St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-10-21
JACGER'S CHARGES.
Some Soft Bricks Have Been
Used in Constructing
Street Sewers,
But John Jaeger Fails to
Prove His Charges to the
Hit.
City Engineer Comes Out of
the Investigation With
Flying Colors.
Will Mr.. Jaeger Turn His
Back Upon the Chamber
Of Commerce !?

There has been no fraud practiced in
the construction of city sewers.
City Engineer Rundlett is not finan-
cially interested in the firm of Kirkland
& Starkey, contractors.
Such, in brief, is the report of the
committee appointed by the chamber of
commerce to Investigate the charge of
one John Jaeger. Mr.. jaeger recent
ly became member of the chamber of
commerce, and Sept. % he preferred
charges against the city engineer, and
set forth that the city was being robbed
of considerable amount of money by
the substitution of soft brick for hard
brick in the construction of sewers.
Messrs. w. A. Sommers. w. S. Morton
and T. Reardon were appointed COM
mittee of investigation. They reported
at yesterdays meeting of the chamb er
of commerce.
The committee. with Mr.. Jaeger, Wis
tied the Midway,::Furest street and other
sew ers in course of construction. The
folio wing pertinent excerpts are taken
from the report:
SO far as we can learn. the specifications
given by the brick contractors to the brick
makers. under which their contracts
forbrck were made. were in all cases
in all cases hard-burned brick only
is delivered Oh the work. we find not to
be true. The fault OF this originally, we
think. comes from the careleSsness of the
brickmakers i'll loading on the cars from the
kilns, necessitating the careful inspection of
all brick delivered on work We found an
occasional soft brick had been put in sewers.
but i'll no case did we find their use general,
nor any portion of any sewer built of soft
brick. We are of opinion that the sewers, so
far as we could tell from our examination of
those actually in course of construction and
by inspection in some parts already con-
structed. are we'll made, and will fully answer
the purposes for which they are Intended
We are however. of the opinion that soft
brick should not be used under any circum-
stances nor to any extent whatsoever, and
this can only be entirely avoided by more
rigid inspection of the brick which will also
necessitate additional expense. We are also
of the opinion that all brick should be IN
spected before 1t reaches the work. We are
also of the opinion that where a cheaper ma
terial IS allowed to be used, as is sometimes
done without detriment to the permanency of
tine work, the city should receive the benefit
of the difference in price. We found in
some cases stone being used for backing in
deep sewers of much less cost than the stone
called for in the specifications We think
this difference in cost should be credited to
the city.
We find no foundation for the charge that
there is "a general use of soft brick or any
inferior materials.
In The matter of the charges made against
the character of the city engineer by John
Jaeger inshS communication to the chamber
your committee find them to he without
foundation.
Your committee are of the opinion that
Mr.. Jaeger took the word of some person he
met on the street as q fact. and without TAX
ing the trouble to Substantiate the statements
of said person he made grave charges against
Mr.. Rundlettln public manner This is,
to say the least, reprehensible. Your COM
mittee found nothing to mpeach in any way
the personal honesty and integrity of the city
engineer.
Soft or Harde
In addition to personally making an
Investigation of the sewers, the COM
mittee held meeting, where Mr.. Jag
ger was allowed all opportunity to sub
stantiate his charge and City Engineer
Rundlett afforded the privilege of max
ing all explanation. A stenographer
was employed to take a note of what
was done. and from his transcript the
following leading questions and answers
are taken:
James S. Burris. brick manufacturer,
furnishes bricks to sewer contractors.
What is the character of the brickf'
"First-class sewer brick"
''Selected?''
selected sewer brick?''
"How many did you furnish?''
II furnished 200, 100"
what number, if any, were rejected?"
about 5000"
t'You say that after you have selected your
brick and shipped only what you consider to
be a good sewer brick, you still find that
about 5, 900 of those bricks were rejectedf''
'Yes; that is what is claimed by the con
tractor. He had me charged with 300
bricks
Mr.. Burris hod inspected the sewers.
Did you see the piles of rejected sewer
brick?''
Yes; saw one large pile off, suppose, 80
900 or 40. 600 or $1,000. and some other piles
back, which they said had been rejected
rs not that number of rejected brick I'M
usual?'
Yes: think SOL
"Well. there were several parties shipping
on that large contract and maybe some were
careless in loading. and it is evident TO my
mind that the inspector has been pretty
strict to get so many brick out Of them"
yourself brick to MinneapOliSf''
Eyes; / have sold brick there
What is the comparative inspection be-
tween Minneapolis and ST. Paul: Are they
more rigid there than in st. Paul?''
Eyes. they are. They have been underline
| inspection that sold under 1t is different
| system The city buy all The brick there ana
| one man inspects ali. The man who was in
| speeding brick when i sold them had in
| spected eight or ten years, and was very
rigid and arbitrary, and rejected brick that
were E0Ou Drlck sometimes.
'Then Won think Minneapolis is too rigid?''
''1t is, beyond all reason
Jaeger Is Wary.
John Jagge ia who preferred the
| charge against the city engineers de-
| partment, was examined. He had man
| ufactured bricks in st. Paul and con-
| tracted to sell sewer bricks.
when you sold that sewer brick did you
| sell it with the understanding that it was TO
| be hard-burned brickY'
| No audible answer.
with the understanding that it was to be
| sewer brick? and did you also have an agree
| ment in case the brick were not sewer brick
| the contractor did not have to pay for it?''
| 81 never had any such agreement"
ibid you have any prick shipped to con-
| tractors rejected?''
i tell you that has got nothing to do with
| this case. l will not answer that
''Then you refuse to answer the question"
| THAT is another point altogether. have
| made some brick here and sold to sewers,
| and have an interest in a brick yard to day,
but am not running it myself
I'm ST. Paul?''
Yes
"And You refuse 10 answer the question
whether any of your brick was rejectedf''
| mo. don't refuse. but | do not think Il
! has anything to do with this concern. You
will have to let me explain the whole matter.
l did fornish SEINE brick to the sewers. There
was some fault found, but l proved it they
were all right, and the board admitted them.
proved they were hard. Some of the en-
cheering department thought that they were
not hard, but 1 proved il, at the board of
public works, before Mr. Terry, MIR. Quinby,
Joe Mi ner and others and Mr.. Rundlett, that
they were hard, and the board told me to go
1l.