would be considerably lighter, and also less expensive. Subsequent investigations, however, satisfied me that, for structures of equal strength, the difference in weight between wood and iron is less than I had supposed, and, in view of the increased durability of iron over wood, it would be better to incur the additional first cost.

The estimates, however, had been submitted to the Committee on Bridges for doing the work according to my original plan for the sum of $60,000.00, and an order introduced in the Board of Aldermen, authorizing the committee to make the repairs, etc., at an expense not exceeding my estimate, and authorizing the Treasurer to borrow the sum of $60,000.

When these orders reached the Council, the following proviso was appended:

"Provided, that no portion of this money shall be expended until the Committee on Bridges shall have advertised for plans and proposals for rebuilding said bridge, and a contract made with responsible parties to complete the entire structure for $60,000.00, or less, upon a plan satisfactory to the City Engineer: This proviso was attached in Common Council, May 26, and passed by a vote of 49 yeas, to 1 nay. In Board of Aldermen, May 30, the order, as amended, was concurred in by a unani

mous vote.

At a meeting of the Committee held soon after the passage of the foregoing orders, the following notice submitted by the City Engineer, was approved by the Committee, the same to be publicly advertised:

CITY OF BOSTON.

NOTICE TO BRIDGE BUILDERS.

Plans, specifications and sealed proposals will be received at the office of the City Engineer, until Thursday, June 30th, at 12 o'clock, M., for making all necessary alterations and re-con

struction on the Mount Washington Avenue Bridge, draw, drawpier and abutments. The right is reserved to reject any or all plans and proposals.

By order of the Committee on Bridges.

WALTER E. HAWES, Chairman."

At the same meeting the Engineer desired instructions from the Committee as to what disposition should be made of the plans already prepared by him. Should they be withheld from public inspection, and parties desiring to submit plans of their own, be told to go and examine the bridge for themselves, and get their own information as best they could, and make their own suggestions; or, should I offer free access for all who desired to examine the plans already made, and inform them that they were free to bid upon the plans as they were, or to submit any new plan or modification of the old one, and bid upon those?

It was unanimously agreed by the Committee and myself, that the plans already made, and all information in the possession of the Engineer should be placed at the disposal of all parties, and that parties applying be informed that it was the desire of the committee that the bridge in its present condition should be examined, and that full liberty was accorded to make any changes or modifications in the style of drawbridge, or methods of repairs suggested by the Engineer, it being the wish of the Committee to secure the best plan for doing the entire work within the limits prescribed by the order.

I stated to the Committee that I would afford every facility in my power to parties desiring to bid or submit plans, and that I was not so tenacious of my own plan or so conceited in reference to my own ability in the matter as to preclude an impartial judgment upon the plans of others.

The advertisement for plans, specifications and proposals was inserted in the papers June 14, and parties given until the 30th

to prepare plans and specifications. The time was afterwards extended to the 6th of July, and during this interval every facility in my power was impartially given to all parties who desired information as to what I deemed requisite to put the bridge in first-class order, preserving what was already good.

On the sixth of July the proposals were opened by the committee at the office of the City Engineer.

There were nine propositions received from seven different parties, one party making three separate propositions. There were five different plans of drawbridges submitted, besides the original one prepared by the Engineer. In every case but one the City Engineer's plan for repairs of the approaches to the draw were used and estimated upon by the parties submitting proposals. At this meeting the plans were partially examined and discussed, a schedule of the proposals made, and the specifications and proposals filed and indorsed. The committee adjourned to meet on the following Monday, the eleventh, it being understood that the Chairman and Engineer should, in the mean time, visit New York and vicinity to examine iron drawbridges and the methods of operating, and also to afford the Engineer an opportunity of critically examining the several plans submitted. The visit was made and we came home fully decided to discard the original plan of a wooden truss and to confine the selection to those plans of iron that came within the limits of $60,000, prescribed by the order.

On Monday the Committee met at the office of the clerk of Committees. The City Solicitor was present at the opening of the meeting; the chairman, the clerk of Committees and the City Engineer were present during the entire session, and the other members of the Committee were present most of the time. The City Solicitor's opinion was asked in reference to the powers of the Committee under the order, and the proper course to pursue. His reply was, in substance that the order conferred no power upon the Committee to make a contract, and that, having

advertised for and received plans and proposals, it was the duty of the City Engineer to indicate which plan he preferred, and then, if the committee coincided, to report to the Board of Aldermen, an order authorizing a contract to be made for the execution of such plan.

There were two propositions covering the original wooden trussed drawbridge of the City Engineer and his plans for the remainder of the work, and one for a "Howe truss " wooden drawbridge, and the Engineer's plan for the rest of the work.

These three were set aside, as the Engineer expressed his preference for the plans of iron trusses or girders. Two of the plans and propositions, covering the cost of very substantial iron drawbridges combined with the Engineer's plan for the rest of the work were also set aside as the proposals exceeded the sum of $60,000.

One proposition was set aside as not conforming to the requirements of the advertisement, covering only a portion of the work. And another proposition was not deemed admissible, as it was a bid made by one party upon plans submitted by another.

Th eplans and propositions were now reduced to two, one covering the cost of a drawbridge with iron cords and ties, and wooden diagonal bracing, combined with the Engineer's plan for the balance of the work. The other was for a drawbridge with plate iron girders, combined with a modification of the engineer's plan for the rest of the work. Of the two plans I decidedly preferred the latter, the girders being entirely of iron, and it was, in fact, simply a modification of my original plan, with iron girders substituted for the wooden trusses. The dif ference in cost, however (the one I preferred costing $4,700 more than the other), caused me to hesitate before expressing my preference to the Committee; but, recalling the Solicitor's opinion, I felt it to be my duty to express to the Committee my reasons for preferring the more costly of the two plans, and, as

both were within the limit of $60,000, let the Committee decide. By the terms of the Order the plans must be satisfactory to the City Engineer; and the Committee, feeling that they must be governed in the matter of selection by his choice, voted to recommend to the Board of Aldermen the passage of an order authorizing the Committee on Bridges to contract with Messrs. Ross and Lord for rebuilding Mt. Washington avenue bridge, piers and abutments in accordance with plans and specifications submitted by them and approved by the City Engineer, for the sum of $56,000.

An order was accordingly introduced in Board of Aldermen that afternoon, and after long discussion was recommitted.

July 25th. The same order was reported back by a majority of the Committee, and after being discussed considerably, was passed.

I have been more prolix, perhaps, in reciting the history of this matter than the subject itself would warrant; but, recalling the somewhat heated controversies in relation to it, and the insinuations of favoritism, if not unfairness, in awarding the contract, or rather in making the selection, and desiring to correct, if possible, the effect of some inaccuracies of statement made during the discussions of the matter, I have felt it to be my duty in this connection to state the facts in the case as they actually were.

The whole difficulty in this matter was well stated by a member of the Board of Aldermen during the discussion when he said, "that, by allowing the adoption of this amendment, the difficulty had arisen of everybody bidding upon his own plans without competition."

The contract with Messrs. Ross & Lord was signed August 11th, the understanding being that the bridge was to be closed to public travel so that work could be commenced Aug. 20th and finished Dec. 1st; but, to accommodate certain special business on Boston Wharf, the time for closing the bridge was