Los Angeles herald., 1891-11-17

with at increase pro rata for every mile
over 90.
Frank Chenowith, Studebaker or 9TH
er, 1924 per wagon per day.
LIE Grand Belts, iron tanks, district
l., $2.57; H., $2.63; I'LL, $3.50; ~.
$2.47 or, whole city, $31.50 for graded
and $24 for paved streets per mile per
month.
J. T. Davis, Miller or Studebakel
wagons, 1919 per day.
All the bids were referred to the board
of public works.
STREET GRADING BIDS.
A bid from J. 7. Davis for grading
Wilde street, 81 80 per foot, and the same
bid for Sixth street, were referred to the
board of public works. Mr.. McGreel
bid $500 per lineal foot for completing
Pink street, j. M. Hegeler wanted
$3.50 for the same work. Same refer
ence.
zANJA CLEANING BIDS.
For cleaning and repairing zanja No.
z, Frick Bros. bid was $1400, and
Robert S. Bakers $3.50. Referred to
the zanja committee.
THE PEARL-FIGUERoA STREET PAVING
MATTER.
The mayors veto of the paving con-
tract of Figueroa and Pearl streets,
awarded to the Bituminous Lime Rock
Paving company, was read as published
in full in yesterdays HERALD.
Mr.. Rees moved that the vote on
Figueroa street be reconsidered. Re-
marks were then called for from prop
erty owners, but there was no response.
Mr.. Rhodes then declared that mas
much as the bid was ac-
knowledgedly not excessive, and
there was very little probability
of obtaining better bid on readvertis-
ing, he was in favor of making the
award to the single bidder, notwith-
standing the objection of the mayor.
The award was then passed over the
veto by s ayes to no.
The reconsideration of the vote on
Pearl street from Pico to Sixth, was
then proceeded with, Mr.. Rhodes max
ing a motion to sustain the veto. A
number of citizens owning property on
Pearl street talked on all sides of the
question, and several contractors and
their agents took part in a discussion
which eventually resembled a rather
inane wrangle. Eventually, Mr..
Rhodes's motion prevailed. and the city
clerk was instructed to readvertise for
bids for paving Pearl street, between
Pico and Sixth streets.
THE BROADWAY OPENING.
All the councilmen were present at
the session in the afternoon. Protests
were read against the opening and ex-
tending of Broadway from Tenth to Main
street. The protestants objected to the
proposed improvement on the ground
that it is not necessary just now and that
it would be great injustice. The pro-
tests were denied. An ordinance. was
ordered prepared that work be proceeded
with at once, and that G. M. Wells, j.
H. Book and Frank RAIDER assess dam
ages and awards.
MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS.
A contract was entered into with r.
s. Baker to repair and enlarge zanja
No. 7.
The finance committee recommended
that the tax collector be instructed to
furnish the council with list of the real
estate agents.
The council was asked to inspect
specimen of the water from the pipes of
the city water company.
The recommendations made by the
board OF public works were adopted.
The matter OF sidewalking Thirtieth
street was referred back.
The ordinance of the city engineer, es-
tablishing the grade of Prospect Place,
was passed.
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE WIRES.
The important matter of the Sunset
Telephone company, for a franchise for
maintaining a system OF underground
conduits for its wires, was next taken
up. The provisions of the franchise are
that the company must expend not less
tbaa $4,000 in conduits between the
Plaza and Sixth street during the first
year, and the same amount the next
year. The telephone company also
agrees to furnish fifty free telephones
for the public service. Also to furnish
bonds for carrying out the provisions of
the franchise.
City Attorney Mcfarland stated that
every protection for the city had been
put in the franchise.
Councilman Tufts thought that the
size of the conduit should be fixed. He
also stated that it would be we'll to de-
lay action for one week.
Councilmen McGarrv and Rees coin
cided with Councilmen Tufts, but mo-
tion to that effect was voted down by 6
to 3. The franchise was granted by a
vote of 6 to3.
In this celebrated case there:was an
other little affair in which his honor
displays his proclivity to establish dan
gerous precedents, which he 80 emphat-
ically deprecates in his last message,
and shows again how his hand is in
clined in the direction of that emergency
fund. The case being decided in favor
of the city, the attorneys representing
the city were required to advance the
jury fees, amounting to $54. Did the
mayor advance this sum, and then pre-
sent requisition and demand, in the
usual way? Not exactly. Mr.. Robin
son, his efficient clerk, was directed to
draw on the emergency fund, which
claim in this case was not legal, because
the amount was in excess of $25. The
difficulty was overcome by drawing two
checks for $25 each and one for 81. Sec
ton of the emergency fund ordinance
says: "That in no case shall the
amount of one check exceed the sum of
$685." 1t is reasonable to suppose that
the intent of that clause is that no
claim exceeding $25 shall be paid out OF
this fund.
l fully agree with the mayor, ''that
the bars which the charter has wisely
provided for the protection of public
moneys should not be thrown down."
- L l. L -