Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-03-22
HE CITY COUNCIL
.lone Debate Rejects the
committee Report for
NETWORKS SETTLEMENT.
,.,,slon Hsiohls Company Given a Fran
IA. gcna Front Street for Hall a Nile
"a rbus Gel Access 10 the Union
pcpOl-RouIine Work

Lee council met IN regular session
a s6t everybody on hand but
% Day. with Mayor Pad
welding the gayel, and he
h Last night, for It was an old
"A sag chewing session.
wATERWORItS COMMITTEE
4 40 hone of contention, and the
Sss precpitatcd 10y the reading of
sioriiy and minority reports Of the
.,eorks committee. and its additions,
,ss The matter in charge for nearly
5s,s irving TO effect settlement.
A inns MAJORITY REPORT.
Mayor and City Council.
.,lemen-We, your committee. hav-
charge the settlement of the diff
- between the city of Fort Worth
4 ueArfbur Bros. relative to the
~ for the new waterworks. beg
4 "a inform your honorable body
q ~ hive labured earnestly with the
'n,ative of Messrs. Macarthur
and have reached the following
N ind that the work performed by
"A Macarthur Bros. embraces the fol-
items aud cost, the sums set OPP
a each. according 20 the report of
* IN engineer furnished the chair
y M This committee:
II smoke stuck, l44 feet above the
I'M Sl4S)O.
np and boiler house with engine
talion. S72,735T1.
SEe We'll, 1G feet inside, 81 - feet
Il St76936.
,lse sinch wells. S63. 42T
lion crib. 40lTGT.
ID pipe, 2Oxl8O 1-2 feet, S1G,s25.-
and specials. 5000. 731. 50.
fses. valve boxes and hydrants,
n Si19S54sS.
above amounts have been allowed
h bald to the contractors less 10 per-
held by the city rs per contract;
. he following amounts paid In full
Iaration well ia fun, 5000.
im work. S22GS16.
Nj S2IGflG.
epts:s.Eyere taken by the con
4fSgg names &d method pur
n city engiu6tf igSlnaking up
D9kt4@s. and also TO ia, construc-
N n eIiouS parts of the contract by
eagineer. Claims for the following
tnis above the engineers estimates
81 sled with your committee, and
item has been discussed ~ and
N the committee and the represen-
ID Of the contractors.
CLAIMS.
fst-Pipe line, under measurement,
ond Under classification on pipe
f.. 5000
Masonry, under measurement,
trth-Intoke well. S223OG4
flrth GAP Intake well, change Of loca-
. 5000.
Hih-Rehauling pipe. SIG,
tth-Recutting stone for pilasters.
enth- Non-estimate Of yentllator
Dling total Of So, 503.T4.
Nh the assistance of Superintend-
NCity Attorney II. j. Powell, your
4iitee has taken mp each claim seri-
and has agreed 10 recommend
allowance those that we believe 90
fenionOus, provided the contractor
accept the amounts allowed as a
settlement and waive nll other
against the city of whatever ma
except that part of the 10 per cent
'hed by the city. until a satisfactory
|d the pipe lines has been made.
ngurd 10 claim No I, the contrnc-
|Bant pay for the full length of pipe
add S53 per ton for the specials.
Eler TO settle this point we are will
h deduct the tonnage of the various
q pipe where specials are placed,
|alow the difference 10 the contrac-
which Is $3.50, instead of $1,000, as
im No. > relating to under classi-
Pr, your committee believes % be
good and would recommend that
not allowed.
third claim for under measure
n on pumphOuse foundations Is based
ae custom of stone masOns getting
" measurement for corners of build
Alter getting the opinions of q
"fr Of architects and contractors,
would recommend the allowance OF
~ measurement Of corners, taking
Sop part Of the wall as Il basis. This
amount to $40 instead of S04l, as
4 fourth and fourth (a) claims arise
tue fact that IL was originally IN
~ 70 locate the intake well on the
sue OF the river, but atterward
~ y on the east side aud sinking
-sh deeper than was mt irst intend-
NV NOT having any schedule of prices
~ 10 the pump house
md There were $50 yards OF rock
lauon, and we recommend that ~
lafd be allowed In addition " the
3sas per yard. already allowed. Ihls
99ount 10 SjiO, instead Of S3O4O0l
claimed.
NTH claim arose from the fact
NE city did not have the right-ol-
Nnen some of the pipe arrived
necessliated the loading and ha4l-
th9t part of the pipe twice. IN
y lhe fact thar the pipe was or
w the city, we believe the city
4 70 stand the additional expense,
me,elore recommend the payment
claim of SIG.
aA!h claim is for recruiting stones
10y Wlasters. We find that the plans
-o' show any plaster Offsets on
~ course, ana as the stones were
~ fecut by the city engineer we
4 " we claim for SO is good ana
10 be allowed
seventh claim Is for a non-esti-
~ me Stats in the yentilators ON
Iflmphouse.
'.sW OF the fact that the contract
w specify whether these Stats are
su IN The ventilators and from the
isct thar they are mentioned
wv TOOL trusses. we are willing 70
uAs claim of S2T0.
lp0Yt allowances recommended by
sesAnAittee amount 70 S2Ol2l IN
~ Sl2o93.T4, as claimed by the
~ s4'u contractors. however, have
In an arbitration of all the dis
~ sllnts. tut your committee be-
N, w above settlement 10 be much
An ~ ne city than either IN arb
49, trial in the courts. and there
1rsbissA iilnehd is acceptance by your
b,b q ne acceptance of the above
~. we city aud the contractors
En- N l'.end the payment Of S-1,O00
4 etv ~ cent now 10 The hands ~
BON VIZ the remainder 10 be held
IAN interest until a satisfactory test
~ 'pe Inc has been made from
4 rshi 1npng stntion and that the
\ cont. al claims for damage against