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

Council jumped into tho city en-
gineers office at the meeting yesterday
evening and stirred up an odor of the
grossest incompetency. Tho meeting
was called for 3 o'clock. There was a
bare quorum, but those who were pres
ent showed that they were equal to the
occasion. Messrs. Camp, Engleby, Huff,
King, McCahan, Watts and Buckner
were there. President Buckner stated
the purposes for which the meeting had
been called, and as there had been n
vacancy in Council, announced the fol-
lowing committees:
Finance-Engleby. Watts and Nc
Cahan.
Streets-Watts. WEIGH and Huff.
Public Property Graves, HUFF and
Camp.
Health-Hulf, Mcconnell and Graves.
Fire and Water-Engleby, Welsh and
Mcconnell
Lights-Welsh, Camp and McCielland.
Accounts-McClellan Graves and
Camp.
'0rdinances-McConnell, King and
Ruggles.
Sewers-nuf, Watts and McCahan.
Bridges-McConnell, King and Nc
Cahan
City Map-Watts, Huff and Graves.
MIR. Huff, chairman of the sewer com
mittee, announced that Rudolph Herring
and Samuel w Gray the expert SAM.
tary engineers, were present. Mr..
Sheehan, Of the board of public works
introduced both gentlemen to Council.
They were in turn personally introduced
by President Buckner to each mem ber
Mr.. Gray stated that he had Just ar
rived, and had viewed the ground, bun
at present could not give an opinion.
lie stated that he thought he would be
ready to make a report toward the last
of the week or the first of next. 1t
would take three or four days to reach
a conclusion.
Mr.. Watts, of the street committee,
presented his report, showing the
trouble between the contractors and the
city. togther with the correspondence
relating TO the case as follows:
ROANOKE, VA Feb. %. 1892.
To the City Council of Roanoke:
Your committees attention has been
called in the last few days to several
matters which they think are ( suffi-
cient Importance to deserve special
report to Council.
On Friday night last, at the Council
meeting, the chairman of your com
mittee was handed letter from Col. G.
w. Hansbrough, who represented, as
attorney, Mr.. Patterson, the contractor,
enclosing letters from Didier, Fuller 6,
Griffith, by their attorneys, Scott and
Dupny, and three estimates which had
been made by the city engineer.
Under the contract with Mr.. Patter-
son, the engineer of the city has to
furnish written estimate every mont tn,
and 80 per cent. of such estimate has to
be paid on the 18th day Of each MONTH
10 per cent. being retained until the
work is finished.
ERROR IN THE ESTIMATES.
It seems that for tho first month,
ending December 9, no estimate was
made. The first estimate was dated
December 2. 1892, and was for 1886 81;
the second estimate, which includes the
first, was for So, 56l.75, and that amount
was paid to Mr.. Patterson on January
10, 1899; tho third estimate was for
S3,O22.09 OF this amount, only S63S OF
was paid to MIR. Patterson, So, 1854 90
being held back on account of an error
made in the second estimate, the sec
ond estimate exceeding the true
amount that much, and tho city having
paid that much in excess OF what it
owed the previous month to Mr.. Patter-
son.
HOW THE MISTAKE AROSE.
Your committee has endeavored to
ascertain how this mistake arose, which,
being against the city and being very
large. is matter of very serious impor-
lance.
1t seems that Mr.. Houston. assistant
engineer, figured out tho de- cimdl point
at the wrong place; that Mr.. Dunlap
was very busy at that time whom the
estimate was handed in, and says that
he did not have time to go over i, and
did not go over it, and the mistake was
not discovered by any one until about
the time that the third estimate was
being made up, which was about the
last OF January.
NO REPORT OF THE MISTAKE MADE.
No report whatever of this mistake
was made TO this committee. nor was it
made, as far as they know, 10 any mem