The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-02-03
THE HorsE or DELEGATES.
Lssesy Ds.cussson over PROPOSED Meas

last EJEtts The 0Ez5Dafce syT1Tt3E8ES 10
I se1rIe xz-A NJ Benezette Williams by pay
sneat q $1,000 and 100 for sewer plans
canse fyp=n the board and was read
M Earferd proposed 70 refer y 70 the
sgd5rss-r ecsrgrssxte 1sEzI0n Mr.. shipley's
suggestion The house vent into committee
csf the whoze. With NJ, Willis In the chair.
Al the request OF the house, MT. Kit
1z-sger related the circumstances connected
WITH the eayageneut Of Mr. Williams. and
the present position He maintained that
Mr.. Williams had Just claim against the
city for 8 certain amount The practice Of
his profession would allow him about
szsgg0. and be thought, therefore. that
81 30 would he fair compromise.
Nr Hanford denied that the Cedar river
scheme had been adopted.
Mr.. Bzgiey thought the 5000 reason
abe price for sewerage plans; for his part
he did not think Mr. Williams had been
authorized TO make the Cedar river plans
Nr. Kittinger said the city had certainly
ordered these plans drawn, and had spent
Si5.1o0 for surveys for his use.
Mr. Hanf0rd said it was the under
standing that Mr.. Williams should not Re
paid for the Cedar river scheme unless Il
was adopted. He thought If Mr. Williams
were paid = per cent. on the work done and
the work contracted for, i was about
just settlement and sE2ch - the taxpayers
had right 10 demand a. the hands Of this
council.
Judge Jacobs thought II would be for
the interest CT the city 10 settle with Mr.
Williams on account Of the uncertainties
that seemed 10 surround the matter. X IS
a notorious fart that On the day before
the signing Of the contract with Mr..
Williams the city did accept the Cedar
river system. but the contract closed there
after said the system must be accepted by
the city council The city bad certainly
made survey Of the course proposed, and
had furnished data upon which Dir.
Williams had proceeded 10 draw
plans. The Judge said that while
be did not think Mr. Williams could
recover az Law, he thought il more pru-
dent 20 avoid the costs and the chances OF
a laE sait. The council must make ten
der TO 1r. Williams and il that amount
should be less than the amount recovered
the city would have to pay the costs. The
costs might be 81 90 or s. ZOO. Litigation
is poor business for anybody 70 be engaged
in except the lawyers SO far as the plans
Of sewerage were concerned be Thought
they would be cheap at twice the money as
such things went. The charge made for
system Is mere bagaEelle 10 the city. As
20 the necessity OF the system Il was i'm
perative-delays are dangerous.
Mr.. Muldoon made forcible appeal 10
the members 10 agree UPON q settlement.
Mr. Jones also urged them, Tor the credit
Of the city. He thought il was only pay
ing one or two thousand dollars more than
any Of them considered was right. For
the sake of getting the sewerage matter
settled. part Of the city was in dire need of
the system.
Mr. Bagley said the Seventh aud Eighth
wards were probably more in need than
any other part Of the city. He would like
10 know III ANYBODY knew whether the
plans were such as would relieve them.
A discussion followed relating mainly TO
the plans for sewerage. during which Mr..
krug made vigorous onslaught upon the
present sewer arrangements. Mr. Shipley
pointed out that the plans would not be
paid for unless approved
Mr.. kittinger closed the discussion by
moving 10 report in favor Of passage Of the
ordinance.
The vote stood: Ayes z, nays s.
On the house resuming, Mr. Kiftinger
moved that the ordinance be placed on
| final passage.
| Mr.. Bagiey asked shem 10 wait until
| Tuesday night; he wanted time TO inquire
a little further as 70 the intention Of the
sewerage plans II they are suitable, they
are cheap He moved To postpone until
next night
Mr. Cowden supported that view; he
asked II a. q favor Of the house.
Mr. Hanford said he would oppose that
tEf4ISS l8FF might a. Wei settle II now.
Several other members took part in the
discussion
The vote on postponement was: Ayes,
| s; noes, 8.
On final passage the vote stood: Ayes,
! q; noes. q.
Mr., BagIey made the point that ii took
iwo-thirds TO pass under suspension Of the
rules. The chair ruled the point well
taken. The question was then divided and
motion put 10 adopt the report, the result
being: Ayes. 10: noes, ).
Mr.. Hanford moved that further consid-
Grafton be postponed until next meeting;
ayes. 5; noes. (. Mr.. kittinger moved TO
suspend the rules and the bin placed on
hnal passage: ayes, 10; noes, B. The nee
essary two-thirds were thus obtained and
the bill was read q third time and passed.
The members voting mo" were Bagiey,
CoEden. Furry, Hanford, Krug.
WATER RATES.
Mr. Hanford introduced joint resoIu-
ton providing for committee TO draw up
a schedule of water rates. He said the
city had never adopted any schedule. 1t
was understood that when the city got its
own water works the rate would be low
cred. By the proposed schedule most
small househoiders would be compelled TO
| pay more. Ali the city should charge
| should be enough TO pay running expens-
| IS, interest and a proportion toward the
! sinking fund. Messrs. krug Willis and
hittinger strongly favored the resolution,
and il was unanimously passed. The chair
/ appointed Messrs. Hartford and krug.
HE NIcHALoFsKY CASE.
| In the Michalofsky case the special
committee reported in favor of paying the
claimant $500 in final settlement; that is,
| $2l9 in addition TO the grade tax. for South
Fourteenth street. II came out that the
1 claimant was about the only man in the
district who has paid his assessment.
/ Mr.. Hanford said the next time street
/ was graded as that had been, he hoped the
! engineer who planned it and the board of
/ public works, which accepted it, would be
I sent 10 the penitentiary. Laughter
1 The report was adopted.
THE BUILDING INSPECTOR.
| Mr.. kittinger reported the ordinance as
/ 10 the superintendent of buildings drafted
| by the joint committee.
! Mr. Muldoon said il was not in accord
I anee with the instructions given the COM
4 mittee.
/ Messrs. kittinger and Hsnford defended
/ their action and the house called for a
| reading of the ordinance. this was fol-
/ lowed by a short bat very sharp debate
/ and a motion to suspend the rules was
| lost. IL VIII now come up IN regular
| order.
! MORE INFORMATION WANTED.
The appropriation ordinance was read
/ and Mr.. Bagiey called into question
| several items for discount of water war
rants; he complained that no information
| was given. This was no new thing. every