Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-06-24

ing the city which was awarded TO US Oy
the lamp committee, we submit the fol-
lowing statement to you, and if your pro-
posal was issued in good faith We do lot
see how the award can be set aside by mis-
and other questions.
The new company claims to light 3l1
lamps at s1S, amounting to 50, We
can light 26l lamps at 1855 or "a, 1865,
leaving difference in our favor OF
81 ,461.15.
Now there is so lamps difference to be
lit with oil at $3.50, amounting to 81, l15.
To this add the saving on bills at the mar
ket house, etc, of $50, and there is still
difference in our favor OF 1886, which We
claim our bid is lower than theirs.
Now in regard to digging up the streets,
We are prepared to give you all the security
the city may require that they will be re-
stored as found by us.
We propose to extend our pipes, and
wherever it is possible, as suggested by
the lamp committee, replace the oil lamps
with gas.
Having formerly had connection with
most of the gas lamps it will require little
digging to recOnnect them.
GEORGE X. REED.
June %. 1880.
Mr.. Zecher presented the following:
LANCASTER. June %, 1880.
William johnson, esq, Chairman Lamp
COmmittee.
DEAR SIR: We have been informed
that our proposition to extend our mains
to large number of oil lamps and light
them at $50 has been accepted by COM
mon council but no action taken in the
select councils.
Since the date of that proposal there
has been considerable declines in the price
of pipe, and labor abundant, it would he
an advantage to extend our mains ut this
time.
We will propose to reach ut least G3 oil
lamps and light them at slS per lamp.
Our company will then light 374 lamps
at slS, making 81, 732.
The Lancaster gas company will light
241 lamps at $15.S5, making So. S29.S5,
leaving 1873 lamps to be lighted by oil at
$3.50, 50, 1850 or total of $6,9l5.33I
against 81, 742 or a saving of S213.35 by
our proposition, and obviate the necessity
of digging up the streets.
Yours respectfully,
j. H. BAUMGARDNER, Secretary.
Lancaster Gas Light and Fuel Company.
Mr.. Eberly thought that councils ought
not to consider the last proposition from
the new company. Proposals We're
advertised for, and councils ought only
consider the proposals received then. lie
made a lengthy argument in favor OF the
sold y company, reviewing all the advan
tages claimed in Mr.. Reeds cOmmunica-
ton.
MIR. Zecher suggested that as one of the
companies had admitted that labor and
materials are cheaper, proposals should
again be asked for from bOtl companies.
Mr. Shenk then offered a resolution that
the contract be referred back to the lamp
committee with instructions to advertise
for new proposals and report to councils.
He also hoped that before the contract was
tending the time of the contract to three
years.
Mr.. Eberly argued further against the
pOstpOnement and for the giving of the
contract to the ''Old'' company, and
Messrs. Shenk, Franklin, Zecher and Bor-
ing argued for the postponement.
The vote on the resolution was finally
taken and it was adopted by the following
vote:
Yeas-Messrs Boring, Franklin, Judith.
les, Shenk and Zccher.
Nays-Messrs Eberly and Evans.
Adjourned.
Common Council.
The clerk of common council being ab-
sent, on motion of Mr.. Beard, J. NJ. john
ston was chosen to act as clerk, pro- tenn.
The roll being called the following
named members answered :
Messrs. Barnes, Beard, Boos, Berger,
Brown, COrmeny, Davis, DOwney, Hart
ley, Hays, Hershey, Johnson, Keeler,
Lichty, McMullen, Smeych, Sprecher,
Springer, StOrmfeltz, White, iackly.
president.
President Leversood stated that the
special meeting had been called to consider
the matter of awarding contracts for light
ing the city and increasing the width of
the pavements on North Queen street and
elsewhere.
President Levergood also stated that he
had received Communications from the
(olD Lancaster gas company" and the
(new) Lancaster gaslight and fuel com
pany,' relative to lighting the city for the
ensuing year. AS common council had
already acted in this matter and it was
now pending before select council, he
deemed it improper to take any action ut
present.
On motion the communications were re-
ceived and filed.
Mr.. McMullen presented a petition,
signed by more than two-thirds of the
owners OH the first square Of
North Queen street, praying that the side
walks ON each side of said street may he
made two feet wider than they are at
present. The petitioners say that the
street is now AZ feet wide between the
curbs, and as it is about being paved with
Belgian blocks the proposed reduction of
the width of the roadway will not interfere
the width of the sidewalks will greatly ac-
the public, especially the mar
ket people and the business men along said
street. Mr.. McMullen stated that only
nine property owners on the street had
failed to sign the petition; several of
these lived in the country and had not
been seen one of them was in Europe
and another who favored the widening of
the pavements had refused to sign because
one of his neishboring property owners
had refused to subscribe his share towards
paving the street with Belgian blocks. In
view of all the facts, and believing that