St. Paul daily globe., 1888-08-11

not find that bids were ever received by
! the city cOnncil for doing the work
PERFORMED BY BADGER & PENNEY,
and Anderson, Douglas & Co. under the
| above mentioned contracts. or that any
| action was ever taken by the city coun-
| Gil in reference thereto. We do find,
| however, that bids were received On the
| 18th day of June, 1887. for grading
Twenty-fourth street between Lyndale
and Hennepin avenues.-a piece of work
| similar to that performed by said Bad
| ger q Penney on Twenty-fourth Street;
! and that the lowest bid for such work.
conditioned upon payment in 1888, was
1SH cents per cubic yard; and we find
that all of the work performed by Bad
| ger d Penney, and Anderson, Douglas
| d Co., under said contracts, was at a
less price than usual for similar grad
ing. We find that W. j. Bowen, in adj
| dition to the work specified in his
said contract, graded Lake street
between Lyndale and Nicollet
avenues, for which he was allowed
| sixth street, from Grand to Lindale ave-
nues, for which he was allowed 10
cents per cubic yard; that he also
graded an alley and laid cross-walk at
an expense of $3.50; that the work
upon Twenty-Sixth street from Grand
avenue to Lyndale avenue was rem
| dered necessary by the condition in
which the other grading left said Twen-
ty-siXth street at that point: and that
the grading of Lake street, from Lyn-
dale to NicOllet avenues. was included
in his original bid, and was ordered
done in connection with and as a part
of his said contract. We find that
| Charles Filteau, in addition to the work
| Cnlclfln6 N ntIoa dnH irtu
third street, from. Bryant avenue to
Colfax avenue, and the intersection of
| Thirty-third street and Colfax avenue.
| We find that this work was rendered
necessary by the grading of the adjacent
| streets, in order to protect the city from
damages that were liable to be incurred
by the overflow OF water in case such
work was not done, and that it was
ordered in connection with his the said
| Filteau's) contract. We find that the
difference in the bids of w. J. Bowen
and Roach & Wilson for cash or 1888
| payment, II cents per cubic yard, was
intended to realize 8 per cent interest
| upon the deferred payments; while the
difference in the bid of Charles Filteau
| for cash or 1888 payment, 124 cents per
cubic yard, was intended to represent
| about 10 per cent interest On deferred
payments. We find that the contract
| price for all of the work performed
by the above mentioned parties
was not higher than usual for
similar work done in the eighth
ward and throughout the city;
that all the work done was proper street
work, and it was done under the direc-
ton of the city engineer and to his sat
isfaction; that all of the contractors in
question acted in good faith, thinking
they had legal contracts with the city;
but we also find that they were negli-
gent in not seeing that all proper steps
had been taken by the city council, and
that their contracts had been duly exc
cuted by the city. We find that the bills
for performing all of the work hereinbe-
fore mentioned were go. K" by Alder
men Cooley and StOneman, and that all
of said bills, with the single exception
of those rendered by W. j. Bowen, were
also 30. K" by Aid: Lawrence, and
that they were all marked as correct by
the city engineer. We find that Badger
d Penney have no claim against the
Eighth ward for any other services than
those performed by virtue of the con-
tracts above mentioned, and that no
such claims have ever been presented
to or recognized by the aldermen of the
Eighth ward. We find the following
to be
THE CLAIMS NOW OUTSTANDING
against the Eighth ward: Badger &
Penney's claim for work done under
their alleged contracts, dated April 90,
1887. and July s, 1887, amounting to
1902. IL: w. J. BOWen'S claim for work
done under his alleged contract, dated
June %, 1887, including work above
mentioned, added by the city engineer,
amounting to Sl1,325.50; Charles
FIlteau'S claim for work done under
contract dated June %, 1887 including
work above mentioned, added by the
city engineer, amounting to S7,114.57.
Roach & Wilson's claim for work done
under their alleged contract, dated June
25, 1887. amounting to S2.O01,7O: Ander-
son, Douglas & Co.'s claim for work
done under their alleged contract, dated
Aug. 20, 1887, amounting to S399.72, and
the claim of Palmer d Co. for work
done under a contract not in dispute,
amounting to S529.64; being in all the
sum of 26,S72.50.
We find that there is at present i'm the
city treasury to the credit of the Eighth
ward fund S15,596.27; that there are
taxes levied, payable to said fund, still
| uncollected, amounting to about $4,000;
of which amount some $500 will be
paid prior to the November settlement,
1888.
we lluu GildU Iilt GdNdDlG property OI
| the Eighth ward for the year 1883 will
be about sl1.2OO,OOO; upon which there
| may be realized for ward purposes
during the year 1889 S2S, 900; that all of
| said claims can be paid out of the
| moneys now on hand and which may be
received at the March and June settle
mentS, 1889, and still leave in the city
! treasury, to the credit of the Eighth
ward street fund, for current expenses
| during the year 1889, about the sum of
| $4,000.
FROM THE FOREGOING STATEMENT OF
| FACTS
| your committee is of the opinion that
Notwithstanding there was no formal
motion or resolution passed by the city
council directing the grading, which
was done by Charles Filteau, to be
| uOne, or contract to be made with him
| for doing the same, the fact that the
city council directed the city engineer
to advertise for bids for doing the work,
and referred such bids as were received
to the aldermen OF the Eighth ward to
| consider, and contract was executed
in due form by said Filteau and the
proper city officers for the performance
| of said work in accordance with said
bid, and at the time said contract was
executed by the city that there was
money in the treasury belonging to or
provided for said ward sufficient to pay
for said aforementioned work, the
claim of Charles Filteau is a legal claim.
The claims of W. j. Bowen and Roach
s. Wilson are different from that of said
Fiiteau's only in one very material par
ticular. viz: That Notwithstanding
there were contracts drawn for that
work and signed by Messrs. w. j.
Bowen and Roach and Wilson, they
were not signed by the proper city Of
ficials, or countersigned by the city
comptroller. We believe that the work
was done by said parties in good faith;