The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-07-17
OBJECTIONS TO A CONTRACT.
Views of Interested CitizNas Regarding
the WashingtOn-Street Pavement.
Discussion of the Proposed Improvement at
Yesterdays Meeting and the Cost of the
Work-City Engineers Explanation.

glneer. met at the Office of the city
clerk yesterday afternoon. There were also
present many Of the property owners on
Washington street, between tho limits of the
| proposed improvement, towit between Della
ware and Tennessee streets, among whom were
Messrs- p. F. Claypool, Nicholas McCarty Rob
ert Browning, Jacob Becker John Huegele,
| William S. Hubbard and others. The specif-
cations of the proposed Improvement
were read. A protest signed by
property owners between Delaware and
Pennsylvania streets against the improvement
was also read, and general statement was
made by the city attorney and assistant attorney
in regard to the NATTER The chairman of the
COMMITTEES. Mr.. Cummings, called for remarks
on the subject by any of the persons present.
After several inquiries and statements on the
subject, John c. New stated that as a newspaper
man, his attention had been called to the
matter by some of the of the prop
erty, and that certain statements had been
made to him which had induced the
writing of an article or two in the Journal on
this subject While he was not personally the
owner of any property within the proposed linn
its. member of his family was the owner of
some property, and on her behalf, and as citi-
zen, he thought the contract should not be let at
| this time. As ne understood the matter, from
the statements made to him, the petition filed
by certain property-owners and the statements
made to them by the city engineer was that the
cost of the Improvement should not exceed $6 or
81 foot front to owners of abutting property,
the property-owne claimed that the letting
OF a contract at $l2. 40 per foot, the lowest Did
yUa 1f.iN ndH fQ
them. That street had been twice improved at
the cost of the property owners, first by laying
eighteen inches of screened river gravel and then
after few years by the present bowldering. 1t
was the understanding, and he had been in
formed that it was the understanding of others
that the ordinance and contract for the
last Improvement was that in con-
sideration of the property owners making
the improvement, thereafter the city
would keep the street III permanent repair with
out further cost to the property owners, further
than their share of the general taxes levied by
the city. The street was the general thorough
fare of the city, the main sewer OF the city had
been laid along 1t, at very large cost to the
| AUDITING property, beside tho per cent. of the
general taxes; the street had been torn up time
and again for the laying of water and gas MAINS
and especially by the street railway company.
The street railway company. by its original
charter was obliged to keep the street in repair
between its lines and for two feet
outside. The railway company now denied
their liability, and it is uncertain what their
liability might be- The cost of this improve
ment had been raised from less than 81 to more
than $l2 for front foot each side, and the peo-
pie who had talked with him on the subject
thought they should at least have right to
know what sort of improvement it was they were
called upon to pay for So far as he they
knew, the proposed surface stone had not been
tried pavement, andSAey were unwilling to
be at so great an expense without. at least, time
and opportunity to investigate the subject.
1akINo ii NNrxy -
statements.
Councilman benjamin wanted to know who
was authorized to change the specifications after
they had once been determined on
Engineer Shearer said the changes had been
made in the Council and the Board of Aldermen
This would answer the insinuation made by Mr.
Huegele that one might suppose if the engineer
said it would cost ST. it would really cost $11 per
foot
The suggestion that concrete foundation in
stead of sand foundation be put in. had been
made by the committee, which went to St Louis
and inspected the pavements there. The
same kind of pavement in St Louis cost
$18 per front foot. The st. Louis authorities
had said that if such a pavement were built on
a sand foundation the water would get into the
sand and then, by freezing. would make the
pavement uneven. Not only St. Louis, but
Louisville, Cincinnati, Cleveland and Chicago,
used such foundation with such street.
Inquiry developed the fact that the stone it is
proposed to use here had never, to the knowl-
edge of the engineer been used for q street
pavement, except in Terre Haute Mr.. Hubbard
said some of the stone on lot near the canal
fifty years ago, had largely disintegrated
The city engineer replied that the stone
laid Oh the lot was taken from poorer
stratum than the stone proposed for the street
He further sad that the bid was $l2. 40 per foot
front. including the cost of CURLING. Deducting
the 81. 63 to be paid by the streetcar company,
the cost to the property owners and the city
would be only So n per foot
The city attorney said that if this amount
could not ba collected from the street-car com
pany the property owners would not have to pay
it. The ordinance made the contractor look to
the company for part of his pay. The compa-
ny, however, did not propose to pay for the inn
provenaent even between its tracks. if tcould
avoid it.
Alderman King moved that the committee re-
port in favor of awarding the contract under the
ordinance as amended.
Mr. New said the property owners wanted to
do what was best for their own interest 1t was
to their interest to have good street. but they
did not want to be mulcted. The petition mad
contemplated that the cost should be what it
was first estimated it would be. A committee
had gone off to St Louis, came back and said
they would fix the the street to suit
themselves. The proceeding was not fair.
1t was not straightforward. The street
was experimental Suppose it should not last
five years! Speaking of the agreement made by
the city years ago that it would in the future
keep the street in repair, Mr., New said that as a
lawyer he would hold that the city was bound
by it. The best way to do would be to appoint
a committee of the property owners, and let
them say what they wanted
Mr. E. F. Claypool said he knew nothing
about the legal aspects of the matter but he
thought the street was in. bad condition. and
he was willing to bear his share of the expense.
He knew something of the kind of paving it
was proposed to use, and thought the bid was
reasonable
Mr. Fulmer the lowest bidder for the work.
said that he had put in four weeks figuring on
the street, and that he would not. under any cir
cumstances, bid one cent less than he had al
ready done.
On motion of John Huegele, the committee ad-
iourned to meet again Monday afternoon, and it
is desired that more of the property holders be
present then and express themselves. Nearly
all of fhnca mating nrannsad