The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-05-30
THE ENGINE TAKEN.
The House Of Delegates Accepts
the New Waterous.
A LICENSE FOR LAUREL SHADE
I've Hesss' Debate Over the New Fire
ADpasatss-Cev Liusss for Brook.
iys asd Latssa Objected Ts.

The honse Of delegates decided 20 accept
the Waierous engine last night in COM
faittee OF the whole, With Delegate Brace
IN the chair. President kloeter and Dele
gate Cook said the engine corid Only he
accepted upon the report Of the commit
tee appointed by the council. II was evil
dent that the only deduction Was that the
engine had failed to come up 70 the re-
quirements Of the contract. Dr.. Kloeber
said st vas entirely wrong that the city
shouid ask fnr bids and accept supplies on
printed contract drawn up in the inter-
est Of the seller. The city has had two o.
three instances Of tests made by manu-
iacturers and the people are getting tired
Of IT. In this case the test Was not of =
Character to ahow practical working. II
called for 10 feet Of hose. when everybody
knows that IN this city the hose length 10
almost always 500 feet. He referred to en-
CINE No. 4 which drew water twelve feet
from Lake Union and threw il through
700 feet of hose with successful results. AZ
go feet the waterous engine was
utterly deficient. 50 much so tina.
Mr.. Wright. one Of the committee,
assured him there was no doubt OF her in
efficiency. Mr.. Wright had denied to him
the statement Of the engine makers agent
that the time condition had been waived.
The contract called for al engine about
5000 pounds: the company has sent one
weighing 500 pounds. There is no
record Of any authority to add to this
weight; the extra 500 pounds is said by
the agent TO b added TO the running
gear. Now. he was assured that if 500
pounds were taken off the running gear
she would not have the bulk of bicycle.
Mr.. Wright also assured him that If she
were worked ~ she did At the test she
could not last, and her action had shown
the workmanship to be faulty. 1t is an
engine which should not cost more than
$500 or $500.
Delegate Drew said il was the
duty Of this house to interpret the
contract: If it had been subssan-
TALLY complied with the engine
should be accepted. As be read the report
it showed the committee to have admitted
. substantial compliance. He thought it
was good judgment on the part Of who
ever was responsible for requiring sub
stantial running gear. Mr.. Drew had Wit
messed the test with the Ahrens No. 2 and
his opinion was that the Waterous was
running steadily aud tho large one was
shaking; besides this. il was throwing .
solid stream at a distance where the
Ahrsns was throwing spray. Measuring
by results 1t was doing at least fully ~
well a. the Ahrens, and its cost Is about
81, 600 less He declared that ut recent
lire the Ahrens was fifteen minutes getting
up steam. He believed the city was get
ting a good engine aud he had no doubt
that the Waterous company could insist
upon the city taking the engine. The
city's integrity - pledged to the accept
ance OF the Waterous engine since it has
been shown to be up 10 the standard of the
contract.
Delegate Lyon controverted Mr.. Drew's
figures; he believed the Ahrens to have
cost only $40 more than the Waterous.
The only reason for paying so high price
for the new one was that il should be light
on account of the steep grades.
Comptroller Carson, being called upon,
said the bills for the Ahrens engines could
not DO found; but the contract price was
s. go, or ~. ts0 each.
Delegate Goddard. Engineer Gibson and
Agent Scott continued the discussion,
which lasted two hours.
Delegate Carlisle desired to &c squarely
on record. without deviating from the die
tates Of an homes. conscience. lie had
heard yenomous and prejudiced remarks
on the engine. bat he warned the house
that the company had legal rights which,
must be respected. The city had
gone into this matter with Grim
inal negligence OF the city's rights.
The engine had been run down an incline
and flung heiier-skclier into the bay. and
il has cost $500 to put il in condition.
Who Is 10 pay that 500? If the engine is
to be rejected it must be for a legal reason.
He had never seen the engine, bat he
could come to as reasonable conclusion
rs to its merits as any member Of that
house. The question was whether from a
comUon-sense view 1t came up TO the
terms Of the contract. He believed some
of the experts did not know the differ.
ence between piston rod and & crowbar.
He expressed his belief that the Wa,erous
would be an honorable addition 10 the
city's fire-tghting appliances.
DR.. klceber reported that the contract
called for l. 500 pound eng ne: a higher
price was agreed upon on account OF the
IIghtness.
The question Of accepting the engine
WAS put and carried by vote OF 5 to 8