The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1892-02-25

oaileu 10 III ny Jne contractor or any OIL
his agents.
city undertook to arrange the matter
with the contractor, Mr.. Patterson, By
deducting the amount of tho mistake
from estimate No. 8, and he received a
letter from MIR. Patterson, dated Feb
ruary Is, 1899, stating that the correc-
ton was satisfactory.
1t seems now that this was not salts
factory, or is not salts 'actory, and that
the contractor and his sub-con trac tors
are very much worried by the matter,
1T being claimed that they made settle
ment with their agents and employees
upon the basis OF this erroneous esti-
mate, having paid out largely in excess
OF what they owed and that they have
no means of recovering the money thus
diSbursed.
SHOULD NOT GO UNNOTICED.
1t hardly seems necessary to point out
that an error of this kind should not go
unnoticed, and that If such an error is
made it should be Immediately reported
to the Council.
An error of this description shows
either carelessness or ignorance, or
both, and it is obviously against public
policy and the good of the city that such
things should be arranged between the
engineer the agent of the city, and the
contractor doing work for tho city.
Your committee has made inquiries as
to whether any other mistakes of this
character have been made. and have
been told by Mr.. Dunlap that, as far as
his knowledge goes, there havenone been
made. lie would, however, have an
swered the same question in regard to
estimates Nos. l and 2 the same way at
n nv linn Inf -, La
airy II he had been asked, the mistake
not having been discovered up to that
time.
MORE MISTAKES YET.
This is not, however. all of the mis-
takes that have been pointed out to your
committee.
In the letter of Messrs. Scott & Dupuy,
attorneys for Didier, Fuller & Griffith,
to Mr.. Patterson it is pointed out that
on Page street that under estimates Nos
and tho yardage of earth removed
amounted to G44 cubic yards, and in es-
innate No. 3, which embraces estimates
Nos. and 2 and all the work done be-
tween the 'ime of making estimate No.
and the timo of making estimate No.
8, only 400 yards are accounted for, and
for the total yardage upon that street
for Nos. and p 1878 cubic yards were
given, and by estimate No. 3,which en-
braces all the work done, only l,752
yards are given. These same discrep-
ancies appear on other streets and por.
tions OF the work.
For instance, on I[imball avenue, by
estimates No. l and No. 76O cubic
yards of shale are given, and by estima tie
No. 9, embracing these two estima ties
and the work done during the month for
which No. was an estimate, only 69o
yards are given.
In addition TO this letter, we have
been han ed another ono from Didier,
Fuller Il Griffith, which we append to
the letter we have just been referring to-
perlsal of these letters, which we do
not propose to go into at further length
will show gross mistakes. The engi-
neers in charge and representing the
city say that these mistakes arose from
the fact that only an appro innate csti-
mate was given for estimates Nos. and
and correct one for No. 3.
ACCURATE ESTIMATE SHOULD RE GIVEN.
Under the contract your committee
thinks tat an accurate estimate should
be given each month, and they think
that the nature of the work also re-
CURES that the current estimates should
be accurate, but, granting that they did
and could correctly make approximate
estimates, the mistakes made are too
gross apd large to be accounted for in
that way.
The city engineer has furnished your
committee with reports of the days dur
lug the month covered by the third
estimate. This report shows that there
could not have been much work
done, but we are informed by the
engineers and others that there
was a good deal of rock work done
during the month covered by No. 8
estimate and some additional work of
other kinds when the weather per-
mitted. That report as to the weather
explains itself and your committee
refers to it for an explanation.
CHANGE NEEDED.
1t is obvious that the work of the
city should not have be carried on in
the way it seems to have been done in
the past Engineering is almost an
city should be in position each month
to tell with almost absolute accuracy
the work that has been done. 1t is un-
fair to the city and unfair to tho con
tractors to have them laboring under
this uncertainty as to whether the esti-
mates are accurate or correct and as to
whether, at future day, their estimates
will not be changed to their detriment
and the money which they have been
paid taken back from them.
CLAIMS OF THE CONTRACTORS.
In this connection the attention OF
Council is called TO the claim made by
the contractors that it is hardship
that all of .this mistake and overpay-
ment should have beer. deducted from
the one estimate, No. 3. They claim,
and claim properly, that the mistake