Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-03-22
THE MINORITY RrpoRr

1
n,,,, Sainot agree with them but In one
! tSaucuhsr and that covers tho risir, ~
~ allowed for emitting st,n. ~ ,t w
! Was necessary, but not So shown on NV
iuse Of the contract y" '''e
FIRST, they have allowed SIG for p,
staa Water pipe In face of the fact
, a'' Naplalh Ncoblc states that be- rnve
No w orders concerning this rehnuline
lDere was no necessity Cor rehanling ti,,,
sauie Inc pipes could have been nioee5
ON the Texas aud Pacific ieht-oi.wsv
ana should have been uuloaded tbors
nhd the contractor acting without on,
able. wv " he'u IL
o. i6e committee have further allowed
SOfu on intake well This was allowed
on account Of the contractors striking
loeh m the excavation. The contract
expressly stipulates that tho evcavetion
on the intake well shall De at pump-
mousse prices. The $40 allowed Is la
eAcess OF pump-hOuso prices. and. there
IofS must object to It's payment
INC committee have further allowed
! SNSO.4O trenchlng for specmls The Gif-
ference Of opinion between the contractor
ana the engineer in charge Nchs TO 10
/ tnat the contractor claims muasurrmenr
Oyer ali' when Che engineer in charge has
/ alOWed him measurement over an, less
/ INC length Of specials. In other words,
! me contract expressly provides that com
| tractors shall be allowed sos per ton
! Tor specials IN the ground and no extra
/ amount SHOULD be allowed Thorn for
trencliinr 10 get them In the grouhd.
/ Under Che terms Of cur contract the
| engineer 10 charge IL the only one TO
! whom appeal can he taken. and. mas.
much as he does not acrre with the MAJ
! Jonty " the committee. I Oppose the
! payment of The nboye amount.
The committee have further llowed
$40 measurement ON the wall The
contractors claiming that they should
/ receive payment for nctull meusurcmcnt.
| corner to corner. thus doubling the cor
ners The engineer in charge has ruled
| that this Is NOT admissible. therefore 1
disapproye the payment of the amount
specified.
The committee have further allowed the
contractor S21O2j for vcntilutors- this
upon a techncality in ihe wording of
the contract Again. The engineer In
charge has decided Tint under ihe icrms
OF the contract the contractors should
not be allowed the above sum, and,
therefore, | oppose payment.
The committee have further recon-
mended that $4,000 NJ the $4,000 re-
tanned 10y the city, which Is 10 Der cent
| OF the whole amount. be paid prior TO
the testing of the pipes, as per contract
specifications. i oppose this from hc
fact That we hrve at the present time
a pressure of thirty or forty pounds on
the conduit pipe from the ilow Of the
gresian wells. From this pressure
alone one of the 3G-incli pipes had 20 De-
taken out II this occurs with e pressure
of about forty pounds. want may we
| expect when the pressure r,gtrl es 100
poundsf l am further advised by the
hondsmcn That III We pay any part or
parcel of The 10 per cont retained un.
der the contract. they viii ccase 10 be
responsible on the bond. THE repairs
aud renewals can not bp estimated. and
IN order 10 protect the city. e "a my Clin-
ion that the entire amount as set forth
IN the contract be retained EurLCr.
there has been no allowance made for
forfeiture In the contract, which, IN my
opinion. the city can md should claim.
II j. true, as stated thnt tie contractors
claim about Sl2.50O 10 sNeess VI Wlnt
has been allowed up 20 tits time. Iud
In my opinion this extraordinary account
Was merely nnmcd 10 offset To claim
of the city for the $1,000 that She
claimed account of forfeiture. T'is Is
further evidenced from tho fact that
u the contractors bad a valid claim for
$1,000 against the ,ity, thcy could rot
be induced 10 settle for 5000 as tlry
have proposed. just MS SION rs ma.
jorlty OF the committee expressed them.
selves on the forfeiture clause JLsi that
quick the contractor commenced 20 shrvc
his claims, and Il is now pract, w. he
amount less the forfeiture originally
claimed by the city.
After discussing the matter pro and
con In committee, ! am hriniv Of The
opinion that there ~ lua the city 5000
In forfeituros, and for this reason /
can not see my way clear tl llnp' tlom
one penny hut insist the city shgld
be reimbursed for failure on -hc piii 81
the contractors 10 comply with the sirct
mitted, g. q. DRAKE
THE DISCUSSION.
Alderman Orr moved the adoption Of
the minority report and Alderman Nicks
the majority report, aud then the fun
began.
Alderman Dartcr thought It due the
committee 30 approve the work the
committee had done.
Alderman Montgomery was willing
70 accept the concessions made by the
contractors, but not 10 pay the S2O,-
600
Alderman Byron was also opposed TO
the majority report In IFS present shape.
and Terrell was informed that the pay
ment of any part of the 10 per cent re-
tanned would operate az release of
the bond, and he had this opinion Of
some good attorneys 10 sustain him in
this view of the ln0tter.
An appeal was made TO City Attorney
Powell, whose opinion was thny the
terms of the bond itself that the council
could NOT, by any act relieve the bonds
men until the work was completed, were
binding on the sguers OF the bond
Then the aldermen began quoting va
rious prominent attorneys who had given
opinions on the question, IL the city re-
timed 10 per cent OF the moneys due
tho waterwOrks contractrs until compile
tiop of the work. and pending the tnal
test of the pipelines. this sum so retain
ed amounting TO $4,000, and pending the
test of the pipe lines paid S2OOOO OF inc
sum SO retained 10 the contractors were
the bOndsmen relieved from Nahhily
when the term Of the BOND expressly
states TINT no action of the city council
on any of its officials or agents shall re-
lieye the h1ndsmen until the work u mail
In accepted by the city.
Every alderman had his pet altorn y
o,J him had he Consulted aud the 0pin-
! Inn yaried Some Of the quotations
| credidnr the attorneys with the great
| impariality Of giving two opinions de
/ ametlcally opposite on thus one qnes'
NG Tba bond was for 100000, and was
,,ada by Colonel William and j. Z. bar-
rison and Macarthur Bros
Bvrom wanted 70 know II when the
test was made and the entire pipe hne
( went TO the bow-wow anu y Wa Ma M 1ey ~
/ sary TO use more than tne $500 s IVY,
committee propose % retain ID inahlhs
renairs would the larrisons stand good
| Az ~ balance over and above mat
I $4,000. - a.
] MANY Of the speakers Try 20 ket tie
/ ,ity eftorney into the discussion Dut NJ
| III h,1 ~ ouinfon on the legal questions