Los Angeles herald., 1891-12-08

1 w
city, extending Truman and Chestnu
streets full width through his land.
A minority report was submitted by
Councilman McGarry, who, in thai
document, said;
In the matter OF petition No. 632,
cannot recommend that the city give
away o street OF 1929 feet for one of 377,
| and as Mr.. Stowell owns land adjoining
| the proposed street, and he is the one tc
be benefited, think he would be amply
repaid for the opening OF Truman and
| Chestnut streets, a total of 377 feet, by
the city giving half of the sixty feet, q
distance OF 1929 feet.
The minority report was filed and that
OF the majority was adopted.
The board recommended that the bid
OF J. s. Smith, ON Pearl street paving,
be rejected, and that further action be
| deferred one week. On this matter there
was considerable discussion.
Mr.. Rees wanted to have an effort
made to divide the work into sections OF
thousand yards or so, 80 as to give
smaller contractors chance to bid.
Mr.. Rhodes-There would be chance
| il such division were made that some
one section may be protested out. We
want this bid rejected for number OF
reasons. In the first place, there is only
one bid. The property-holders want
some changes also in the specifications.
They want for base one part of cement
with six parts of sand and gravel, and
they want to have the granite cutters
excluded they want to have a six foot
cement walk included. The ordinance
of intention also calls for sewer in a
part of the street where sewer is al
ready in existence.
Mr.. Nickel spoke against the subdi-
vision scheme suggested by Mr.. Rees,
and when the matter eventually came
to vote the Smith bid was rejected by
vote of 7 to 2, and further action was
deferred. At the afternoon session Mr..
Rhodes made motion to instruct the
city engineer to draft new ordinance
of intention according to the wishes of
the Pearl street property holders, as in
dicatsd in his part of the debate. This
motion was passed. s5-3
By recommendation of the board of
public works, the street superintendent
was instructed to notify the Pacific Rail-
way company that they must place a
culvert under their tracks at the corner
of Fifth and Spring streets, 30 as to af-
ford drainage for storm water. The last
rain, as the HERALD stated at the time,
resulted in gathering of stagnant
water at that place.
The petition of H. p. Wilson asking
for the exclusive right to introduce a
parcel box system in the city, was re-
ferred to the committee of the whole.
The bid OF David Mulrein to build a
cement sidewalk on Flower street from
Twenty-third to Adams street for l2114
cents per square foot was accepted.
STREET sPRINKLING CONTRACT.
The contract with A. p. Cross for
sprinkling the streets for three years
was brought up for. approval. When
the matter came to a vote, there were
two noes. Mr.. McGarry voted no, be-
cause he thought that all other bidders
ought to have been allowed to modify
their bids for comparison as well as Mr..
Cross. Mr.. Summerland's negative
vote was occasioned by conviction on
the part of the councilman from the
Eighth ward, that the sprinkling should
be done by the city with municipal
apparatus constructed by local mechan-
les. The contract was approved by a
vote of to 2.
A PENALTY RENTED.
At the afternoon session Mr.. A. H.
Denker appeared before the council and
petitioned to have a penalty on an as
sessment for opening Santee street re-
mitted. Mr.. Denker's assessment for
the opening was $4,000 and became de-
linquent because Mr.. Denker had failed
to obtain his deeds in time. The PEN
atty of $3.50 was eventually remitted un-
der an opinion from the city attorneys
Office. The motion by which the PEN
atty was annulled was offered by Mr..
Rhodes, and instructed the street super
intendent to accept the assessment with
out the per cent. In a conversation
held after the council adjourned, Mr..
Hutchinson declared that he would not
recognize this action of the council be-
cause it was Numerically opposed to
the tenor OF the Vrooman act of legisla-
ture, which provides for just such cases.
THE MAYORS MESSAGE.
A message was now brought in from
the Mayor, which read as follows:
To the Honorable Council of the city of Lot
| Angeles.
I'm my communication to your hon
orable body returning the awards on
Figueroa and Pearl streets without my
approval mentioned the fact that Mr..
J. A. Fairchild had shown the opinion
OF Messrs. Chapman & Hendricks to diff
ferent contractors, which resulted in but
one bid to do the work. Since then, the
circumstances attending the same have
been shown to me. l must say that in
my judgment the same was not by Mr.
| Fairchild shown for the pupose Off in
| ducing them to refrain from bidding, al
though it did have that effect. Nc
blame should be attached to him there
for. My opinion in this is further corrob
grated by a communication from Mr.
Frank Walker to Mr.. Fairchild in which
he states: "This company had decided
some days previous to the calling fo
bids on that work, that we would moi
bid on those streets, for the reoson tha
we were unable to find any purchasers
for the street bonds, and nothing tina
you have ever said or done in relation
to that work has been of nature to dis
courage US from bidding on the work
had we thought it good busines
proposition, but our decision in tn
matter was reached entirely without tn
action OF any influence from any part
outside of our own company"
I submit this to your honorable bod
{ at the request OF Mr.. Fairchild, wh
: thinks his motives have been miscoI
strued thereby, and as matter OF fail
ness to him.
By motion OF Mr.. Rhodes, this Wa
filed.
! FINANCE COMMITTEE.