Los Angeles herald., 1892-12-09

| iDSeJius yesterday NJ WHICH Cn6 canvass
Of the recent municipal election returns
and the consideration of the bids for the
construction OF the outfall sewer were
discussed.
There was a full attendance OF the
members of the body, President Bonsall
being in the chair.
FIRST STREET PROPERTY.
Mr.. Jones, representing property
owners on First street, had at previ
GUS meeting fled an appeal from the
street superintendent ruling relating
to the assessment of property on that
thoroughfare. Since then, by a certain
subdivision Of the property, the matter
had been satisfactorily settled, and Mr..
Jones appeared before the council and
asked permission to withdraw his plea,
which was granted.
MINOR MATTERS.
Mr. Rhodes motion to instruct the
superintendent OF streets to discontinue
the sprinkling OF streets until further
notice carried.
The report of the finance committee
recommending the approval of the de-
mands upon the city treasury, amount
| ing to $2l2650, was then read and ap-
| proved.
BIDS FOR SEWER BUILDING.
Then came the consideration of the
sewer contractors bids, and for a time
| it seemed that no definite action would
be taken. The sewer committee to
whom had been referred the bids Of
the contractors, was not ready to re-
port.
| MIR. Tufts was anxious to have City
Engineer Dockweiler recommend soma
particular bid, but that gentleman
lodged the issue for time, during
which the sewer committee framed its
report. After the report had been read
the city engineer responded and told the
council what he thought was to the best
interests OF the city.
''If were the engineer of corpora
tion," said Mr. Dockweiler, 81 would
advise the acceptance OF McNally q Coz
bid for the construction of the work in
! lump, although their bid is over $4,000
in excess OF the bids for the work in
sections by other contractors"
/ Mr.. Dockweiler gave several reasons
for favoring their proposal-the natural
supposition that the work would be
| COhp IMAM u ICb al SCCtlCIS,
and further, that McNally & Co. had
the best bricklayers in their employ.
Mr.. Rees addressed the council to the
effect that the advertisement for bids
required all proposals to be made for
the work by sections, and that to &C.
cept any other proposition would not be
in keeping with the published condi-
tions.
Mr.. Meyer, representing the firm Of
Hughes & Meyer. then made few re-
marks to the effect that he had engaged
competent men to perform the work,
and stated the amount Of wages at
which these men had been engaged.
President Bonsall said he considered
that the most expeditions way would be
TO re-advertise for bids.
Mr.. Nickel opposed this line OF action
on the ground that it would be unfair to
those who have already submitted their
bids; he was at one time contractor
and he knew whereof he spoke. In re-
ply, President Bons1ll said that the
council was no nearer solution of the
probled than it was fortnight ago.
At this point the communication Of
November 28th, signed by number OF
prominent citizens, asking that action
on the bids be suspended On the state
ment that the plan for the siphon was
radically defective was read.
Engineer Dockweiler said this docu-
ment wsa an election dodge. He had
interviewed several gentlemen who had
signed the paper, and found that in
nearly every instance the parties had
attached their signatures without per-
using it. He was willing to submit his
plane to any competent engineer ior ap-
proval, say Tor instance, Rudolph Her
ring.
The president OF the council held that
the protest against the siphon was OF no
moment as it did not affect the balance
Of the saver. The protest was then re-
ferred to the sewer committee.
The sewer committee then made its
report, which was as follows:
Your committee to whom the bids for
the outfall sewer were referred beg leave
to recommend the acceptance of the bids
of the following bidders at the following
prices:
John Rebman, section No. l, $l2,Ol2
Frck Broe., section No. 2, $24 4OS5.
j. L. Mansfield, section No. 4. $26, $50.
Frick Bros. section No 5, $24 1880.
Frick Bros, section No. 7, $27, ,454.
Hughes & Meyer, section No. s. $24,-
COZ.
Frick Bros, section No. 9, $29,223.
Total, $l68,936.
In no case is there to be allowed for
shale or rock in excess of the engineer's
estimate on any of the sections as ex-
tras. f. NJ. NtCKELL,
w. Ii. RHODES.
Mr.. Rhodes moved to adopt
the report, which motion prevailed,
Messrs. Tufts and Summerland voting
against it.
On motion of Mr.. Rhodes the city at-
torney was Instructed to draw up con-
tracts with the euccessful bidders, and
to insert a penalty clause for non-per-
formance. The engineer and sewer
committee were instructed to act with
the city attorney.
THE FIRE LIMITS.
The amended ordinance recommended
by the fire commissioners, extending
the fire limits, was passed.
THE FUNDING BONDS.
The following communication from
the city attorney was read:
"Mr. Perry Widman having demand
ed the return of his check for $4,000, de-
posted with his bid for the funding
bonds. giving as his. reason that the
attorneys in New York have refused to
approve the bids for the reason that the
law providing for the issuing OF funding
| bonds was unconstitutional for The rpa-