.Second-whether was Influenced in my action by
the payment of $500 any part OF it, From the
statements of MIR. Wenman 1t to be clear that
Mr.. McEncroe paid $500 to gentleman whose name
is suppressed, and my letters to him for other pur
poses used to support inference that the money
came to me. never received it any part of it.
nor was u party to any arrangement about it, But
am taking steps to find out where that $500 is. and
to il the person who paid and the person who
are not criminaliy liable. When the Gentleman who
received it, and who now chooses to suppress his
name. will reveal himself and show the check 1
think the job that has been put up On me will be
apparent without another word.


voted against the resolution of Investigation on
Wednesday because the recital Of grave rumors and
reports through the public press not sufficient
grounds, and because the statutory powers OF the
Mayor that he shall entertain charges" and give
the lPculpated officer hearing He has power
to investigate rumors and newspaper reports, and
think that he and the public have had enough of
irregular and futile proceedings against public off,



The pretended charges and proofs which nowhere
touch me but by himsy differences, should have
been laid before the Board in the shape of solid
charges and proofs, and then would have voted for
any regular effective investigation, but they knew
very we'll that the attempt to form uate this trash
would end it, and that the only they could
make OF it was sensational scandal. As / now see
that my negative vote the resolution may be mis-
apprehended, have asked the secretary to change
1t and to record my vote in the Affirmative.


hope public attention will not be drawn from
the main question by such false and unsupported
personal attacks. 1t is weak device Of my associ-
to seek entertain the public by the personal
and sensational aspects of serious question.
have made all my points without disrespectful Ian
guage and without personal wrangling. The issue
is whether public officer who in the strict line of
his duty tries to compel honest work and good
management. is to be crippled by such base attacks
these am not afraid Of the result. Very re-
spectully, SMITH L. LANE.