Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1877-11-21
That Bridge.

question is asked-Is it a steal? referring to
the extra charges of work done on Hustis-
ford street bridge. Having drawn the plans
and specifications and also superintendent
the work it is proper should explain. Last
winter while the work was being construc-
ted the then Committee on Streets and
Bridges directed the contractor to enlarge
the wings of the abntments to six feet at
the base and three feet at top instead four
feet at base and two feet at top, as the orig
inal plan contemplated, with anchor rods
l believed then and do now that the origi-
nal thickness Of walls was sufficient to
stand the test of frost and pressure of bank,
street bridge abutm ents, which are higher
and less in thickness and have stood for
over 20 wears. The Committee thought
differently and the extra IN this case, 40
cords of stone, or $3.50. The second change
was made in tho height of the pier and
abutments. The original heighth was 10
feet with slope descending to the bank OF
six inches. The Chairman of the Commit
tee on Streets and Bridges (Maertzke) in
sisted that they were not high enough, and
l believe majority of the Council colnslded
with him, and l8 inches were added
to their heighth This made an extra of
masonry and earthwork amounting to about
$3.50 more. After the southeast wing had
been constructed to high water mark,
Maertzke pulled a port ion Of it down and
commenced the construction of wall from
the: wing southerly to intersect wall pre-
viousy built by U. Habhegger on the line
fronting the street. When demonstrated
with against such proceedings he alleged
that he had the consent of FIVE members OF
the Council, and 1t should be built as be
desired. We have since learned that he
had not the consent OF FIVE members, nor OF
a majority-that Finn, Kusel, WILDER and
Olin did not consent to this change. 1t was
butt as he and U. Habhegger desired upon
the front of the latters lot for his benefit,
and no possible benefit to the public. And
now the city is called upon to pay several
hundred dollars as extra in consequence.
was requested TO make an estimate OF
the extra work and did so, according to my
Judgment, what was fair and equitable
charge against the city. 1t was referred to
special committee; that committee could
not agree. Mertzke opposing my report and
intimated that had favored the contractor,
that if German mad the contract my tsti-
mate of extras would be much less. The
result was the committee appointed two
German mechanics (master builders) Quint-
meyer and Roth, to examine into this mat
ter. and they have reported, as | understand
$500 more than my estimate. This disposes
of the chnrges that favored the contractor.
Without explanation it may seem strange
that experts in figures should not come
nearer together in an estimate of this kind.
In the first place l made no estimate for
pulling down and making crooked wall
on the line-U. Habbeggar's line-who in
sisted with Mertzke that it should be built
upon as they desired. If any charges were
who were interested in its construction and
whose interest it subserved and not against
the city.
In the second place, In my estimate of extra
stone work, | estima ted a cord of stone to
contain 128 cubic feet, the same as in the
original CONT act, and the same price per
cord as per resolution of the council.
have never seen any English authority for
estimatin cord of stone for any less than
12s cubic feet But our mechanics have a
different way ofcomputing. They estimate
cord of stone to contain only loo cubic
feet when measured in the wall. Thence
the difference in our estimates. Your read
ers may now judge where the steal, if any
comes in and who is responsible for it.
J. PRENTICE.
Watertown, Nov. 20, 1877.
In an article to be found elsewhere
which was in type before the above COM
munication was received, we have referred
to the claim of Mr.. Baxter. Our cores
pondent has alluded to certain features of
the case which have not heretofore been
considered because not generally known.
They show that there has been great irreg-
ularity in the building of the bridge in
question, and prove concusively that we
sounded the note Of alarm not a moment
too soon against the payment of a fraudu-
lent claim by the city. There needs to be
thorough overhaullng OF this whole mat
ter by the committee having it in charge,
chol1 fin lv hat Mr. Rov